Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-19 pass step 1 of the test for eligibility.
As per step 2A prong one, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Representative claim 1 recites, with emphasis added:
A system, comprising:
a memory and one or more processors, wherein the memory comprises instructions configuring the one or more processors to:
establish, within a virtual field, an encounterable zone in which a second character is provided;
receive user interface control inputs via a user interface from a first user for a first character and, based on the user interface control inputs, navigate the first character within the virtual field;
determine whether or not the user interface control inputs have moved the first character into the encounterable zone
wherein, when the first character operated by the first user has become present in the encounterable zone set in association with the second character in a virtual field, determine that the first character is in a first encounterable state in which there is a possibility of encounter between the first character and the second character,
upon setting the first character to the first encounterable state, repeatedly determine whether to generate a first encounter event in which the first character and the second character participate, according to an event occurrence rate comprising a probability that the first encounter event will occur in the encounterable zone; and
upon setting the first character to the first encounterable state, change a game screen of the first user to include a graphic element, and upon subsequently setting the first character out of the first encounterable state, change the game screen of the first user to remove the graphic element.
The above underlined portion of representative claim 1 recites a judicial exception because they are mental processes, as all of the steps could be performed entirely with the human mind or with pen and paper as a human could determine whether a first user is in a zone of a second character, such as within a certain distance away in a tabletop role playing game, and determine whether to generate a first encounter event based on a random determination of some sort by the game master.
Next, as per step 2A prong two, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements recited above that are not underlined in representative claim 1 comprise the additional elements. As discussed in more detail below, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
A memory and one or more processors and user interface controls is/are not an integration into a practical application as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The field being a virtual field as well as displaying of a graphical element to indicate whether a character is in the encounterable zone is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are insignificant data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Next, as per step 2B, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
A memory and one or more processors and user interface controls does not amount to significantly more as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The field being a virtual field as well as displaying of a graphical element to indicate whether a character is in the encounterable zone is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are well known data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), thus they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The dependent claims of 2-11, 14-17 are further rejected under 101 for the reasons described above as they simply further define the abstract idea (which makes the abstract idea no less abstract) without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Further, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kondo (US 20010029202).
In claims 1, 18, 19, and 20, Kondo discloses
A memory and one or more processors wherein the memory comprises instructions configuring the one or more processors to: (figure 6)
Establish, within a virtual field, an encounterable zone in which a second character is provided (fig. 11, #100A is the second character)
Receive user interface control inputs via a user interface from a first user for a first character and, based on the user interface control inputs, navigate the first character within the virtual field (figure 11 #200A is the first character paragraph 20 displays movement of the player character according to input operations, with paragraph 92 disclosing that the player character is #200A)
Determine whether or not the user interface control inputs have moved the first character into the encounterable zone (paragraph 69 discloses that the enemy character is displayed upon the screen, this is interpreted as the “encounterable zone”. Further paragraph 169 discloses displaying of a probability or encounter percentage, when there is an encounter percentage above zero, this would mean that the player is in the encounterable zone)
Wherein when the first character operated by the first user has become present in the encounterable zone set in associated with the second character in a virtual field, determine that the first character is in a first encounterable state in which there is a possibility of encounter between the first character and the second character, and upon setting the first character is in the first encounterable state, determine whether to generate a first encounter event in which the first character and the second character participate (paragraph 169-171 discloses a probability to encounter the enemy character. It is noted that figure 11 #11A shows the virtual radar, with figure 23 showing the virtual radar of figure 11, see paragraph 168)
Upon setting the first character to the first encounterable state, change a game screen of the first user to include a graphic element, and upon subsequently setting the first character out of the first encounterable state, change the game screen of the first user to remove the graphic element (paragraphs 169-171 “the change of this encounter percentage may be communicated to the player by changing the form of the field 508, such as by changing the color of the background”)
In claim 2, Kondo discloses the encounterable zone is a zone within a first distance from a position where the second character is placed in the virtual field (figure 9 shows the movement area of the enemy character, paragraph 98)
In claim 3, Kondo discloses the perception zone indicating a perception range of the second character is set in the virtual field and the encounterable zone is located inside the perception range (It is noted by examiner that the “perception range” is not being used for any purpose or limited in any way other than being the same size or larger than the encounterable zone and thus under the BRI of the claimset, appears to be basically any region which is the same size or larger than the encounterable zone, such as the entirety of the virtual world of the prior art. As such the limitation is taught by paragraph 169-171, figure 11, such as the perception range and encounterable zone are the same region. )
In claim 4, Kondo discloses a perception zone indicating a perception range of the second character is set in the virtual field and the encounterable zone is a zone inside the perception zone within a predetermined distance form a position where the second character is placed in the virtual field (as above, the perception range and encounterable zone are interpreted as the same region, and the encounterable zone is within a predetermined distance from a position from the second character as it creates a circle around the character)
In claim 5, Kondo discloses a further encounterable zone is provided wherein the further encounterable zone is a zone not including the second character (a variety of different characters with their own encounterable zones is taught, such as figure 8 #100a, figure 9#100A, these would be encounterable zones of third characters different from the second character)
In claim 6, Kondo discloses the encounterable zone includes a first subzone and a second subzone (it is noted by examiner that the two subzones are not being used for any purpose or limited in any way, and thus the BRI is any arbitrary splitting of the zone. The claims do not even state that the subzones are set by the processor, but merely that they are “included” within the zone, as such splitting the prior arts regions in any way would teach this invention as claimed)
In claim 7, Kondo discloses an event occurrence rate indicating a probability that the first encounter event will occur in the encounterable zone is set for the second character and when the first character is in the first encounterable state, the one or more processors are configured to determine whether to generate the first encounter event based on the event occurrence rate every event occurrence determination period (paragraphs 169-171)
In claim 11, Kondo discloses a contact zone is set in the virtual world wherein said contact zone is a zone within a second distance smaller than a first distance from a position where the second character is placed and wherein the one or more processors are configured to trigger the first encounter event in response to the first character entering the contact zone in the first virtual field (paragraph 120)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8-11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Kashitani (US 20120309480)
In claim 8, Kondo discloses the claimed invention except the event occurrence rate changes with a staying time during which the first character stays in the encounterable zone, however Kashitani discloses the event occurrence rate changed with a staying time during which the first character stays in the encounterable zone (paragraphs 70-84). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Kondo with Kashitani in order to allow for additional variables to be considered in the encounter probability.
In claims 9 and 10, Kashitani discloses the event occurrence rate changes with a distance between the first character and the second character (paragraph 130 “a probability associated with the position or the like of the PC)
In claim 11, Kashitani discloses a contact zone is set in the virtual world wherein said contact zone is a zone within a second distance smaller than a first distance from a position where the second character is placed and wherein the one or more processors are configured to trigger the first encounter event in response to the first character entering the contact zone in the first virtual field (paragraph 120)
In claim 15, Kashitani discloses when the first character is present in the perception zone, the one or more processors are configured to move the second character in a direction approaching the first character in the virtual field (paragraph 65, 73, 130-135)
Claim(s) 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo.
In claim 14, Kondo fails to disclose that the graphic element is displayed between the first character and the second character, however Official notice was taken in the non-final dated 1/16/26, and no argument was presented in the response dated 4/6/26, thus it is taken as applicant admitted prior art that displaying of the graphical element in any location including between the two characters was notoriously well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kondo with this well known technique in order to allow for the player to more easily identify which enemy character they may encounter
In claim 16, Kondo discloses generate a second encounter event in which the first character and a third character placed in the virtual field participate (this would simply be performing the steps of the invention a second time), however Kondo fails to disclose cause a fourth character operated by a second user different from the first user to further participate in the second encounter event, however Official notice was taken in the non-final dated 1/16/26, and no argument was presented in the response dated 4/6/26, thus it is taken as applicant admitted prior art that it was notoriously well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to allow for a multiplayer game where multiple PCs participate within the same battle with an NPC. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Kondo with this well-known technique in order to allow for the game to be adapted to a multiplayer format
In claim 17, Kondo further fails to teach not allowing the fourth character to transition to an encounterable state in which there is a possibility of encounter between the second character and the fourth character while the first encounter event is being executed, however Official notice was taken in the non-final dated 1/16/26, and no argument was presented in the response dated 4/6/26, thus it is taken as applicant admitted prior art that only allowing for one user to encounter an enemy at the time in a multiplayer game was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Kondo with this well-known technique in order to allow for the first user to be able to enjoy the encounter uninterrupted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amended claim language overcomes the previous art rejection; however, a new rejection is made in view of Kondo as set forth above.
Applicant argues that the steps identified as an abstract idea provide for a specific data structure existing with a computer system, although it is true that the invention is directed towards data within a computer system, some of the steps performed can be performed merely mentally, and these steps were underlined and identified in step 2A prong one.
Applicant goes on to argue that various steps of the system provides a clear improvement to relevant technology, however this argument is not persuasive, because improvement to relevant technology is considered in step 2A prong two, not in step 2A prong one, as this is not an argument as to whether the particular steps are abstract. Relying upon abstract concepts to show an improvement to relevant technology does not overcome the steps being abstract, as novel, new, and improving abstract concepts still are abstract.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcomes the 101, however examiner has continued to reject the claim language under 101 as set forth above.
Applicant argues that structures which was necessarily particularized to a computer system was not a mental process, however this is not persuasive, as TTRPGs (tabletop role playing games) are physical games which could perform the steps of the instant application, especially as all of the steps may be performed in a turn based game, it is clear that to perform a game including the abstract steps would not be placed upon a computer by necessity.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights