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
This is in response to the amendments filed on 12/29/25. Claims 1 and 9 – 11 have been amended, and claims 2 and 13 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3 – 12, and 14 – 19 are now pending in the current application.
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, 3 – 12, and 14 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1, 3 – 8, and 10 – 12 are directed towards a system, medium, and a server, (machine), and claims 9, 14 - 19 are directed towards a method, (process), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A simulation system comprising: processing circuitry configured to set one or more commands for each of characters disposed in a virtual space configured by a plurality of virtual unit spaces and are associated with each of a plurality of users and set an execution order of the commands in a case in which a plurality of commands are set; and operate the character inside the virtual space based on the commands and the execution order set for the character, wherein the commands and the execution order are set based on an instruction of each user associated with each character in association with each of one or more characters, and cause a first character associated with a first user to operate inside the virtual space based on the commands and the execution order set for the first character regardless of an instruction from a second user by receiving an instruction from the first user, cause a second character associated with a second user to operate inside the virtual space based on the commands and the execution order set for the second character regardless of an instruction from the first user by receiving an instruction from the second user, and in a case in which a positional relation of the second character with respect to the first character inside the virtual space satisfies predetermined conditions, cause at least one of the first and the second character to execute a predetermined operation with preference over an operation based on the commands set for the first character and the commands set for the second character.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 9 – 11. Dependent claims 3 – 8, 12, and 14 - 19 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (rules for playing a game)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for playing a game and interactions between people, (players of the game), which fall into the category of organizing human activity, managing personal behavior or relationships between people, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor that presents a video game to a user, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
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.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite processing circuitry, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements 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. Viewing 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.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101 as the claims do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application or add an “inventive concept” beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and functions.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 12, and 14 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by the video game Kane & Lynch (hereinafter “Kane”).
Regarding claims 1 and 9 – 11, Kane discloses a simulation system, method, and computer-readable storage medium comprising processing circuitry, (pg. 3 of Kane), configured to set one or more commands for each of characters disposed in a virtual space configured by a plurality of virtual unit spaces, (pg. 9 of Kane “crew controls”), and are associated with each of a plurality of users, (pg. 11 of Kane “game mode” “two-player cooperative”), and set an execution order of the commands in a case in which a plurality of commands are set, (pg. 15 of Kane “controlling a crew”), and operate the character inside the virtual space based on the commands and execution order set for the character, (pg. 9 of Kane “crew controls”), wherein the commands and the execution order are set based on an instruction of each user associated with each character in association with each of one or more characters, (pg. 9 of Kane “crew control” and “actions”), and cause a first and second character associated with a first and second user, (pg. 11 of Kane “game mode” “two-player cooperative”), to operate inside the virtual space based on the commands and the execution order set for the first and second character regardless of an instruction from a first or second user, (pg. 14 of Kane “controlling a crew”), and in a case in which a positional relation of the second character with respect to the first character inside the virtual space satisfies predetermined conditions, cause at least one of the first character and the second character to execute a predetermined operation with preference over an operation based on the commands set for the first character and the commands set for the second character, (pg. 14 of Kane “controlling a crew”), wherein the Examiner views the commands of “return to me”, for example, as being equivalent to executing a predetermined operation with preference over an operation based on commands set for the first and second characters.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Kane discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to stop an operation of a character owned by a user that is in the middle of the operation inside the virtual space based on a stop instruction from the user, and receive a new setting of the commands and the execution order instead of the commands and the execution order set for the stopped character, (pg. 14 of Kane “controlling a crew”, “return to me”, “attack this location”, “move to this location”), wherein the Examiner views the commands of “return to me”, “attack this location”, and then “move to this location”, as being equivalent to a player character receiving a stop and receiving a new setting of commands in the virtual space.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Kane discloses processing circuitry is further configured to dispose a character inside the virtual unit space, wherein the virtual space is configured to include a plurality of areas formed from one or more virtual unit spaces, (pg. 12 “grenades” with figure showing a player character throwing a grenade inside a virtual space), and each of the plurality of areas is associated with each of the plurality of users, and wherein, (pg. 11 with figure showing multiple player characters that may be controlled by a multiple users as on pg. 10 “game mode” “two-player cooperative”), when an operation start position that is a position inside the area at which the character starts an operation is designated, permit designation of the operation start position of the first character inside a first area associated with the first user and prohibit designation of the operation start position of the first character inside a second area not associated with the first user, (pg. 12, “grenades” along figure showing a player character throwing a grenade inside a virtual space), wherein the Examiner views the operation of a player character throwing a grenade as being equivalent to operation start position that is a position inside the area at which the character starts an operation is designated and then permit designation of the operation start position of the first character inside a first area associated with the first user and prohibit designation of the operation start position of the first character inside a second area not associated with the first user.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Kane discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to dispose an object inside the virtual unit space, (“pg. 13, swapping weapons/inventory”), wherein the virtual space is configured to include a plurality of areas formed from one or more virtual unit spaces, and each of the plurality of areas is associated with each of the plurality of users, (pg. 11 with figure showing a plurality of characters in a plurality of areas in a virtual space), and permit installation of the object owned by the first user inside a first area associated with the first user and prohibit installation of the object and prohibit installation of the object inside a second area not associated with, (“pg. 13, swapping weapons/inventory”),wherein the Examiner views Kane’s teaching of opening an inventory, highlighting, and selecting a weapon to be used in the game as being equivalent to disposing and permitting installation of an object, (selecting a weapon to use), inside the virtual unit space and permitting installation of the object, wherein the installation of the object inside is prohibited when inventory graphic shown in the figure on pg. 13 is not open.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Kane discloses wherein, after the first character moves from the operation start position of the first area to the second area based on the command, set the command and the execution order inside the second area for the first character, (pg. 12, “grenades” along with figure showing a player character throwing a grenade inside a virtual space), wherein the views the player character throwing a grenade at a target as being equivalent to the first character moving from an operation start position of the first area to the second area based on the command, set the command and the execution order inside the second area for the first character.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Kane discloses receiving an instruction of execution and an instruction of stopping of the commands set for the character owned by each of the plurality of users and execute the command or stop the command at a timing at which the instruction of execution of the instruction of stopping is received, (pg. 9 of Kane “crew controls”, “ crew regroup”), wherein the Examiner views the command “crew regroup” as a stop command that is executed for each character of the plurality of users.
Regarding claim 8, Kane discloses operate each of the plurality of characters in real time inside the virtual space by being triggered upon reception of an instruction of execution of the command for each of the plurality of characters, (pg. 9 of Kane “crew controls”, “ crew regroup”).
Regarding claim 12, Kane discloses wherein, after the first character moves from the operation start position of the first area to the second area based on the command, set the commands and the execution order inside the second area for the first character, (pg. 12, “grenades” along with figure showing a player character throwing a grenade inside a virtual space), wherein the views the player character throwing a grenade at a target as being equivalent to the first character moving from an operation start position of the first area to the second area based on the command, set the command and the execution order inside the second area for the first character.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3 – 12, and 14 – 19 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 101 and Kane & Lynch.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights