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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, to claims 1-8, 12, 14-17, and 19 in the reply filed on 2/11/26 is acknowledged.
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 1-8, 12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims are directed to managing a session (mental processes and organizing methods of human activity) involving:
managing a session in which a plurality of users can participate (mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity – game, meetings, event rules);
sending a joining request for a session;
generating a session when a session generation condition is satisfied;
causing a user to join a session selected based on a predetermined condition when a joining request is acquired from a user;
withdrawing a user participating in a session from the session when a withdrawal condition concerning the user is satisfied;
discarding a session when a first time has passed since the session was generated;
discarding a session when a second time has passed since the session became empty of participants, regardless of whether the first time has passed since the session was generated or not.
Claims 1, 12, 14, and 19 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of managing a session.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claims 1, 12, 14, 19 recite “server apparatus”, “user terminal”; claim 12 recite “non-transitory storage medium”, “computer”; claim 19 recites “information processing system”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (unit, generation unit, joining unit, withdrawal unit, first discarding unit, seconding discarding unit,) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (user terminal, server apparatus, computer, non-transitory computer-readable medium, information processing system) managing session data are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic server apparatuses, computer, memory, information processing system, units, and data managing as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-8, 12, 14-17, and 19 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mental process and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of managing a session, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
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.
Claims 1-3, 12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20200016495 to Cruz et al (Cruz) in view of US Pub. 20160277483 to Byskal et al (Byskal).
Claims 1, 12, 14, and 19. Cruz discloses (as required by claim 19) an information processing system comprising:
(as required by claim 19) a server apparatus for managing a session in which a plurality of users can participate (¶¶27, 36 “host (e.g., a processing system or server)”;
(as required by claim 12) a non-transitory storage medium containing information processing instructions for managing a session in which a plurality of users can participate, the information processing instructions, when executed by a computer (¶¶37, 115, 120 “computer-readable storage media”), causing the computer to perform operations of:
(as required by claim 19) a user terminal of each user (¶4 “client devices”), wherein each user terminal comprises:
(as required by claim 19) a unit for sending a joining request for a session to the server apparatus (¶¶27-28 “requests from the other users to join sessions”), and
wherein the server apparatus comprises:
a generation unit for generating a session when a session generation condition is satisfied (¶¶4, 63, 85 “start of new sessions”, “streamer/host may initiate the session as active”);
a joining unit for causing a user to join a session selected based on a predetermined condition when a joining request is acquired from a user terminal of the user (¶40 “highlighting or activating a selectable option for requesting to join a session”, ¶¶84, 100 “accept the session invite”);
a withdrawal unit for withdrawing a user participating in a session from the session when a withdrawal condition concerning the user is satisfied (¶¶4, 29 “After the completion of a session, automatic removal of the guest players”);
a first discarding unit for discarding a session when a first time has passed since the session was generated (¶94 “setting durations for sessions”, “displaying session information such as time remaining”); and
a second discarding unit for discarding a session when a second time has passed, regardless of whether the first time has passed since the session was generated or not (¶94 “ending a session, ending a stream”, i.e., a host can decide to end a session/stream at any given time including before the time remaining in the session expires).
However, Cruz fails to explicitly disclose a second discarding unit for discarding a session when a second time has passed since the session became empty of participants, regardless of whether the first time has passed since the session was generated or not.
Byskal teaches since the session became empty of participants (¶37 “unoccupied user sessions”, “duration information”, “termination information”). The gaming system of Cruz would have motivation to use the teachings of Byskal in order to track when gaming sessions has become unoccupied so that the unoccupied sessions are terminated, in doing so would take computing and processing loads and work off of the gaming system in hopes to provide a better performing gaming system.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Cruz with the teachings of Byskal in order to relieve the gaming system of some the computing and processing work in hopes to provide a better performing gaming system.
Claim 2. Cruz discloses wherein users participating in a session can play a game associated with the session together through user terminals of the users, the server apparatus further comprising:
a progress updating unit for updating progress of the game based on data acquired from the user terminals of the users participating in the session; and
a rewarding unit for giving a reward to users participating in the session when the progress satisfies a rewarding condition (¶¶50, 128 “user rewards”).
Claim 3. Cruz discloses wherein the rewarding unit gives the reward to users who were participating in the session at a time when the progress satisfied the rewarding condition (¶¶50, 128 “user rewards”).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20200016495 to Cruz et al (Cruz) in view of US Pub. 20160277483 to Byskal et al (Byskal) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20040002384 to Multerer et al (Multerer).
Claims 4 and 15. Cruz in view of Byskal teaches wherein the generation unit generates a new session (see Byskal ¶40 “create the content may assist in configuration of new user sessions for one or more users”) determining that the session generation condition is satisfied (see Cruz ¶¶63, 130 “a predetermined number of the queued users into the session to initiate an active session”).
However, Cruz in view of Byskal fails to explicitly disclose if there is no session being managed by the server apparatus when a joining request is made.
Multerer teaches generates a new session if there is no session being managed (¶40 “a computing device requests to join a game session with a set of attributes for which no current game session satisfies, then match making system 104 may automatically create a new game session with that set of attributes). The gaming system of Cruz in view of Byskal would have motivation to use the teachings of Multerer in order to accommodate game players according to their specific game preferences in doing so would encourage more players to use the gaming system, hence, increasing the popularity of the gaming system.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Cruz in view of Byskal with the teachings of Multerer in order to accommodate game players according to their specific game preferences in doing so would encourage more players to use the gaming system, hence, increasing the popularity of the gaming system.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20200016495 to Cruz et al (Cruz) in view of US Pub. 20160277483 to Byskal et al (Byskal) and US Pub. 20040002384 to Multerer et al (Multerer) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20170095739 to Thaler et al (Thaler).
Claims 5 and 16. Cruz in view of Byskal teaches wherein the generation unit generates a new session (see Byskal ¶40 “create the content may assist in configuration of new user sessions for one or more users”; see Cruz ¶77 “multiplayer (MP) service stream (or game session) is created”) determining that the session generation condition is satisfied (see Cruz ¶¶63, 130 “a predetermined number of the queued users into the session to initiate an active session”).
However, Cruz in view of Byskal fails to explicitly disclose if there is no open slot in any session.
Thaler teaches if there is no open slot in any session (¶51). The gaming system of Cruz in view of Byskal and Multerer would have motivation to use the teachings of Thaler in order to keep game players from waiting long periods of time before entering a game contest in doing so would provide a better gaming experience for game players.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Cruz in view of Byskal and Multerer with the teachings of Thaler in order to keep game players from waiting long periods of time before entering a game contest in doing so would provide a better gaming experience for game players.
Claims 6-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20200016495 to Cruz et al (Cruz) in view of US Pub. 20160277483 to Byskal et al (Byskal) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20060068917 to Snoddy et al (Snoddy).
Claims 6 and 17. Cruz in view of Byskal fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claims 6 and 17.
Snoddy teaches after a user left the session and if a session is not yet discarded, the joining unit causes the user to join the session if a joining request is acquired again from a user terminal of the user (¶¶153-155 “Once a player is removed from the game at step 540, he or she may opt to be placed in the queue to re-enter the game at the next opportunity”). The gaming system of Cruz in view of Byskal would have motivation to use the teachings of Snoddy in order to give losing game players second opportunities to play and possible succeed in a game.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Cruz in view of Byskal in view of Byskal with the teachings of Snoddy in order to give losing game players second opportunities to play and possible succeed in a game.
Claim 7. Cruz in view of Byskal and Snoddy teaches wherein if a joining request to join a session other than a session in which a user participates is acquired from a user terminal of the user, the joining unit restricts the participation in the other session (see Snoddy ¶¶155 and 252 “each player has his or her account debited for each time the player joins or rejoins the game”, i.e., a player is restricted unless he/she pays a fee to rejoin the game).
Claim 8. Cruz in view of Byskal and Snoddy teaches further comprising a restriction lifting unit for lifting the restriction on the participation in the other session in exchange for performing subtraction on a predetermined parameter managed in association with the user (Cruz ¶32 “enrolled in pay-to-play programs”; see Snoddy ¶¶155 and 252 “each player has his or her account debited for each time the player joins or rejoins the game”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715