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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims provide a technical improvement in the graphical user interface (automatically controlling when a “second name” option is presented based on session type) and in how names are set and communicated in online multiplayer games. Examiner respectfully disagree.
The purported improvement is not to the functioning of the computer, network, or GUI technology itself. Controlling whether to present a name-input field or to automatically use a stored name based on session type is a conventional and well-understood GUI design choice (e.g., hiding or showing options contextually). The “improvement” is in the rules for when and how players may use different identities, a social/business solution to toxicity/privacy concerns in gaming, not a technological solution. The claims do not improve computer functionality, data structure efficiency, network latency, or any technical field. They merely apply the abstract idea of session-type-based name management using generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05(a), (f), (h); Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (GUI for abstract idea not enough); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claims therefore remain directed to the abstract idea.
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 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 claims are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and/ or certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a – Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
The claims recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal relationships and social interactions in a group setting — specifically, rules for setting, selecting, and communicating player identities/names in different types of multiplayer gaming sessions). The core of the invention is a set of rules: use a persistent “first name” automatically in public/random sessions without change option; allow input of an optional “second name” only when initiating certain (private/friend) sessions; let the player select which name to transmit for the second session type; restrict changes; and record used names. This is analogous to rules for identification, accountability, and flexibility in social or commercial group activities (e.g., using real names in public events vs. nicknames in private clubs). The claims do not recite a mathematical concept, law of nature, or mental process per se, but fall squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping.
Step 2a – Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Additional elements include generic computing components: processors, networks, information processing apparatuses, data transmission, and game execution. These are recited at a high level of generality and perform conventional functions (e.g., sending data, executing sessions), amounting to "apply it on a computer" without improvement.
The invention aims to balance accountability in public gaming (via persistent names) with fun in private (via temporary names), addressing toxicity/privacy issues in online multiplayer. However, this is a business/social solution, not a technological one. It does not improve computer functionality, network efficiency, or data structures.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of an electronic device, non-transitory memory, and/ or processors used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computer merely illustrates the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the device, method, and medium, the extent to which a computer to the performance of the device. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the "inventive concept" necessary for patent-eligibility. "[I]f a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implement]' an abstract idea 'on ... a computer,' ... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
In addition, the additional elements are generic, conventional, and well-known in the art that represent extra-solution activity. The computer components are purely generic and may be desktop or laptop computers, servers, or other types of computers. Such features are also considered extra-solution activity.
The dependent claims do not add "significantly more" for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provides additional rules to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights