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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 04/13/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 remain pending, Claim 21 has been newly added, and Claim 5 has been currently canceled. Currently, Claims 1-2, 6, 9-11, and 14-20 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 states, “start the game from the game starting point of the game part corresponding to the selection user interface that is selected based on an input by the player from the selection user interfaces included in the selection image” in lines 13-15. However, this should state, “start a game from a game starting point of the game part corresponding to the selection user interface that is selected based on an input by the player from the selection user interfaces included in the selection image.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 17, and 19 recite the limitations "displaying a first saving image including a plurality of first-type save slots to allow the player to select based on an input by the player, and storing the first-type save slot selected by the player and the save data of the game in association with each other, when saving that saves game data is instructed by the player during execution of the game started by the first game starting method" and “displaying a second saving image including a plurality of second-type save slots to allow the player to select based on an operation by the player, and storing the second-type save slot selected by the player and the save data of the game in association with each other, when the saving is instructed by the player during execution of the game started by the second game starting method” in lines 16-25 of claim 1, for example. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-21 have been rejected as they depend from a rejected claim.
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 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of […]; determining, based on an input by a player, either a first game starting method or a second game starting method; […], […] corresponding to respective game parts that are playable by the player when a previous game part is cleared, […] corresponding to respective game parts that are playable by the player irrespective of whether a previous game part is cleared; starting the game from the game starting point of the game part corresponding to the selection […] that is selected based on an input by the player from the selection […] included in the selection image; displaying a first saving image including a plurality of first-type save slots to allow the player to select based on an input by the player, and […], when saving that saves game data is instructed by the player during execution of the game started by the first game starting method; and displaying a second saving image including a plurality of second-type save slots to allow the player to select based on an operation by the player, and […], when the saving is instructed by the player during execution of the game started by the second game starting method. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1 (substantially similar to claims 17 and 19). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “one or more processors”, “selection user interfaces,” and “storing… save data of the game”. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because they are all recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to implement or perform the steps of the abstract idea. The additional elements when considered alone and in combination amount to no more than using generic computing components to apply the judicial exception. The recitations “displaying a selection image including…” are insignificant extra-solution activity i.e., data gathering and/or data output. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2, No). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A - Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying selection images is no more than data gathering and data output. The same analysis applies here in step 2B and does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B, No).
The dependent claims fail to add “significantly more” because they merely represent further use of generic computers for routine data-processing functions related to steps/rules for generating modified game content based on user interaction with content in another game (Claims 2-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-21).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “At a minimum, such features satisfy at least step 2(A)(2) and/or 2(B) of the Alice test. In
particular, these features are directed to specific improvements in video game and/or software technology. In more detail, Applicant's specification explains, by way of a non-limiting example, that certain conventional games have a plurality of chapters and the game can be started from a selected chapter. However, in these conventional games, players may be playing the game for a first time and certain content may be incomprehensible to the player if they started the game from a selected chapter. As such, the user's enjoyment of playing the game and overall game experience is immediately affected (and thus the overall human-computer interface experience is affected).
Applicant's claimed approach improves upon drawbacks in the conventional technology, in part, by providing a configuration where a game can be played from any one of a plurality of predetermined game starting points, and played from a further game starting point as the game progresses. The claimed approach further provides starting a game from a game starting point corresponding to a selection user interface selected by the player. The claimed approach further includes displaying a first saving image related to first-type saving slots, and a second saving image related to second-type saving slots, based on whether the user is in first or second game starting methods.
Under the claimed approach, the user is enabled to select a game from various starting points even if the user has never played the game, such that the game would not be incomprehensible to a user (thereby improving the human-computer interface). Moreover, by providing different saving (and loading) images, it is possible to avoid game data from being saved in association with a save slot from a different game mode thereby also improving the system's ability to manage game memory.
As such, the claimed approach enables greater interaction between the human-computer interface, and allows for a more intuitive operation in the video game. The claimed approach also improves the system's ability to manage memory. Therefore, the features provide improvements to video game and/or game program/software technology and thus provide improvements to an existing technology (or technical field). And as the features improve an existing technology, the claimed features are directed to a "practical application" and/or "significantly more" under at least steps 2(A)(2) and 2(B) of the Alice test.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). Providing a means of selecting a game starting method, starting a game from a selection image corresponding to game parts (or chapters) and displaying saving images for save slots related to the selected starting method (as claimed in amended claims 1, 17, and 19) is not a technical solution to a technical problem e.g. something specific to improvements to the functioning of a computer etc., but rather provides an alternative to how a game is played and providing visual cues as to which version of a game is played. Managing and organizing save data and providing different visual cues for different game parts or chapters pertains to managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions pertaining to organizing human activity and/or a mental process. The applicant’s disclosure (¶ 4) does provide support for user engagement or an improved user experience, wherein, selecting a chapter whose contents would be incomprehensible to them if they started the game from that chapter, e.g., so as to summarize or provide an outline to allow a player to jump around in different chapters without being lost in the story; however, such disclosure does not relate to the actual improvement of the technology, but rather a means for helping a player understand a storyline when playing varying chapters of a game. The Applicant’s remarks appear to mirror the idea of user engagement or an improved user experience, “the user's enjoyment of playing the game and overall game experience is immediately affected,” “the user is enabled to select a game from various starting points even if the user has never played the game, such that the game would not be incomprehensible to a user,” and “providing a configuration where a game can be played from any one of a plurality of predetermined game starting points” and do not show an improvement to underlying technology. Additionally, the remarks regarding, “providing different saving (and loading) images, it is possible to avoid game data from being saved in association with a save slot from a different game mode thereby also improving the system's ability to manage game memory” does not appear to be an improvement to the management of memory on a device as the first step in the currently presented claims is the step of selecting a first or second game starting method (i.e., a game mode), wherein the game method/mode is selected up front before saving any game data. The claims at issue lack integration into a practical application. Applicant’s claimed abstract idea lacks or fails to suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The Examiner contends that the claims do not provide an improvement to the technology in which it is generically applied.
At least based on the above, the 101 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-21 are herein maintained.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments, see response, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-21 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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, Kang Hu can be reached at (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 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights