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 Arguments
No certified copies of foreign priority have been received. Two attempts have been made by the Office on 01/31/24 and 12/11/25 to electronically retrieve the foreign application JP 2021-096046 to which priority is claimed, however, both attempts have failed. A certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.55(f).
The objection to the Specification is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the Specification, filed 12/10/25.
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 12/10/25. However, new claim objections have been presented, as discussed in detail below.
The claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been removed in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 12/10/25.
The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn or are moot in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 12/10/25.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the amended claims recite specific game methods comprising defined conditional logic and automated actions executed by the game system for regulating system behavior as opposed to behaviors of human players (Remarks, filed 12/10/25, pp. 12-13). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass certain methods of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions) but for the recitation of generic computing components (one or more processors, memory, and one or more programs). The claimed invention is directed to a competition between teams, wherein a player from a team battles a neutral character (e.g., a character controlled by an administrator/narrator/game master/etc.) to earn points which contribute to the player’s team’s score. This represents managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instruction, i.e., user(s) playing a game. Additionally, game play as described encompasses a social activity. The additional recitations of computing components for executing the abstract idea merely encompasses instructions to implement the abstract idea using a computer and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., computing environment).
Applicants further argue that the claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the amended game method is performed on a system that includes programs specifically configured to update game state, process player inputs, and determine outcomes, and further, the claimed game method improves on conventional information processing systems by “lower[ing] psychological barriers to interpersonal battles for novice players who are hesitant to engage in interpersonal battles or for players, who are unfamiliar with operations” and “allow[ing] a player to contribute to a team by an action other than an interpersonal battle in a game in which a plurality of players can participate and encourage joint fight with other players” (Remarks, filed 12/10/25, pp. 13-14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claim recites the additional limitations of one or more programs stored in memory and executable by one or more processors to execute the abstract idea (i.e., user(s) playing the game wherein an outcome of a battle between players is decided and points awarded accordingly), the limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely function as instructions to implement the abstract idea using a computer or generally link the abstract idea to a computing environment. The limitations fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), require the use of a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). Moreover, the above-argued improvement does not appear to be recited in the claims. That is, in order to affirmatively contribute to a team by earning points, a player must defeat a neutral character (e.g., a character controlled by an administrator, game master, etc.) wherein some skill on the part of the player is still required (see independent claims 1, 9, 17, wherein points are given to the player based on a result of a fight and state of the neutral character (e.g., the player successfully defeats the neutral character in the fight)).
Accordingly, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained, as presented in detail below.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Foreign priority has not been established, as noted in the Non-Final Rejection, filed 09/24/25, and presented again in detail below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan (JP2021-096046) on 06/09/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the recited Japanese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Further, while a request to retrieve the priority application was submitted by Applicant on 12/10/25, the attempt to retrieve the foreign application has failed on 12/11/25.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “even if the positional relationship satisfies the prescribed condition, preventing the player character of the player whose cumulative total of the prescribed points from satisfying the second condition to acquire the point object” recited in claim 5, ln. 3-5 and claim 13, ln. 3-5 should likely read “even if the positional relationship satisfies the prescribed condition, preventing the player character of the player whose cumulative total of the prescribed points satifies the second condition from acquiring the point object” for clarity purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
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 claims are directed to an abstract idea (certain methods of organizing human activity) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 9 recites “A game method” which falls within the “process” statutory category of invention.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] Claim 9 recites “A game method performed by a game system comprising one or more processors, memory and one or more programs that are stored in the memory and executed by the one or more processors, in which an ally team to which a player belongs and an enemy team to which another player belongs compete in a play field, and an outcome of a game is decided by comparing scores earned by the ally team and the enemy team, the game method comprising: deciding a state of a neutral character which acts without being operated by the player and the another player and with which prescribed points are associated, based on a result of a fight in which the neutral character and a player character of a player fight; and controlling a giving of the prescribed points associated with the neutral character to the player, based on the state of the neutral character.” The italicized limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass certain methods of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computing components. That is, the claimed invention recites controlling a player character in a fight with a neutral character (e.g., a character controlled by an administrator/narrator/game master/etc.), thereby changing a state of the neutral character, and awarding points accordingly. This represents managing personal behavior and interactions between people, i.e., user(s) playing the game. To the extent game play is a social activity, this also represents an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim does not recite additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the claim requires the additional limitations of a game system comprising one or more processors, memory, and one or more programs stored in the memory and executed by the one or more processors, these additional limitations are generic computing components that merely function to apply the abstract idea to a computer environment, or to use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, require the use of a particular machine, or effect a transformation. Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Rather, the additional limitations merely require the implementation of the abstract idea using generic computing components. Therefore, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 1 and 17 are rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are dependent on claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Therefore, claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Screen captures from Youtube video clip entitled ““Blastoise pokemon review Pokemon UNITE BETA GAMEPLAY – POKEMON MOBA GAME”, 24 pages, uploaded on Mar. 10, 2021 by user “Bibi Pew” (hereinafter “Bibi”).
Regarding claim 1, Bibi discloses a game system comprising one or more processors, memory, and one or more programs that are stored in the memory and executed by the one or more processors for performing a game method (0:00-0:05; 10:52, a digital game to be played on a computing device (e.g., smartphone) which includes one or more processors, memory, and one or more programs stored in the memory and executed by the one or more processors for performing the game), in which an ally team to which a player belongs and an enemy team to which another player belongs compete in a play field (7:30-7:39; 7:51, wherein an ally team of 5 members including a player (e.g., bibipew) competes in a play field against an enemy team comprising at least another player), and an outcome of a game is decided by comparing scores earned by the ally team and the enemy team (17:48-17:49), the one or more programs comprising instructions for:
deciding a character state of a neutral character which acts without being operated by the player and the another player and with which prescribed points are associated, based on a result of a fight in which the neutral character and a player character of a player fight (7:30-7:52, wherein a state (e.g., health) of a wild Pokémon (neutral character) is determined based on a fight between the neutral character and a player character of the player, and wherein points (e.g., 2) are associated with the wild Pokémon (neutral character)); and
giving the prescribed points associated with the neutral character to the player, based on the character state of the neutral character (7:30-7:52, wherein the points associated with the wild Pokémon (neutral character) are acquired by the player character upon defeating (i.e., zero health state) the wild Pokémon (neutral character)).
Regarding claim 2, Bibi further discloses wherein the one or more programs comprise instructions for: automatically giving the prescribed points to the player if a cumulative total of the prescribed points that are given to the player satisfies a first condition in relation to an upper limit set for the player (7:51; 15:21-15:34; 17:03-17:05, wherein the prescribed points are automatically awarded to the player character if the cumulative total of the prescribed points is less than an upper limit set for the player (e.g., 50 points)); and
causing a point object to appear in the play field and making the point object available for acquisition by any player of the ally team and the enemy team if the cumulative total of the prescribed points that are given to the player satisfies a second condition in relation to the upper limit set for the player (1:06-1:07; 17:03-17:05, wherein if the cumulative total of the prescribed points would exceed the upper limit set for the player (e.g., 50), a point object (ball-shaped objects) appears in the play field and is available for acquisition by both the ally and the enemy team).
Regarding claim 3, Bibi further discloses wherein the one or more programs comprise instructions for: if the second condition is a condition where the cumulative total of the prescribed points that are given to the player exceeds the upper limit, causing the point object to appear in accordance with a surplus obtained by subtracting the upper limit from the cumulative total (17:03-17:05, wherein if the cumulative total of the prescribed points would exceed the upper limit set for the player (e.g., 50), the point object (ball-shaped objects) appears in the play field and comprises the surplus points exceeding the upper limit (e.g., wherein the player character’s points increase from 49 to the upper limit of 50)).
Regarding claim 4, Bibi discloses wherein the one or more programs comprise instructions for: if a positional relationship between the player character and the point object satisfies a prescribed condition, making the point object available for acquisition by the player character (1:51-1:56, wherein based on a positional relationship between the player character and the point object satisfying a prescribed condition (e.g., a close distance), the point object appears on the player’s display available for acquisition by the player, if possible (e.g., player’s point value has not reached the upper limit (50))).
Regarding claim 5, Bibi further discloses wherein the one or more programs comprise instructions for: even if the positional relationship satisfies the prescribed condition, preventing the player character of the player whose cumulative total of the prescribed points from satisfying the second condition to acquire the point object (1:47-1:56, wherein the player character of the player is unable to collect the subject point objects as the upper limit (50) has been reached).
Regarding claim 6, Bibi further discloses wherein the neutral character is a special character, and the one or more programs comprise instructions for: when the result of the fight between the player character and the special character indicates a win of the player character, causing at least some of the prescribed points to appear in the play field as point objects (16:50-17:05, wherein if the cumulative total of the prescribed points of the neutral character which is a special character (e.g., the red lobster with a prescribed point value of 4 that fights back against the player character) exceeds the upper limit set for the player (e.g., 50), the point object (ball-shaped objects) appears in the play field and comprises the surplus points exceeding the upper limit (e.g., wherein the player character’s points increase from 49 to the upper limit of 50)).
Regarding claim 7, Bibi further discloses wherein the one or more programs comprise instructions for: converting points given to the player character into a score of the ally team in response to a prescribed operation of the player when the player character is located within a prescribed area provided in the play field (17:35-17:49, when the player character is moved into an enemy base/goal zone after acquiring points (e.g., 50 points depicted), scored points for the ally team can be acquired).
Regarding claim 8, Bibi further discloses wherein the prescribed area is an enemy base of the enemy team provided in the play field and a predetermined durability value is set for the enemy base (0:30; 0:37; 12:10; 12:52; 17:35-17:49, wherein the prescribed area is an enemy base, and wherein each base has a set durability value (e.g., 80, 100)), and the one or more programs comprise instructions for:
supplying a supply value corresponding to the score of the ally team to the enemy base (17:35-17:49, when the player character is moved into an enemy base/goal zone after acquiring points (e.g., 50 points depicted), scored points for the ally team can be acquired);
adding the supply value to a total value of supply values in the enemy base (0:30; 0:37; 12:10; 12:52; 17:35-17:49, wherein a supply value (total supply values) corresponding to the score is supplied to the enemy base); and
stopping function of the enemy base when the total value of the supply values accumulated in the enemy base is equal to or greater than the durability value (0:30; 0:37; 12:10; 12:52; 17:35-17:49, wherein an enemy base may be destroyed if the supply value is equal to or greater than the durability value).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is a game method of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is a game method of claim 2 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is a game method of claim 3 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is a game method of claim 4 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is a game method of claim 5 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is a game method of claim 6 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is a game method of claim 7 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is a game method of claim 8 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 3 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 4 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
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 ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights