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
This is responsive to the claim amendments filed 8/11/2023.
Claims 1-13 & 15-21 are pending.
Signed copies of the IDS’ are attached.
The Drawings filed 1/31/2024 are noted.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that claims reciting “and/or” limitations, (e.g., “A and/or B”), are construed as requiring element A alone, element B alone, or elements A and B taken together.1 While not indefinite, in the Gross decision, the PTAB suggested that the preferred verbiage of such limitations is “at least on of A and B”.
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 1-13 & 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
The claims are drawn to process, apparatus and CRM categories.
Thus, initially, 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?
Representative Claims 15 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea, noting that Claims 1 and 16 mirror this claim but being drawn to different statutory categories.
Claim 15: “A terminal device comprising: a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program executable on the processor, and steps of an in-game team-forming method are implemented when the processor executes the computer program, wherein the in-game team-forming method comprises: in response to a touch operation on a team-forming control on a graphical user interface, determining a target object according to the touch operation, wherein the terminal device provides the graphical user interface and the graphical user interface comprises the team-forming control: determining a target team-forming mode corresponding to the target object based on a mapping relationship between an object and a team-forming mode, wherein the target team-forming mode comprises a team-forming task; and triggering, according to the target team-forming mode, a team-forming instruction corresponding to the target team-forming mode.”
The italicized limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG2, “certain methods of organizing human activity”, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The claims are drawn to forming a team for a game. This is managing personal behavior and relationships/interactions between people. This also represents a social activity, i.e., gaming and team-forming. Additionally, this is following rules or instructions, i.e., rules representing which player(s) form a team.
The dependent claims merely recite features for how inputs are manipulated (i.e., via drag inputs on a touch screen) and how data is rendered on a screen (team forming data.)
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 drawn to a computing system with a processor and memory, (a GUI).
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:
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 computer implementation.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract process. However, 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.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, the prior art relied on in the anticipation rejection, infra, shows the conventionality of GUIs with touch screens used to implement games. 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). Additionally, Applicant’s Specifications acknowledge that generic devices including desktop computers are used to implement the claimed invention.3
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 provide conventional computer implementation of an abstract process.
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 only 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 precedent controls4:
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 § 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 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, 6-8, 15 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakeford et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2018/0318714 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 15 & 16: Wakeford discloses an in-game team-forming method, (Abstract), a terminal device comprising: a memory and a processor, (Fig. 1, 100, processor 121, memory 122), wherein the memory stores a computer program executable on the processor, (¶ 8), and steps of an in-game team-forming method are implemented when the processor executes the computer program, (¶¶ 8, 126), wherein the in-game team-forming method comprises: in response to a touch operation on a team-forming control on a graphical user interface, (e.g., Fig. 1, ¶¶ 6, 31, 65, 66, clicking a GUI object is a “touch operation” including clicking user component to view potential team member data.
Wakeford discloses determining a target object according to the touch operation, (e.g. ¶¶ 6, 71), wherein the terminal device provides the graphical user interface and the graphical user interface comprises the team-forming control, (¶¶ 71-73): determining a target team-forming mode, (¶ 99), corresponding to the target object based on a mapping relationship between an object and a team-forming mode, (¶¶ 71-73), wherein the target team-forming mode comprises a team-forming task, (¶¶ 77, 78, Fig. 5, 500, task capabilities 520, 530); and triggering, according to the target team-forming mode, a team-forming instruction corresponding to the target team-forming mode, (e.g., Fig. 10, ¶ 86, instruction comprises dialog box to join team).
Regarding Claim 6: See Wakeford e.g., Figs 1, 10, 11.
Regarding Claim 7: See Wakeford e.g., ¶¶ 71-73, 77, 78, Fig. 10, 11.
Regarding Claim 8: See Wakeford e.g., ¶¶ 71-73, 77, 78, Fig. 10, 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-5 & 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakeford et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2018/0318714 A1) in view of “Fate Grand Order” (NPL published 6/23/2020, Pages 3-5, attached.)
Wakeford discloses the invention substantially but does not teach a touch-screen used with a team-forming control, with first and second touch points, and dragging operations on a dragging track to select an end point and target object, as required by these dependent claims.
However, in a related invention, “Fate Grand Order” teaches a game with a touch screen GUI. The game uses drag and drop operations to form and replace team members. It also shows the ability to select a target object for the team formation and drag objects along a track representing potential team lineups. (See “Fate Grant Order” Page 3, “Drag and Drop for CEs”.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have provided the drag and drop team-formation interface suggested by “Fate Grand Order” in Wakeford’s system for the purpose of providing a convenient method for rapidly selecting team members and their respective positions during a game scene. A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that touch screens work just as one would expect them to and yield predictable results.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakeford et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2018/0318714 A1) and “Fate Grand Order” (NPL published 6/23/2020, Pages 3-5, attached), as applied to Claim 1, in view of Lee (U.S. Pub. No.: 2020/0376388 A1).
Wakeford and “Fate Grand Order” teach the invention substantially but does not make explicit, determining a target team-forming mode based on a pre-configured mapping relationship data table between identification information and a team-forming mode of the object, with text identification, and second mapping relationship data, as required by these dependent claims.
However, in a related invention, Lee shows a team management screen with a target team-forming mode, (Lee, Fig. 3.) Lee shows a pre-configured mapping relationship table between identification information and a team-forming mode of the object, (Lee, Fig. 4 and related description.) Lee shows text identification in a team-forming mode, (e.g., Lee, Fig. 4, 410, 420.) Lee shows dragging and dropping characters in a relationship table to form a team, (Lee, Figs. 5-7 and related description.) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have incorporated Lee’s team management interface in the system of Wakeford and “Grade Fate Order” for the purpose of providing a more versatile manner of organizing and forming multilpe teams.
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, generally 9am-5:30 pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Ex Parte Gross, App. 11/565/441, (PTAB 2014)
2 See MPEP 2106
3 Specifications [0079] “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram displaying the graphical user interface provided in an embodiment of the present disclosure. Referring to FIG. 1, a graphical user interface 100 may be an interface displayed on a terminal device, wherein the terminal device may be any type of computer equipment, such as a computer, a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a game console, or dedicated electronic equipment, which is not specifically limited herein.” (Emphasis Added.)
4: Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015)