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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 8/5/26. Claims 1 and 5 – 7 have been amended. Claims 1 – 16 are pending in the current application.
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; calculate and store the totals of scores during execution of the game in a storage of a server connected to the plurality of information terminals through a communication network, and control the plurality of information terminals so as to suppress display of the stored totals on each of the plurality of information terminals during execution of the game and until victory or defeat is determined; and determine victory or defeat by comparing a score of the ally team with a score of the enemy team, wherein the display, 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 (managing interactions between people)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of managing interactions between people which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a game system that comprises an ally team that belongs to a player and an enemy team that belongs to other players, wherein the game system further discloses assigning points to a player based off a fight against a neutral player, calculating and suppressing the displaying of scores associated with the ally and enemy teams until after a victory or defeat is determined. Controlling a game system that manages points and scores for a plurality of players after a game outcome represents managing interactions between people. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a game system that manages or controls the assignment of points to a player of an ally team corresponding to a fight against a neutral character and players of an enemy team, wherein the game system further discloses determining a victory or defeat between the ally and enemy teams by comparing score totals, and suppressing the display of score totals until victory or defeat has been determined. The claims recite instructions disclosing these features. Here, a human can observe a fight between a player of an ally team against a neutral character or against another of an enemy, observe an outcome of the fight, and then determine which player from the ally or enemy team will receive the most points based on off the outcome of the fight. For example, in the event that player is playing an action-adventure game, (e.g. Legend of Zelda), a human can observe that their player character is confronted or challenged by an enemy character to a fight, wherein a player can then make the determination if the enemy character is a non-player character, (neutral character), or another player character from an enemy team, determine how to win the fight against the character, and then make the determination of who will receive the most points based on the result of the fight. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307). Furthermore, the claims are also drawn to how a game is played, which represents following rules/instructions that define how a game is conducted.
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 and a display along with instructions that assignment points and score totals based off the of a fight between game characters, 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, a display, and player characters associated with a plurality of players, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Olsen et al. 2008/0146302 par. 0081 regarding users controlling the actions of soldiers in a battle game as being conventional). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 8/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 – 16, Applicants argue, with respect to the current amendments, “the following remarks identify the specific technical problem described in the Specification and the specific technical solution provided by the claimed invention, and explain how the amended claims track that problem and solution”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The current claims are directed towards a game system where players compete by fighting against each or against a neutral character, wherein the game system assigns points and score totals to players after the outcome of the fight is determined, wherein the score totals are suppressed and only displayed to the players after the fight outcome is determined. Controlling a video game that allows players to compete or fight against each represents rules for conducting a game as discussed in Alice and Bilski v. Kappos. The controlling of game characters in a video game competition or fight are merely instructions or steps which are viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception. The control of video game characters does not represent a technical solution to a technical problem.
Applicants further argue that “The Specification describes a technical problem particular to networked multiplayer games of the many-to-many type”. More specifically, it is argued that paragraph 0048 of the specification, solving the problem of a player losing the desire to complete a game while losing is a technical solution to a technical problem. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Attracting or appealing to players to encourage them to continue playing a game is considered a business solution, purely chasing engagement metrics is not a practical application, because attracting players does not solve a technical problem, nor does it provide a technical solution.
Applicants further argue that displaying score totals are they are being computed is a technical problem, wherein the suppression of score totals until victory or defeat is determined, disclosed in paragraphs 0236, 0039, 0052, and 0069 of the specification, is a technical solution to this problem. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Suppressing score totals until a game outcome is determined is viewed as a game rule rather than a technical improvement. Merely disclosing that a game system performing game rules does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers.
Applicants further argue that “the amended claims are not directed to a mental process”. More specifically, it is argued that “storing team score totals in a server and controlling a plurality of information terminals, connected to that server through a communication network, so as to suppress and then release the display of those stored totals across terminals in coordination with the determination of the game’s outcome. Maintaining and synchronizing the display state of stored score data across a plurality of networked terminals is not an act that a person can perform in the mind”. While the Examiner agrees that the storing of scoring totals in a server and communicated to a plurality of information terminals through a network can be performed in a human mind, it is the gameplay itself that the Examiner considers as a mental process. As stated above, the claims recite instructions that assign points and score totals to players based off the of a fight outcome between game characters, wherein a human can observe a fight between game characters, and then determine which game character will receive the majority of the points depending on the outcome of the fight. These actions related to the game can be observed and determined in the human mind. For example, nothing precludes a human from observing a fight outcome between game characters, and nothing precludes a human from determining that the winner of the fight will receive the most points. This process can literally be performed in the human mind, which represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Applicants further argue that “Even if the amended claims were considered to recite an abstract idea, they integrate any such idea into a practical application”. More specifically it is argued that “By storing the totals at the server and controlling the networked terminals to withhold their display until the outcome is determined, the claimed invention improves the operation of the networked multiplayer gaming system itself, enabling the system to sustain a complete many-to-many match that would otherwise be subject to the player-abandonment failure mode the Specification identifies at paragraph [0048]. An improvement to the functioning of the system, reflected in the claimed control of the distribution and display of score data across networked terminals, is an improvement to technology under MPEP 2106.05(a) and is the kind of specific, technology- rooted solution that integrates a claim into a practical application”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely disclosing that “processing circuitry” stores and controls game scores and points does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. Generic processing devices, (processing circuitry and display), controlling and maintaining game scores and points are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) computer functions. See Alice (generic computer). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Therefore, the current claim language does not recite how the additional components, including the language model, disclose improvements such as reducing processing resources, reducing network bandwidth, or lowering processing time. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
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, 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.
/E.M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights