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 .
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 1-20 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 hosting an event involving:
Communicating game related information (e.g., status and operation inputs),
Determining relationships between users.
These steps, when viewed in their entirety, describe mental processes, and organizing and managing a set of rules for exchanging data during an event, which is a form of managing human activity and following rules for playing a game. The USPTO recognizes “rules for playing a game” as an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Example 37; and In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The recited “updating game status” and “outputting information indicating game status” of providing data based on an operation inputs from users are mental processes (commentating during the event, taking notes according to observation of the event) that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
The recited “establishing a predetermined relationship in the session” of determining an association between users based on positioning of respective characters in a game world are managing personal relationships, and mental processes (e.g., formulating a team, making friends) that could be performed in the human mind (via a person’s observation of the game play circumstances).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea: rules for hosting a game-related event and mental processes for communicating data and forming relationships among participants.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recited “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “computer”, “terminal”, “information processing apparatus”, and “server apparatus” are generic computer components performing generic functions (storing instructions, executing instructions).
The claims do 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 communicating data and forming relationships in a game according to rules.
The additional elements (storage medium, computer, terminal, information processing apparatus, server apparatus, character, virtual space) are conventional in video game implementations 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).
The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The use of generic computer-readable media, generic processors, and generic data storage to implement data communication and forming relationship rules are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of computer gaming.
The “updating game status”, “outputting information indicating game status”, and “establishing a predetermined relationship” are merely different sets of data used in the abstract communication process; they do not constitute an unconventional technical solution or improvement in computer functionality.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, the claim as a whole amounts to no more than the abstract idea of data communication and forming user relationships in a game according to rules, implemented on a generic computer.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20160136523 to Yano in view of US Pub. 20100060649 to Haggar et al (Haggar).
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 16. Yano discloses an information processing system comprising:
a server apparatus (¶31) for performing processing of a game based on an operation input from a user of a user terminal participating in a session (Figs. 16 and 18, and ¶¶52 and 58);
a first terminal of a first user participating in the session; and
a second terminal of a second user participating in the same session as the first terminal,
wherein the first terminal updates game status based on an operation input from the first user and sends information indicating the game status of the first user to the server apparatus (Figs. 16, and 18, and ¶162 “update the state”; and ¶176 “progress of a video game”),
wherein the second terminal updates game status based on an operation input from the second user and sends information indicating the game status of the second user to the server apparatus (Figs. 16, and 18, and ¶162 “update the state”; and ¶176 “progress of a video game”),
wherein the server apparatus establishes a predetermined relationship in the session between the first user and the second user (¶74 “friend-registered”) positions of a first character controlled in a virtual space of the game by the first user and a second character controlled in the virtual space by the second user (¶¶41 and 47), based on the information indicating the game status of the first user sent from the first terminal and on the information indicating the game status of the second user sent from the second terminal (Figs. 16, and 18, and ¶¶58 and 64),
wherein the first terminal, during progress of the game, successively outputs the information indicating the game status of the second user updated based on an operation input from the second user whose predetermined relationship with the first user has been established (Figs. 16, and 18, and ¶¶53 and 79), and
wherein the second terminal, during progress of the game, successively outputs the information indicating the game status of the first user updated based on an operation input from the first user whose predetermined relationship with the second user has been established (Figs. 16, and 18, and ¶¶53 and 79).
Yano fails to explicitly disclose when positions of a first character controlled in a virtual space of the game by the first user and a second character controlled in the virtual space by the second user get closer than a predetermined criterion (emphasis added).
Hagger teaches wherein the server apparatus establishes a predetermined relationship in the session between the first user and the second user when positions of a first character controlled in a virtual space of the game by the first user and a second character controlled in the virtual space by the second user get closer than a predetermined criterion (¶¶5 and 23). The gaming system of Yano would have motivation to use the teachings of Haggar in order to allow users to socialize and build connections with each other via the use of game characters in the video game in doing so would encourage more people to join the video game environment in order to make friends.
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 Yano with the teachings of Haggar in order to allow users to socialize and build connections with each other via the use of game characters in the video game in doing so would encourage more people to join the video game environment in order to make friends.
Claims 2, 12, and 17. Yano discloses wherein when executed by the computer, the information processing instructions cause the computer to output positional information indicating a position in the virtual space of the second character of the second user whose predetermined relationship with the first user has been established, as the information indicating the game status of the second user (¶¶37, 41, and 46).
Claims 3, 13, and 18. Yano discloses wherein when executed by the computer, the information processing instructions cause the computer to transfer the first character with reference to the position of the second character of the second user whose predetermined relationship with the first user has been established, in response to a transfer operation done by the first user (¶118 “mode to move (or warp) the position in the virtual space in which the avatar operated by the second player exists to the vicinity of other player”).
Claims 4, 14, and 19. Yano discloses wherein when executed by the computer, the information processing instructions cause the computer to output operation input information corresponding to an operation input (¶¶186-188 “reproduced as a play movie”) for an environmental object placed in the virtual space given by the second user whose predetermined relationship with the first user has been established, as the information indicating the game status of the second user (¶¶166 and 169).
Claim 6. Yano in view of Haggar teaches wherein when executed by the computer, the information processing instructions cause the computer to output information indicating the establishment of the predetermined relationship when establishing the predetermined relationship between the first user and the second user (see Haggar ¶¶5 and 23).
Claim 7. Yano in view of Haggar teaches wherein the predetermined relationship is not established between the user of the first terminal and the second user of the second terminal participating in the session when the first terminal joins the session (see Haggar ¶27, in this case, the users are not yet established as friends).
Claim 8. Yano in view of Haggar teaches wherein when executed by the computer, the information processing instructions cause the computer not to establish the predetermined relationship between the first user and the second user even when the distance between the first character and the second character gets shorter than the predetermined criterion if a restriction is set for the first terminal (see Haggar ¶27, in this case, the users are not yet established as friends).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20160136523 to Yano in view of US Pub. 20100060649 to Haggar et al (Haggar) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20150246284 to Taoka et al (Taoka).
Claim 9. Yano fails to explicitly disclose wherein the session is discarded when a predetermined time has passed.
Taoka teaches session is discarded when a predetermined time has passed (¶¶28 and 62). The gaming system of Yano would have motivation to use the teachings of Taoka in order to stop game play rounds after a game clock has expired in doing so limits the amount of time to play different game scenes.
It would have further 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 Yano with the teachings of Taoka in order to stop game play rounds after a game clock has expired in doing so limits the amount of time to play different game scenes.
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