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 5 – 7 have been amended. Claims 1 – 16 are 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 - 16 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 – 4, 6 – 10, and 14 - 16 are directed towards a system, server, and medium, (machine), and claims 5 and 11 - 13 are directed towards a device and 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 game system in which an ally team to which a player belongs and an enemy team to which other players belong contend with each other on a play field displayed on a display, the game system comprising: processing circuitry configured to control display of the display; control assignment of predetermined points associated with a neutral character to the player based on a result of a fight when the neutral character that operates without being operated by the player and the other players and is associated with the predetermined points and the player character fight each other; set points assigned to the player as a score of the ally team in a case in which the player character is positioned inside a predetermined area disposed inside the play field; and calculate and store the totals of scores during execution of the game while preventing display of the totals on the plurality of information terminals until victory or defeat is determined, thereby maintaining player engagement throughout the game and preventing player abandonment that would compromise integrity of the multiplayer game; and determine victory or defeat by comparing a score of the ally team with a score of the enemy team, wherein the display, before victory or defeat is determined, does not display totals of scores of the ally team and the enemy team on the display, and after victory or defeat is determined, displays totals of scores of the ally team and the enemy team and displays score progress of each of one or more player characters belonging to the ally team on the display.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 5 – 7 and 15. Dependent claims 2 – 4, 8 – 14, and 16 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following groupings below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (rules for playing a game)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for playing a game and interactions between people, (players of the game), which falls into the category of organizing human activity, managing personal behavior or relationships between people, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)) and the abstract idea of observation, evaluation, and judgment, (determining an outcome), which falls into the category of mental processes (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
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 processing circuitry along with instructions that display and allow a player to control progress of a game and determine an outcome, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
The 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 a processing circuitry and gaming characters being controlled by players in a video game, however, viewed as a whole, this additional element is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicants argue that “amended claim 1 is patent-eligible under 35 USC § 101”. More specifically, it is argued that, with respect to claim 1 as amended, that the “limitations do not recite rules for human behavior or contractual agreements; rather, they recite a specific technical solution for managing how score data is processed, stored, and selectively displayed in a multiplayer gaming”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed towards a gaming system wherein players compete each other in a multiplayer game and an outcome is determined and displayed to each player. The claims are clearly directed towards managing a game which has been identified by the courts as abstract ideas. Furthermore, the amended claim language, “maintaining player engagement throughout the game and preventing player abandonment”, in addition to absence of additional elements essential to video game systems, (processor, display, interface), does not reflect an improvement to gaming technology nor does it provide a technical solution to a problem. Therefore, the maintains that claims 1 – 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
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