DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication is to response to Application No. 18/405,163 filed on 01/05/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and has been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 10/15/2025 is considered.
The drawings filed on 01/05/2024 are noted.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitation of: “simulating a video game environment on an electronic game device”.
The limitation of simulating a video game environment on an electronic gaming device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claims preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using a gaming device to determine a score for each component of a multi-component relationship between a player character and a game object based on game data and user input to an electronic gaming device specifying actions of the player character, wherein each component of the multicomponent relationship is associated by the game data with one or more game elements; and simulating a video game environment on the electronic gaming device according to the determined result to perform both determining and simulating steps. The gaming device in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer simulating a video game environment on an electronic device) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In the instant case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of determining, in a game event related to the game object and for at least one component of the multi-component relationship, a result of the game event based on the one or more game elements associated with the at least one component and the score of the at least one component. Thus, the additional element fails to ensure the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Miron, Keith (US PG UB 2018/0161675).
As per claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, Miron discloses a game server that records events that occur within a match of a video game (combat or battle game, abstract, paragraphs 0044 and 0046) played using a plurality of game events which is readable as Applicant’s claimed invention of simulating a video game environment on an electronic device, comprising;
Determine score for each component of a multi-component relationship between a player character (see., paragraphs 0003 and 0004) and a game object based on game data and user input to an electronic gaming device specifying actions of the player character, wherein each component of the multi-component relationship is associated by the game data with one or more game elements (see., paragraphs 0044-0059, multi-component or plurality of clients. Game elements is interpreted as categories that is based on players skills); determine, in a game event related to the game object and for at least one component of the multi-component relationship, a result of the game event based on the one or more game elements associated with the at least one component and the score of the at least one component (see., paragraphs 0046, 0051 and 0059-0062, the game server 104 gives each event a plurality of scores, and scoring module 205. The examiner broadly and reasonably interprets multi-component as plurality of game clients, paragraph 0044); simulate video game environment on the electronic gaming device according to the determined result (see., paragraphs 0044, 0046 and 0059-0062, furthermore, Miron discloses ranking levels to identify players skills information).
As per claim 2, Miron discloses the claimed limitation as stated in claim 1 above, wherein the one or more game elements are a combat bonus list (see., paragraph 0046, category life saver that is based on damage prevented to teammates, e.g., high score).
As per claim 3, Miron discloses the claimed limitation as stated in claim 1 and 2 above, wherein the game event is a combat between the player character and one or more enemies and the game object helps the player character (see., paragraphs 0045 and 0046).
As per claim 16, Miron discloses a game server that records events that occur within a match of a video game (combat or battle game, abstract, paragraphs 0044 and 0046) played using a plurality of game events which is readable as Applicant’s claimed invention of simulating a video game environment on an electronic device, comprising;
Determining a score for each component of a multi-component relationship between a player character (see., paragraphs 0003 and 0004) and a game object based on game data and user input to an electronic gaming device specifying actions of the player character, wherein each component of the multi-component relationship is associated by the game data with one or more game elements (see., paragraphs 0044-0059, multi-component or plurality of clients. Game elements is interpreted as categories that is based on players skills); determining, in a game event related to the game object and for at least one component of the multi-component relationship, a result of the game event based on the one or more game elements associated with the at least one component and the score of the at least one component (see., paragraphs 0046, 0051 and 0059-0062, the game server 104 gives each event a plurality of scores, and scoring module 205. The examiner broadly and reasonably interprets multi-component as plurality of game clients, paragraph 0044); simulating a video game environment on the electronic gaming device according to the determined result (see., paragraphs 0044, 0046 and 0059-0062. Furthermore, Miron discloses ranking levels to identify players skills information).
As per claim 17, Miron discloses the claimed limitation as stated in claim 1 above, wherein the one or more game elements are a combat bonus list (see., paragraph 0046, category life saver that is based on damage prevented to teammates, e.g., high score).
As per claim 18, Miron discloses the claimed limitation as stated in claim 1 and 2 above, wherein the game event is a combat between the player character and one or more enemies and the game object helps the player character (see., paragraphs 0045 and 0046).
As per claim 20, Miron discloses a game server that records events that occur within a match of a video game (combat or battle game, abstract, paragraphs 0044 and 0046) played using a plurality of game events which is readable as Applicant’s claimed invention of simulating a video game environment on an electronic device, comprising;
Determine a score for each component of a multi-component relationship between a player character (see., paragraphs 0003 and 0004) and a game object based on game data and user input to an electronic gaming device specifying actions of the player character, wherein each component of the multi-component relationship is associated by the game data with one or more game elements (see., paragraphs 0044-0059, multi-component or plurality of clients. Game elements is interpreted as categories that is based on players skills); determine, in a game event related to the game object and for at least one component of the multi-component relationship, a result of the game event based on the one or more game elements associated with the at least one component and the score of the at least one component (see., paragraphs 0046, 0051 and 0059-0062, the game server 104 gives each event a plurality of scores, and scoring module 205. The examiner broadly and reasonably interprets multi-component as plurality of game clients, paragraph 0044); simulate a video game environment on the electronic gaming device according to the determined result (see., paragraphs 0044, 0046 and 0059-0062. Furthermore, Miron discloses ranking levels to identify players skills information).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 7:30PM. Hoteler.
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, Hu Kang can be reached on 571 270 1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715