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, 2, and 4-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim is directed to providing game level structure diagrams having different levels involving:
Playing, completing, and granting access to different levels
These steps, when viewed in their entirety, describe organizing and managing a set of rules for level access in a game, which is a form of managing human activity and following rules for playing a game. The USPTO recognizes “rules for playing a game” as an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Example 37; and In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The recited “first plurality of levels… in a predetermined sequence” and “second plurality of levels… in a predetermined order” of determining when to play different levels are mental processes and organizing human activity of following game rules (determining stages, challenges, or the like to participate in according to player progress) and mental processes that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea: rules for accessing different levels and mental processes for providing game level structure diagrams having different levels.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recited “non-transitory computer program product”, “computing device”, “processor”, and “memory” are generic computer components performing generic functions (storing instructions, executing instructions).
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as a tool to implement the abstract idea of advancing through levels in a game according to rules.
The additional elements (program product, computing device, display, graphical user interface, memory) are conventional in video game implementations and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The use of generic computer-readable media, generic computers, generic processors, generic data storage, generic displays, and generic interfaces to implement level advancement rules is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of computer gaming.
The “first plurality of levels” and “second plurality of levels” parameters for level selection are merely different sets of data used in the abstract advancement process; they do not constitute an unconventional technical solution or improvement in computer functionality.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, the claim as a whole amounts to no more than the abstract idea of providing game level structure diagrams having different levels, and level access rules in a game implemented on a generic computer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pps. 9-11, the applicant submits the amended limitations that tie the claimed operations to a concrete computer implementation, a computing architecture involving a player progression database, intersection-level logic, and graphical user interface control. The applicant contends that the claims recite specific technical architecture for executing computer game mechanics including: 1) structuring two parallel paths of levels bounded by intersection levels maintained within the computing device; 2) querying a player progression database to retrieve stored player data; 3) using that stored data to determine player eligibility and control player access to parallel level paths maintained within the computing device; and 4) controlling the graphical user interface to display the available paths. In addition, the Applicant notes the following: claim limitations requiring automated interaction with data structures or system components; the claim language requires computer-implemented operations beyond human mental capability; the amended claim recites additional computer-based operations and structures.
On pps. 11-13, the applicant submits the amended independent claims require a particular technical architecture: storing player progress data in a player progression database, obtaining stored player data from that database, determining completion status based on the stored data, granting access to both a first level of the first set and a first level of the second set in response, and causing GUI display of at least a portion of the second set. In addition, the applicant submits Controlling a level-selection GUI to present parallel level paths under device constraints, using a stored-progress database to determine eligibility and trigger access and display behavior.
On pps. 13-14, the Applicant submits the specific ordered combination now claimed, grounded in stored progress state and GUI control, constitutes more than generic implementation of a rule. The amended limitations supply significantly more by reciting a specific stored-data-based implementation.
However, the examiner disagrees.
The amended claims are related to the abstract ideas of providing game level structure diagrams having different levels, and access criteria for the different levels which as best understood falls under mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. The remaining 101 issues remains in given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI): (1) two parallel paths of levels bounded by intersection levels is similar to providing a map, chart, diagram, or the like presenting sequence menu, listing, or the like of challenges; (2) player progression database falls under any memory or storage mechanism used to monitor or track players’ progress such as stored player profiles including player historical data which can be done using filed papers and/or notes; (3) using the stored player profiles it can be determined whether a player meets particular eligibility rules to access particular challenges; (4) the graphical user interface as claimed is interpreted as a display mechanism (e.g., paper) used to track and show player progress using charts, diagrams, maps, or the like. Note, using a computing device to perform the above methods is viewed as simply adding a computer to apply the judicial exceptions. In addition, the following is noted: automation or having computer-related components perform the judicial exceptions is not an improvement to the gaming art; there are no claimed methods that are beyond human mental capability.
In addition, on pps. 9, 11, and 12, the Applicant describes how the application works, relates to a Candy Crush game, and discusses corresponding details of the specification to the invention, however, these descriptions/details are not clearly reflected in the claims.
Factual support that additional elements (e.g., computers, memories, displays) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the video gaming art are US5423556 (“a conventional architecture suitable for the implementation of this game is shown in FIG. 13. Such a conventional computer has a CPU 50 with primary memory 51 and interfaces 52 to secondary memory 53 such as diskettes, monitor 54, keyboard 55, and other input devices”), US20020142833 (see ¶94).
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 DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights