DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 16 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, the amended claim limitations are seen to provide an advancement to the technological field to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. As the claims are directed towards a method, the claimed limitations are given patentable weight. Further reference the applicants’ arguments filed 7/9/2026. The closest art of record Navok teaches the dummy player but is silent with regards to the dart game play performance ability of the dummy player is determined in conjunction with first play result information of a player included in the second play session in which the dummy player is to participate.
Regarding claim 16, similar to claim 1 the claim amendments are seen to provide an advancement to the technological field to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. Claim 16 includes limitations directed towards server control units executing a program to perform the operations (similar to a processor configured to) which includes the amended claim limitations directed towards wherein a dart game play performance ability of the dummy player is determined in conjunction with first play result information of a player included in the second play session in which the dummy player is to participate. The closest art of record Navok teaches the dummy player but is silent with regards to the amended claim limitations. Reference the applicants’ arguments filed 7/9/2026.
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 of this title, 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(a) 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160062272A) in view of Jang (KR 20200042119 A) and Navok (US 20170072324 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches [Claim 15] A game server, comprising: a server network communication unit for receiving first play result information from a plurality of devices that participated in a first play session conducted during a first time period; and "Game server platform, according to an embodiment of the present invention 100 may provide for promotion game sessions to join a plurality of users. For promotion game sessions can provide a game platform with a plurality of users to compete. For promotion game session is a game to a game session is opened for a certain period of time, the server receives the play data of the game to the participant is performed from a partner terminal of the managing for promotion game session and for promotion game session, determine the outcome of for promotion game session It can mean a session. In addition, a plurality of sub-poetry game session sessions included, and the user of some of a plurality of the user by comparing the result of the game performed on the terminal sub-session of a plurality of end users may proceed to the sub-session to determine whether given eligible to participate in the next sub-session.", a server control unit for determining, based on the first play result information, a plurality of players to participate in a second play session during a second time period that is subsequent to the first time period, "Game server platform, according to an embodiment of the present invention 100 may provide for promotion game sessions to join a plurality of users. For promotion game sessions can provide a game platform with a plurality of users to compete. For promotion game session is a game to a game session is opened for a certain period of time, the server receives the play data of the game to the participant is performed from a partner terminal of the managing for promotion game session and for promotion game session, determine the outcome of for promotion game session It can mean a session. In addition, a plurality of sub-poetry game session included, and the user of some of a plurality of the user by comparing the result of the game performed on the terminal sub-session of a plurality of end users may proceed to the sub-session to determine whether given eligible to participate in the next sub-session.", wherein the control unit determines, based on the first play result information, a reserve player to conduct the second play session during the second time period, based on the number of reserve players, "For example, a time delay for a game session, a plurality of users decide to open up for promotion game sessions to join, determine that the to accommodate any participation of the plurality of users for promotion game session, and the time delay game session decide to end, and comparing the data of the game play carried out on a terminal of the plurality of users can determine the result of the game session for promotion.".
Navok does teach what the primary reference is silent on including determines whether to generate a dummy player, and adds the dummy player to the players to participate in the second play session when it is determined to generate the dummy player. See [0104+]. With regards to the limitations directed towards wherein a dart game play performance ability of the dummy player is determined in conjunction with first play result information of a player included in the second play session in which the dummy player is to participate these are considered to be directed towards the functional language of the apparatus. The dummy player of Navok and the functioning of the system is considered to be capable of achieving this functionality. As claim 15 does not explicitly call for a processor configured to carry out these tasks these limitations are considered to be functional language and do not differentiate over the cited prior art of record. Additionally, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
Jang does teach what the primary reference is silent on including A dart game played through a network. See Abstract which speaks of the use for a dart game service capable of being played through a network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Kim with Navok to provide a spectator game screen (See [0036+]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Kim with Jang to allow a dart game to be played through a network.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argued against the rejection under 35 USC 101, which the examiner finds persuasive. With regards to the rejections under 35 USC 103, the examiner has modified the grounds of rejection as shown above to address the amended claim limitations.
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 S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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 S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights