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 .
Procedural Summary
Claims 1 – 20 have been amended.
Claims 21 – 22 are newly added.
Claims 1 – 22 are pending.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 17 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims 18 – 22. Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
As per claim 1, One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium media having stored therein instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of an information processing apparatus to execute game processing in connection with a multiplayer game, the game progressing comprising:
in response to a first instruction provided by a first player, starting, from a game start state, a first game instance of the multiplayer game, wherein at least one game event is to occur in the first game instance, the first player being one of a plurality of players eligible to participate in the multiplayer game;
progressing the first game instance based on first operation input provided by the first player during the first game instance, wherein each game event in the first game instance is randomly determined for the first game instance regardless of the first operation input from the first player;
retrieving prestored scenario data based on second operation input from a second player of the plurality of players eligible to participate in the multiplayer game, the scenario data including game event information related to the at least one game event that has occurred in the first game instance;
in response to a second instruction provided by the second player, starting, from the game start state, a second game instance of the multiplayer game in which a game event to occur is determined based on the retrieved scenario data; and
progressing the second game instance based on third operation input provided by the second player, wherein each game event in the second game instance is set based on the random determination for the first game instance regardless of the second operation input from the second player.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards starting of a multiplayer game with a randomly determined event, progressing the game based upon player inputs, retrieving scenario data regarding what happened in the first game, starting a second game based on the scenario and progressing the second game. This represents a managing interactions between people, i.e., following rules to effectuate a multiplayer game.).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): processors and non-transitory computer readable mediums.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer processors and non-transitory computer readable mediums. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Bin-Nun US 2019/0163185 establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0090] An example embodiment of the present invention is directed to a computer, a video, an electronic device, and/or any other electronic platform on which the evaluation is possible. One or more processors, which can be implemented using any conventional processing circuit and device or combination thereof, e.g., a Central Processing Unit (CPU) of a Personal Computer (PC) or other workstation processor, execute code provided, e.g., on a hardware computer-readable medium including any conventional memory device, to perform any of the methods described above, alone or in combination. The one or more processors can be embodied in a server or user terminal or combination thereof. The user terminal can be embodied, for example, a desktop, laptop, hand-held device, Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), television set-top Internet appliance, mobile telephone, smart phone, electronic game consoles etc., or as a combination of one or more thereof. The computer, video, etc. can be combined with other physical elements, and can involve interaction by a user or a plurality of users with a user interface to generate visual and/or audio feedback on a video and/or audio device. The memory device can include any conventional permanent and/or temporary memory circuits or combination thereof, a non-exhaustive list of which includes Random Access Memory (RAM), Read Only Memory (ROM), Compact Disks (CD), Digital Versatile Disk (DVD), and magnetic tape. Such devices can be used to perform the method described above.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 - 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Splatoon 2 released circa 2017 in view of Spelunky 2, as evidenced by Perry, “Spelunky 2 guide” How to unlock seeded runs” posted 10/14/2020 (hereinafter “Perry”).
As per claim 1, One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium media having stored therein instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of an information processing apparatus to execute game processing in connection with a multiplayer game, the game progressing comprising: (Splatoon 2 is a game that is executed on a computer inherently comprising a processor and non-transitory CRM).
in response to a first instruction provided by a first player, starting, from a game start state, a first game instance of the multiplayer game, wherein at least one game event is to occur in the first game instance, the first player being one of a plurality of players eligible to participate in the multiplayer game; (Splatoon 2 Salmon Run discloses a multiplayer game that is open to eligible players of at least level 4, wherein players access the coop mode via “Grizzco Industries” during certain time slots (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 1) wherein each Salmon Run consists of three waves that players complete (i.e. game start state)) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 2, par 1)
progressing the first game instance based on first operation input provided by the first player during the first game instance, wherein each game event in the first game instance is randomly determined for the first game instance regardless of the first operation input from the first player; (Splatoon 2 discloses progressing the game according to game inputs by players (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki page 2 “Description”) wherein game events that occur in the game are randomly determined for that instance such as providing players with random weapons (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki page 3 “Rotations” “Wildcard Rotations”) such as randomly spawning enemies during “Known occurrences” such as Water levels wherein Salmonids spawn in different places according to tide levels (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, pages 16 and 20) wherein waves have a different probability of occurring during the various tide levels) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki page 20)
Splatoon fails to disclose:
retrieving prestored scenario data based on second operation input from a second player of the plurality of players eligible to participate in the multiplayer game, the scenario data including game event information related to the at least one game event that has occurred in the first game instance;
in response to a second instruction provided by the second player, starting, from the game start state, a second game instance of the multiplayer game in which a game event to occur is determined based on the retrieved scenario data; and
progressing the second game instance based on third operation input provided by the second player, wherein each game event in the second game instance is set based on the random determination for the first game instance regardless of the second operation input from the second player.
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein players engage in game levels and fight various enemies, Spelunky 2 discloses a game wherein each level comprises randomly generated events such as enemy spawns, items and layouts) (Perry Page 1, par 1) wherein the game also utilizes seeded runs that “generate the same levels, items and enemies.” (Perry page 2, par 1), wherein in order to unlock the ability to use seeded runs, a player has to play the game (i.e. provide input “first instructions”) to unlock a required amount of game characters (Perry page 2, par 1-2). Spelunky discloses the progressing of the game in response to first instructions such that Once a player unlocks a requisite number of characters, a player must then head over to reach “Guy Spelunky’s spaceship” and pick up a wooden idol and then head navigate to the main menu wherein they can enter a seeded code to generate a seeded run) (Perry page 4, par 5 -6) Spelunky discloses the use of seeded codes that are entered into a menu, the player “finally hit ‘Seeded Run’. A seeded run comprises the scenario data to generate game event information pertaining to that particular level or run. The player is then able start and play the game using the seeded run which is a comprises the game scenario.) (Perry page 5 par 1- 3). The Examiner notes that multiple different players are able to utilize a first player seeded run to replay that run that contains the randomly generated events and items) (Perry page 5).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Splatoon 2 in view of Spelunky 2, to utilize a known technique to modify similar games in the same way by means of allowing a previously played game level that comprises scenario data that is generated based upon randomly generated events generated in the first game instance such as the initial run to be instantiated and played by multiple players cooperatively. This would be beneficial as it would allow players who like to play together to practice and hone their skills together, thus promoting teamwork amongst the players as they can repeatedly attempt to overcome large game challenges.
As per claim 2, wherein the prestored scenario data stored also is retrievable by the first player; and following retrieval of the prestored scenario data by the first player, a third game instance of the multiplayer game is started and progressed, from the game start state, based on the retrieved scenario data. (Combination of Splatoon 2 in view of Spelunky 2, wherein Spelunky provides a game seed that enables a game scenario to be retrieved by multiple players to create an instance of the game and the combination would enable multiple players playing cooperatively to restore the same game scenario and/or level to play together) (Perry page 5)
As per claim 3, wherein the prestored scenario data is retrieved from among a plurality of different the scenario data elements, irrespective of whether the game has been cleared by the first player. (Combination of Splatoon 2 in view of Spelunky 2, wherein Spelunky provides a game seed that enables a game scenario to be retrieved by multiple players to create an instance of the game and the combination would enable multiple players playing cooperatively to restore the same game scenario and/or level to play together. The level does not have to be cleared or finished by a first player as a first player can enter a code to access a seeded run and play the seeded run as a first instance) (Perry page 2 , par 1 – 2, page 5)
As per claim 4, wherein the game event information includes information related to a timing at which the at least one game event occurs. (Splatoon 2 discloses events being related to a timing) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 3, par 1)
As per claim 5, wherein the game event information includes information related to an enemy character to appear. (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 2, par 1 – 2)
As per claim 6, wherein the game event information includes information related to a timing at which the enemy character appears. (The timing of the tides affects when enemies appear) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 20)
As per claim 7, wherein the game event information includes information indicating a position at which the enemy character appears in a game stage. (Positions wherein enemies appear in relation to tides) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 20)
As per claim 8, wherein the game event information includes information indicating a game skill available to the first player. (Gear with associated primary and secondary abilities) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 34-36)
As per claim 9, wherein the game processing further includes presenting, to the first player, at a scene for giving the first instruction or a scene therebefore, a candidate of the game skill for the first game instance. (Gear with associated primary and secondary abilities) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 34-36)
As per claim 10, wherein the scenario data includes information indicating a type of a game stage, from among a plurality of types of game stages, that is used in the multiplayer game. (Various known occurrences include different levels such as water levels, Rush, Fog etc.) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 16)
As per claim 11, wherein the game processing further includes presenting, to the first player, at a scene for giving the first instruction or a scene therebefore, a type of the game stage for the first game instance. (Various known occurrences include different levels such as water levels, Rush, Fog etc.) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 16)
As per claim 12, wherein the game event information includes information related to a range of movement of a player character across the a game stage used in the multiplayer game. (Tides affect player and enemy range of movement) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 16 and 20)
As per claim 13, wherein the scenario data includes information indicating a difficulty level of the multiplayer game. (Local Mode discloses the indication of a difficulty level) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 10)
As per claim 14, wherein the information indicating the difficulty is determined based on a parameter indicating a skill level that is associated with at least one player of the plurality of players eligible to participate in the multiplayer game who is/are participating in the game instance related to the scenario data. (Difficulty level determined by player skill levels of all players) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 2, page 10)
As per claim 15, wherein more than one player from the plurality of players eligible to participate in the multiplayer game participate in the first game instance; more than one player from the plurality of players eligible to participate in the multiplayer game participate in the second game instance. (Combination of Splatoon 2 and Spelunky 2 as applied to claim 1)
As per claim 16, wherein:
the scenario data is generated each time the first instruction is given so that the at least one game event randomly occurs in the game for each first instruction; a new game instance based on the generated scenario data is first instruction given; and the generated scenario data is stored for the each new game instance (Combination of Splatoon 2 and Spelunky 2 as applied to claim 1, wherein Spelunky teaches the use of game seeds that are used to create a first game instance, are stored as represented by the seed code and able to be generated into a second game instance when a player desires to replay it)
As per claim 17, wherein for each new game instance,
the scenario data is generated based on player information that is associated with each player participating in the respective new game instance, including based on previous game play of each player; and the at least one game event whose occurrence is determined based on the scenario data is determined independent of the player information. (Combination of Splatoon 2 and Spelunky 2 as applied to claim 1, wherein Spelunky teaches the use of game seeds that are used to create a first game instance, are stored as represented by the seed code and able to be generated into a second game instance when a player desires to replay it, wherein the combination wherein Splatoon discloses the determination of a players skill level or pay grade determined from previous game play to determine difficulty of the randomly generated game events of the new instance) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 2, page 10, par 1)
Independent claim(s) 18 - 20 is/are made obvious by the combination of Splatoon 2 and Spelunky 2 based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
As per claim 21, wherein the multiplayer game is a cooperative multiple player game in which at least two players of the plurality of players eligible to participate in the multiplayer game cooperate to satisfy an in-game objective. (Splatoon discloses a cooperative game wherein multiple players cooperated to satisfy a goal) (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 1 – 3)
As per claim 22, wherein the at least one game event specifies the game stage to be played. (lnkipedia, the Splatoon wiki, page 1 – 3 and 16)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the identification of the claims being directed towards “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” is improper as it distills the claims into a category that comprises only 6 words. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that claims are clearly directed towards step or game rules for performing first and second instances of a multiplayer game wherein the second instance is based upon prestored data comprising random events of the first instance. This is a type of game that can clearly be carried out via manual means by a human utilizing pen and paper.
Applicant further states “Second, and in that regard, not every method of organizing human activity is to be deemed abstract. As the MPEP, PEG, and case law make clear, only "certain" methods of organizing human activity are to be deemed abstract. And nothing in the original claim language or in the amended claim language actually recites a method of organizing human activity at all, much less one of the few specific enumerated categories that has been held to be abstract in the past and in other contexts.” (Remarks page 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that beyond the mere allegation, the Applicant fails to provide any specific persuasive evidence to back up the assertion that the claims at not abstract.
Applicant further states “To the extent that claim 4 finds that the claims involve "managing interactions between people, i.e., following rules to effectuate a game," it is apparent from both the original and the amended claim language that there are in fact no interactions between people being managed at all. Instead, what arguably is being managed is what effects are to be produced ( or reproduced) in a game based on specific prestored scenario data as recited more particularly in the claims. The management of a game instance is not the management of interactions between people at all. In a way, the claims actually are directed to the opposite of that, because the players do not need to interact with each other at all.” (Remarks page 11 – 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and note that as amended the claims clearly are directed towards a multiplayer game and providing a game with specifics steps for effectuating a game between multiple players.
Applicant further states “the claims are tied to a practical application and involve technical advantages relative to other multiplayer environments (for example).” (Remarks page 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the Applicant fails to provide any substantive reasoning showing a practical application such as what specific improvements are made to the functioning of a computer or associated technology. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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.
/RAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 5/21/2026
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights