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 1-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-35 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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of an information processing apparatus to execute game processing comprising:
based on operation data, controlling a player character in accordance with any of behaviors at least including a plurality of actions and a movement in a virtual space;
placing a plurality of objects in a first classification in the virtual space, each object having at least:
information indicating in which state of a first state and a second state other than the first state the object is;
information indicating in which state of a third state and a fourth state other than the third state the object is;
a type; and
a consumption amount for a first parameter associated with a player;
based on at least any of the actions, switching the first state and the second state of at least any of the objects in the first classification;
based on at least any of the actions, changing at least any of the objects in the first classification in the fourth state to the third state;
causing each of the objects in the first classification in the first state to continuously perform a behavior set with respect to each of the types in the virtual space;
based on the consumption amount of each of the objects in the first classification in the first state and the third state, continuously decreasing the first parameter; and
if the first parameter decreases to a predetermined reference, changing the object in the first classification in the first state and the third state from the first state to the second state.
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 well as rules for conducting a game, as these are rules for defining the state and type of objects in various portions of a game, as well as states of consumption of a parameter, and further a human could control player characters in a virtual world mentally or with pen and paper, such as in a tabletop role playing game, and track and change states and types of objects, and consumption amounts of parameters based upon rules of the tabletop role playing game in the same manner as the steps set forth within the claims.
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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as well as a processor 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))
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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as well as a processor 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))
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 2-14, 16-28, and 30-34 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-27, and 29-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meng (US 20250001299).
It is noted by examiner that this language is written in such a way that it is bordering on indefinite, however Examiner has chosen instead to interpret the language as being broad rather than indefinite. Specifically, the claims require “in which state” a “second state different from the first state” and a “fourth state different from the third state”, which appears to imply that the fourth and first state, for example, could be the same state. It further appears applicant is attempting to claim a Boolean state between the first and second (as well as third and fourth) state however this is not properly claimed, as the “in which state” could be “both” or “neither”. Further, applicant claims “changing at least any of the objects in the first classification in the fourth state to the third state”, however as explained above, nothing within the claims precludes the object from being in both the fourth and third state at the same time, for example, so although the term “changing” would mean that in this instance, the object would no longer be in the third state, and would begin to be within the fourth state, it would not mean that the fourth and third state are exclusive of one another. In the same way, “switching the first state and the second state” would mean that the first and second states are switched (such as from “in the first state” to “not in the first state”), however the object may be in both the first and second state, and the switching may cause the object to be in neither the first and second state.
As Examiner has art which reads upon the much narrower claim language within the independent claims, for purposes of compact prosecution, examiner is currently rejecting the independent claims in such a way that it reads upon a much narrower interpretation of the claim language than the BRI, wherein the objects of the prior art are always within one (and only one) of the first and second state, as well as one (and only one) of the third and fourth state, and that all four of these states are different from one another, however some of the dependent claims are rejected using the much broader language.
Further, a variety of dependent claims have limitations which use conditional language (specifically, the word “if”, and “in a case where”). These limitations are subject to In re Schulhauser interpretations, wherein the prior art may simply teach a single instance of the conditional language not fulfilling the condition to teach the limitation as claimed.
In claims 1, 15, 29, and 35 Meng discloses
Based on operation data, controlling a player character in accordance with any of behaviors at least including a plurality of actions and a movement in a virtual space (paragraph 49)
Placing a plurality of objects in a first classification in the virtual space, each object having at least:
Information indicating in which state of a first state and a second state other than the first state the object is (the prior art’s state of firing the weapon teaches the first state, and the prior art’s state of not firing the weapon teaches the second state)
Information indicating in which state of a third state and a fourth state other than the third state the object is (the prior art’s state of the weapon not being overheated teaches the third state, and the prior art’s state of the weapon being overheated teaches the fourth state)
A type and (it is noted by examiner that this “type” is extremely broad and may be taught by basically any information within the prior art however the closest teaching of the narrowest reading of the language is taught in paragraph 49, which discloses “a certain type of virtual weapon”)
A consumption amount for a first parameter associated with a player (paragraph 52, the consumption amount would be for the parameter of the heat of the weapon)
Based on at least any of the actions, switching the first state and the second state of at least any of the objects in the first classification (paragraph 52, the user may switch between firing and not firing based upon the firing operation
Based on at least any of the actions, changing at least any of the objects in the first classification in the fourth state to the third state (paragraph 57, a cooling process occurs which causes the object to move from the overheated state back to the normal state)
Causing each of the objects in the first classification in the first state to continuously perform a behavior set with respect to each of the types in the virtual space (paragraph 52, the firing operation causes continuous firing of the weapon)
Based on the consumption amount of each of the objects in the first classification in the first state and the third state, continuously decreasing the first parameter and (paragraph 52, the parameter related to the amount of further heat the object can withstand is continually decreased)
If the first parameter decreases to a predetermined reference, changing the object in the first classification in the first and the third state from the first state to the second state (paragraph 53, once the weapon becomes overheated, the firing operation is no longer performed, thus changing the state from the first state to the second state)
In claims 2, 6, 16, 20, 30 and 34 Meng discloses the plurality of actions include an attack action (paragraph 52, the firing operation is the attack action) and if the attack action hits an object in the first classification, (it is noted by examiner that “if the attack action hits an object in the first classification” would mean that the claims may be read upon simply not hitting the object, as per In re Schulhauser. Further, the attack action may always “hit” the object, which is to say “activate” the object, as is the case in the instant application) switching the first state and the second state of the object (the first and second state are switched in response to the firing operation) and further if the object in the first classification is in the fourth state, changing the object in the first classification to the third state (paragraph 57, if the virtual object is in the overheated state, it is changed eventually to the cooling state)
In claims 3 and 17, Meng discloses the plurality of actions includes an object operation action for, using as a control target an object specified among objects in a second classification that is a classification at least including an object in the first classification, at least controlling a movement of the control target and in a case where the player character performs the object operation action on the object in the first classification as the control target and if the control target is in the fourth state, changing the control target to the third state (paragraph 52, firing of the weapon is operation of the control target of the weapon, and firing is movement of the weapon)
In claims 4, 18 and 32, Meng discloses performing integration control for integrating the control target with another object in the second classification in the object operation action, thereby generating an assembly object, (paragraph 61, the weapon is assembled with bullets or cartridge clips) and if an object in the fourth state is included in an integration designation , changing the object in the fourth state to the third state (as above, this limitation may be read in in re Schulhauser with a prior art teaching of the object simply not being in the fourth state, however the fourth state is changed to the third state as per paragraph 57)
In claims 5, 19 and 33, Meng discloses if the control target is an object in the first classification and the integration destination is another object in the first classification or the assembly object including the other object in the first classification in the integration control in the object operation action (this is another In re Schulhauser interpretation, where the prior art reads upon this limitation by simply not meeting this conditional phrase at any instance) setting the information regarding the control target indicating in which state of the first and second state the control target is to be the same as the information regarding an object in the first classification included in the integration designation (paragraph 61, the loaded bullets and the weapons would both be within the firing state)
In claims 7 and 21, Meng discloses a switching object capable of entering either of an operated state where the switching object is operation by the player character and a non operated state where the switching object is not operated by the player character, the plurality of actions include a switching object operation action for changing the switching object to the operated state and in a case where the switching object is included in the assembly object, and if the switching object enters the operated state, setting all objects in the first classification included in the assembly object to the first state, and if the switching object enters the non operated state, setting all the objects in the first classification included in the assembly object to the second state (as noted above, this is taught by In re Schulhauser interpretation. However the weapon may be interpreted as the switching object, with the weapon and bullet assembly being switched between firing/operating and non firing/operating states)
In claims 8 and 22, Meng discloses if the assembly object including a plurality of objects in the first classification of the same type is generated by the integration control of the object operation action (again, this limitation is taught by an In re Schulhauser interpretation), reducing the consumption amount set for at least any of the plurality of objects in the first classification (paragraph 52 consumption may be reduced to any of the various amounts disclosed)
In claims 9 and 23, Meng discloses an object in the second classification includes a parameter object with which a second parameter is associated and in a case where the parameter object is included in the assembly object, and if an object in the first classification included in the assembly object is in the first state and the third state (again, this limitation is rejected off an In re Schulhauser interpretation), decreasing the second parameter based on the consumption amount of each objects in the first classification included in the assembly, and reducing an amount of decrease in the first parameter until the second parameter decreases to a predetermined reference (paragraph 52, 61, the bullets are the second parameter which are reduced)
In claims 10, 11, 24, and 25 Meng discloses changing an object in the first classification of which a distance from the player character exceeds a predetermined reference to the second state (paragraph 49, the standby state places the weapon in the backpack where it is not fired, which would be a further distance away than the aiming state wherein the player character is holding the virtual weapon)
In claims 12 and 26, Meng discloses in a case where the first parameter is less than a predetermined upper limit value and if an object in the first classification in the first state and the third state is not present in the virtual space (again, this is taught as per In re Schulhauser interpretation), continuously increasing the first parameter to the upper limit (the weapon is cooled off back to its original state when it is not being used)
In claims 13 and 27, Meng discloses the plurality of actions include: a combined weapon generation action for integrating an object int eh second classification with a weapon object thereby generating a combined weapon object (paragraph 61, the bullets are combined with the weapon) a weapon attack action for making an attack using the weapon object or the combined weapon object (paragraph 52) and if the weapon attack action using the combined weapon object including an object in the first classification is performed (again, this is taught by an In re Schulhauser interpretation), decreasing the first parameter by a predetermined amount (paragraph 52)
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) 14 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng
In claims 14 and 28, Meng discloses the claimed invention except controlling a non-player character in the virtual space and if the non-player character uses an object in the first classification in the third state, setting the object in the first classification to the fourth state, however Official notice is taken that non-player characters were notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and incorporating non-player characters would teach the invention as claimed, as the non-player character using the weapon of Meng would cause the weapon to overheat (move from the third state to the fourth state) as per the teachings of Meng. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Meng with this well known technique in order to allow for the game to have enemy characters without the need of additional players.
Conclusion
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