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 .
Status of the Application
This Office-Action acknowledges the Amendment filed on 12/23/2025 and is a response to said Amendment.
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 1-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-21are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 12 and 13) recites:
An information pushing method/electronic device/non-transitory computer readable media comprising:
executing a game application and rendering the game application on a display of the first terminal to obtain a graphical user interface;
displaying a chat interface comprising at least two players on the graphical user interface, the at least two players comprising a first player corresponding to the first terminal and a second player corresponding to a second terminal;
receiving a request for guidance initiated by the second player via the second terminal in the chat interface;
acquiring, in response to a reply operation by the first player to the request for guidance via the first terminal, a target tutorial corresponding to the reply operation from a plurality of tutorials;
acquiring, in response to the reply operation by the first player to the request for guidance via the first terminal, based on game behaviors and performances of players, a third player not sending a request for guidance; and
sending the target tutorial to the second terminal of the second player and a third terminal of the third player, the target tutorial being configured to guide the second player and the third player to play a game.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite mental
process because it can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s analysis, the claimed invention can be
interpreted as being directed towards mental processes because it can be carried out by hand without aid of a computer or computer components. For example: “receiving a request for guidance initiated by the second player via the second terminal in the chat interface; acquiring, in response to a reply operation by the first player to the request for guidance via the first terminal, a target tutorial corresponding to the reply operation from a plurality of tutorials; acquiring, in response to a reply operation by the first player to the request for guidance via the first terminal, a target tutorial corresponding to the reply operation from a plurality of tutorials; and sending the target tutorial to the second terminal of the second player and a third terminal of the third player, the target tutorial being configured to guide the second player and the third player to play a game.” can be interpreted as a first individual playing a game with a second individual and the first individual receiving a message (via a written letter) which the second individual is requesting for help. The first individual can select from a plurality of tutorials (such as a rule book about how to play the particular game in which the second player needs help) and provide the target tutorial to the second player. Furthermore, the tutorial being sent could be disseminated to a third player in which that player did not request guidance but is provided with such information regardless.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people because it includes social activities (ie: a first player and a second player interacting with one another) as well as teaching (ie: the first player providing what could be considered a teachable concept as help upon a help request from the second player.).
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claim 1, 12-13 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: electronic device, memory, at least one processor.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Colson et al., US 20050108402 discloses that chat rooms, news groups and list servers are well-known forms of multi-participant communications (paragraph 4);
Hogan et al., US 20070111794 discloses that a well-known feature of online games is the ability to "chat" with other players of the game. A player types text into a text field that is transmitted to another player. The transmitted text appears on the other player's screen (paragraph 38);
Wu, US 20120083343 discloses that that it is conventional that online games in which multiple players can play can comprise client computing devices for allowing players to play online (paragraph 6);
Rodriquez, US 7,288,028, teaches that client platform devices are well-known and/or conventional for the purposes of implementing online games (Col. 4, lines 29-39);
Naicker, US 20070167235, discloses the use of generic client platform device for implementing online games (paragraph 16);
Kim, US 20130059656, discloses it is well known in the art for user to play online games by accessing game servers over the internet via client platform devices e.g. representing a computing system (paragraph 3);
Yukishita, US 20140073434, discloses that it is conventionally known in the art for players to playing online games via a server and client configuration (computing system) (paragraph 3);
George, US 20080015006, discloses it is well known in the art for gaming machine (client platform devices) to include interfaces for providing inputs to the gaming machine (paragraph 28);
Rateliff, US 20090181774, discloses it is known to provide user interfaces having known input means to users of gaming client platform devices for purpose of providing gaming inputs (paragraph 53);
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-6, 8-10, 14, 16-21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presented arguments regarding USC 101, namely stating:
The claim elements underlined above do not concern mental processes, since it apparent cannot be "performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.
The Examiner disagrees. Regarding the underlined limitation “acquiring, in response to the reply operation by the first player to the request for guidance via the first terminal, based on game behaviors and performances of players, a third player not sending a request for guidance”, this can be interpreted as being a mental process. For example, an individual can merely observe behaviors and performances of players and make a mental determination (ie: acquiring) on those players’ behaviors and performances, even if there was no request for guidance from such players.
Applicant states: Although the claim does not recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon, it is now further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the above-identified distinguishing features, the target tutorial may be directly sent to the other players based on the game behaviors and performances without the repetitive interaction which involves receiving the request for guidance and acquiring the target tutorial (referring to para. 0065 of the present application).
The Examiner disagrees and believes no additional elements would direct the claimed invention towards eligible subject matter. In this case, as indicated above, regarding the newly added limitation, information (ie: tutorial) could easily be disseminated without aid of a computer. Once again, an individual can merely observe behaviors and performances of players and make a mental determination (ie: acquiring) on those players’ behaviors and performances, even if there was no request for guidance from such players, and disseminate information to help guide those players along, even if the players made no request for such guidance (eg: unsolicited game play advice)
Applicant states: Applicant nevertheless continues with further remarks with respect to Step 2B.
As discussed in Step 2A, the additional limitations of the claim (i.e., "acquiring, ..., based on game behaviors and performances of players, a third player not sending a request for guidance, ... sending the target tutorial to ... a third terminal of the third player") relate to an improved result of avoiding repetitive interaction and improving interaction efficiency.
Through the above technical features, the target tutorial may be directly sent to the other players based on the game behaviors and performances without the repetitive interaction which involves receiving the request for guidance and acquiring the target tutorial. Thus, the additional limitations of claim 1 provide an inventive concept and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In view of above, withdrawal of the rejection is believed appropriate and is, therefore, respectfully requested.
The Examiner disagrees and believes the limitation could be considered extra-solution activity because it discloses disseminating information (ie: tutorial) to other players (ie: players that did now make a request for guidance). The Examiner also pointed out in the rejection above, that Colson et al., US 20050108402 discloses that chat rooms, news groups and list servers are well-known forms of multi-participant communications (paragraph 4). In this case, when it comes to multi-participant communications among player, the Examiner believes the dissemination of information (ie: tutorial) are well-known. Therefore, the Examiner does not believe the newly added limitation of claimed invention provides an inventive concept nor amount to significantly more.
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 JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3715