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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/23 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprises”, "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is recommended to add a "." . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 6, 7,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “managing one or more values of one or more parameters associated with a group that includes a plurality of players; and when the one or more values of the one or more parameters satisfies a predetermined conditions, granting predetermined in-game privileges only to one or more players that have performed actions that satisfy the predetermined conditions, in the group associated with the one or more parameters”, are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, rules). The mere nominal recitation of computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-5 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 generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “a game server comprising a group information management unit and a privilege granting unit, a game program, a computer”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Sato (2019/0035226) teaches the additional elements (Fig 2, 6, ¶¶0057-0058, 0113-0115, 0195-0196).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-7, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and rules in In re Smith.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-7 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (2019/0035226).
Re Claim 1,
Sato discloses a game server (Fig 2, 6, ¶¶0057-0058, 0113-0115) comprising:
a group information management unit that manages one or more values of one or more parameters associated with a group that includes a plurality of players (Fig 8a-8b, ¶¶0049, 0124-0128; the server storage unit manages a plurality of players information including possessed ID, counter information, point, and event ID); and
a privilege granting unit that when the one or more values of the one or more parameters satisfies a predetermined conditions, grants predetermined in-game privileges only to one or more players that have performed actions that satisfy the predetermined conditions, in the group associated with the one or more parameters (Fig 1, 4a-5c, 10-12, ¶¶0047-0055; the server may add a predetermined number to a counter associated with the player of a group, in addition, the server may store the point value associated with the group, when the point value reaches a point setting value set in advance, the server may store the second game content associated with the player belonging to the group associated with the point value which has reached the point setting value).
Re Claim 2,
Sato discloses updates the one or more parameters in common in the group based on a behavior of one of the plurality of players in the group (¶¶0047-0055, 0124-0128).
Re Claim 3,
Sato discloses the predetermined condition includes that a sum of the one or more values of the one or more parameters of each of the plurality of players in the group reaches a predetermined value (¶¶0047-0055, 0124-0128).
Re Claims 6, 7,
Claims describe a game program and an information processing method embodied the limitations of claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (2019/0035226) in view of Nicely et al. (2010/0056247).
Re Claim 4,
Sato discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose granting the predetermined in-game privileges to a predetermined number of the plurality of players in order of their contribution to a sum of the one or more values of the one or more parameters. However, Nicely teaches rewarding one or more players based on each player’s contribution to the winning of a prize (Fig 4A-4G, ¶¶0144-0160). Nicely further teaches such a configuration enables players to make decisions which directly affect their ability to win awards in the game (¶0161). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Nicely into the game of Sato in order to make the game more interesting by enabling players to make decisions which directly affect their ability to win awards in the game.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (2019/0035226) in view of Elias et al. (2014/0057705).
Re Claim 5,
Sato discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the predetermined conditions, the predetermined in-game privileges, and the one or more players that are granted the predetermined in-game privileges are set individually for each of the one or more parameters. However, Elias teaches the predetermined conditions, the predetermined in-game privileges, and the one or more players that are granted the predetermined in-game privileges are set individually for each of the one or more parameters (Fig 7, ¶¶0061, 0087-0090, 0092-0097). Elias further teaches such a configuration creates exciting game which maintains players’ interest (¶0012). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Elias into the game of Sato in order to create exciting game which maintains players’ interest.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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 on 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715