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 .
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 10/20/2023.1
Claims 1-16 & 18-21 are pending.
Signed copies of the IDS’ are attached.
The Drawings filed10/20/2023 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.2 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 1-16 & 18-21 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 Claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea, noting that independent Claims 18 & 19 recite substantially similar limitations but being drawn to different statutory classes.
Claim 1: “An execution method for an event in a game, wherein the game comprises a first game character, and the execution method comprises: determining, according to an execution result of the first game character on a target task, a target character camp to which the first game character belongs; wherein target tasks of the first game character are different in different seasons; and the target character camp comprises a first camp or a second camp; determining, according to the target character camp to which the first game character belongs, a target interaction event to be executed by the first game character; wherein interaction events corresponding to different types of character camps are different; and controlling, in response to a first interaction instruction for the first game character, the first game character to execute the target interaction event.”
The italicized limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG3, “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 claimed invention is drawn to managing a game including determining character groupings, task timings and controlling interactions. This is managing personal behavior between users of the game. This also represents managing interactions between people, i.e., gamers.
Further, to the extent the claims are drawn to how a game is played, this also represents interactions between players and a social activity. It also represents following rules/instructions (i.e., rules defining how the game is conducted.)
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into 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 processor and memory storing executable instructions, (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 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 mobile devices4 and personal computers5 are used to implement the claimed invention.
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 controls6:
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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (U.S. Patent No.: 6,299,535 B1) in view of Lord et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2010/0075761 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 18 & 19: Tanaka discloses an execution method for an event in a game, wherein the game comprises a first game character, (Abstract, Col. 2. Lines 2-9), and the execution method comprises: determining, according to an execution result of the first game character on a target task, a target character camp to which the first game character belongs, (e.g., Col. 4. Lines 30-49, 50-53, characters within the same party in contrast to break-off characters).
Tanaka discloses the target character camp comprises a first camp or a second camp, (e.g., Col. 4. Lines 50-53), determining, according to the target character camp to which the first game character belongs, a target interaction event to be executed by the first game character, (Fig. 9 and related description); wherein interaction events corresponding to different types of character camps are different, (e.g., Fig. 4, 41 and related descriptions); and controlling, in response to a first interaction instruction for the first game character, the first game character to execute the target interaction event, (e.g., Fig. 6 and related description.)
Tanaka discloses the invention substantially but does not make explicit, wherein target tasks of the first game character are different in different seasons. Here, the claimed language “different seasons” is construed as requiring different time periods. In a related invention, Lord teaches character game quests that are vary across different time periods, (e.g., Lord, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 38, 55, 58.)
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 different game tasks for different time periods, suggested by Lord, in the system of Tanaka for the purpose of effectively assigning game objectives to progress a storyline.
Regarding Claims 2, 20: See Tanaka, e.g., Col. 4. Lines 30-49, 50-53, Col. 5. Lines 5-26, Fig. 4, 404-405 and related description.
Claims 3 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (U.S. Patent No.: 6,299,535 B1) in view of Lord et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2010/0075761 A1) as applied to Claim 1, in view of Suzuki (U.S. Pub. No.: 2014/0378230).
Tanaka and Lord teach the invention substantially but do not show the claimed invitation task associating a character with a camp. However, in a related invention, Suzuki teaches team-based battle games where players are invited to join guilds, (Suzuki, e.g., ¶ 54). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have provided Suzuki’s teaching of inviting players to join guilds, in the system of Tanaka and Lord, for the purpose of establishing teams.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (U.S. Patent No.: 6,299,535 B1) in view of Lord et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2010/0075761 A1) as applied to Claim 1, in view of Trombetta et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2019/0262724 A1).
Tanaka and Lord teach the invention substantially but do not show a first game character belonging to a first camp with greater game resources than a fourth game character belonging to a second camp. However, in a related invention, Trombetta shows the concept of team management with large numbers of players with varying resources/skill levels maintained in a database such that characters in some teams may have greater resources than characters in other teams (Trombetta, e.g., ¶¶ 23, 24.) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have operated Tanaka such that character resource level varied by team, as suggested by Trombetta, for several reasons including advancing players to tournament levels.
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 It is noted that the file wrapper contains 3 listings of claims. Normally, the most recent claim set controls. However, since Applicant has entered an amendment including new claims on 10/20/2023, it appears Applicant intended to have these claims examined.
2 Ex Parte Gross, App. 11/565/441, (PTAB 2014)
3 See MPEP 2106
4 Specifications: [0070] “In an optional embodiment, various cloud applications, e.g., cloud games, may be run under the cloud interaction system. Taking the cloud game as an example, a cloud game refers to a game mode based on cloud computing. In the operation mode of the cloud game, the operation subject of the game program and the presentation subject of the gaming footage are separated, and the storage and operation of the execution method for an event in a game are completed on the cloud game server. The client device is used for data reception, data transmission and presentation of the gaming footage. For example, the client device may be a display device with a data transmission function near the user side, such as a mobile terminal, TV, computer, PDA, etc. However, the terminal device for processing the information is the cloud game server in the cloud. When the game is performed, the player operates the client device to send an operation instruction to the cloud game server. The cloud game server runs the game according to the operation instruction, encodes and compresses data such as the gaming footage, and returns the data to the client device via network; and finally, the client device decodes the data and outputs the gaming footage.” (Emphasis Added.)
5Specifications: [0229] “If the functions described are realized in the form of software functional unit and sold or used as independent product, they may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the essence of the technical solution of the present disclosure or the part that contributes to the prior art or the part of the technical solution may be embodied in the form of software product. The computer software product is stored in a storage medium, and includes several instructions to enable a computer device (which may be a personal computer, a server, or a network device, etc.) to perform all or part of the steps of the methods described in various embodiments of the present disclosure. The foregoing storage media include various media that may store a program code such as a U disk, mobile hard disk, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), magnetic disk, optical disk or the like.” (Emphasis Added.)
6: Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015)