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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1, 13 and 14 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claims 1, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “outputting performance information relating to the kigurumi based on the first identification information and the first user identification information.”
The limitations of “acquiring first identification information from a terminal provided on a kigurumi; acquiring first user identification information from a first user terminal; and outputting performance information relating to the kigurumi based on the first identification information and the first user identification information, wherein a different value is set as the first identification information for each type of kigurumi or each individual kigurumi” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “acquiring and outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses outputting performance information relating to the kigurumi based on the first identification information and the first user identification information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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) 1, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2019/0228552 A1)] in view of Yamagiwa et al (US 2021/0329982 A1).
As per claim 1, Lee et al disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions thereon which, when executed on a computer, cause the computer to perform a method, the method comprising: acquiring first identification information corresponding to a kigurumi ([0168]; acquiring identification information about a character); acquiring first user identification information corresponding to a first user terminal ([0168]; (acquiring first user identification information); and outputting performance information relating to the kigurumi based on a combination of the first identification information and the first user identification information, wherein a different value is set as the first identification information for each of a plurality of kigurumis (Lee discloses a dedicated processor which may quickly processes performance as claimed). Lee fails to disclose a kurugumi but Yamagiwa et al disclose a character known as kurugumi (see abstract and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a kurugumi as a main character as taught by Yamagiwa et al into the system of Lee because it would acquire environmental information of surroundings of the kigurumi and configure to output staging of the kigurumi in accordance with environmental information (see [0008] of Yamagiwa et al)
As per claim 10, Lee et al disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising: outputting the performance information to a first user terminal including a display device, wherein the first user terminal controls the display content of the display device based on the performance information (Lee discloses a dedicated processor which may quickly processes performance as claimed, see fig. 4B).
As per claim 11, Lee et al disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising: outputting the performance information to an information terminal provided on the kigurumi based on the first identification information (Lee discloses a dedicated processor which may quickly processes performance as claimed).
As per claim 13, Lee et al disclose an information processing device comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire first identification information from a terminal provided on a kigurumi ([0168]; acquiring identification information about a character); acquire first user identification information from a first user terminal ([0168]; (acquiring first user identification information); and output performance information relating to the kigurumi based on the first identification information and the first user identification information, wherein a different value is set as the first identification information for each type of kigurumi or each individual kigurumi (Lee discloses a dedicated processor which may quickly processes performance as claimed). Lee fails to disclose a kurugumi but Yamagiwa et al disclose a character known as kurugumi (see abstract and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a kurugumi as a main character as taught by Yamagiwa et al into the system of Lee because it would acquire environmental information of surroundings of the kigurumi and configure to output staging of the kigurumi in accordance with environmental information (see [0008] of Yamagiwa et al).
As per claim 14, Lee et al disclose an information processing method, comprising: acquiring first identification information from a terminal provided on a kigurumi; acquiring first user identification information from a first user terminal ([0168]; acquiring identification information about a character and first user identification information); and outputting performance information relating to the kigurumi based on the first identification information and the first user identification information, wherein a different value is set as the first identification information for each type of kigurumi or each individual kigurumi (Lee discloses a dedicated processor which may quickly processes performance as claimed). Lee fails to disclose a kurugumi but Yamagiwa et al disclose a character known as kurugumi (see abstract and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a kurugumi as a main character as taught by Yamagiwa et al into the system of Lee because it would acquire environmental information of surroundings of the kigurumi and configure to output staging of the kigurumi in accordance with environmental information (see [0008] of Yamagiwa et al).
As per claim 19, the method of claim 17, further comprising: outputting different performance information based on the acquisition order of the first identification information and the second identification information (Lee discloses a dedicated processor which may quickly processes performance as claimed.
PS: There are no art rejections for claims 2-9, 12, 15-18 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited on PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 6-4:30 ET.
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, David L Lewis can be reached on 5712727673. 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/Ronald Laneau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715