Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/587,286

NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
Feb 26, 2024
Examiner
ELISCA, PIERRE E
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Cygames Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
1386 granted / 1538 resolved
+20.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1562
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
§103
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
§102
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
§112
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1538 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
DETAILED ACTION 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 . 2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/587,286 filed on 02/26/2024. Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement IDSs are considered. The drawings filed on 02/26/2024 are noted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 6. 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. 7. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitations of: “processing for generating a playlist that includes a plurality of pieces of song identification information”. The limitation of processing for generating a playlist that includes a plurality of pieces of song identification information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claims preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1-9 recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using a computer to generate a playlist that includes a plurality of pieces of song identification information; processing for setting display object information in association with each of the plurality of pieces of song identification information included in the playlist, based on an operation input of a player. The computer recites at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer processing a plurality of pieces of song identification information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. In the instant case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of processing for continuously playing back a plurality of songs corresponding to the plurality of pieces of song identification information includes in, the playlist; and processing for displaying and controlling an image during the continuous playback, based on the display object information associated with the song identification information, and are determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Thus, the additional element fails to ensure the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 1-9 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 9. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bright, Brian et al (US PG PUB 2009/0258700). As per claims 1 and 4-7, Bright discloses a music rhythm video game (see., Bright, paragraphs 0033-0036, Figs 1-3) comprising: processing for generating a playlist (playlist or list of songs) that includes a plurality of pieces of song identification information (see., Bright, paragraphs 0008 and 0033, the examiner broadly and reasonably interprets the newly modified of plurality of editable song tracks as plurality of pieces of song identification information); processing for setting display object information in association with each of the plurality of pieces of song identification information included in the playlist, based on an operation input of a player (see., 0008 and 0033-0036, the examiner broadly and reasonably interprets the newly modified of plurality of editable song tracks as plurality of pieces of song identification information); processing for continuously playing back a plurality of songs corresponding to the plurality of pieces of song identification information included in the playlist (see., paragraphs 0008-0036); processing for displaying and controlling an image during the continuous playback, based on the display object information associated with the song identification information (see., paragraphs 0008-0036, specifically paragraphs 0034, 0035, 0042, and 0046, for example, Icon 133, for performing selected and playback functions, figs 1-3). As per claims 2, Bright discloses the claimed limitations as stated in claim 1 above, wherein, in the processing for displaying and controlling the image, the image is displayed and controlled based on song display (see., paragraph 0034, the display is a TV)information on the songs corresponding to the song identification information and display information on a display object based on the display object information (see., paragraphs 0008-0036, specifically paragraphs 0034, 0035, 0042, and 0046, figs 1-3). As per claim 3, Bright discloses the claimed limitations as stated in claim 1 above, wherein the playlist includes order information indicating a playback order of the songs, and wherein, in the processing for continuously playing back, the plurality of songs are continuously played back based on the order information, and, upon an end of playback of each of the plurality of songs, playback of a song in a next playback order is started (see., paragraphs 0008-0036, specifically paragraphs 0034, 0035, 0042, and 0046, for example, Icon 133, for performing selected and playback functions, figs 1-3). As per claims 8 and 9, Bright discloses a music rhythm video game (see., Bright, paragraphs 0033-0036, Figs 1-3) comprising: processing for generating a playlist (playlist or list of songs) that includes a plurality of pieces of song identification information (see., Bright, paragraphs 0008 and 0033, the examiner broadly and reasonably interprets the newly modified of plurality of editable song tracks as plurality of pieces of song identification information); processing for setting display object information in association with each of the plurality of pieces of song identification information included in the playlist, based on an operation input of a player (see., 0008 and 0033-0036, the examiner broadly and reasonably interprets the newly modified of plurality of editable song tracks as plurality of pieces of song identification information); processing for continuously playing back a plurality of songs corresponding to the plurality of pieces of song identification information included in the playlist (see., paragraphs 0008-0036); processing for displaying and controlling an image during the continuous playback, based on the display object information associated with the song identification information (see., paragraphs 0008-0036, specifically paragraphs 0034, 0035, 0042, and 0046, for example, Icon 133, for performing selected and playback functions, figs 1-3). Conclusion 9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 7:30PM. Hoteler. 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, Hu Kang can be reached on 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 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. /PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 26, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102
Jan 27, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 09, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 10, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594461
USER EXERCISE DETECTION METHOD, ROBOT AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592162
FLIGHT SIMULATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592166
DEVICE FOR THE CREATION AND MANAGEMENT OF STYLE PROTOTYPES WITH THE INTEGRATION OF PHYSICAL AND VIRTUAL TOOLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579863
ACCESSING GAMING ESTABLISHMENT ACCOUNT FUNDS CONVERTED TO A TICKET VOUCHER AS PART OF CASHOUT TRANSACTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569762
SENSORY INTERACTIVITY MODIFICATION IN A VIRTUAL REALITY ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+6.2%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1538 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month