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 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 - 12 are all within at least one of the four categories of invention, and have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1 - 12 recites at least one step or instruction for acquiring loss information and granting game benefits to players in a game, which is grouped as a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve concepts performed in the human mind, namely observation, evaluation and judgement, which are mental processes and managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions, which are methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 - 12 recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium in which an information processing program is recorded, the information processing program causing a computer to execute:
acquiring loss information regarding a loss of a first character controlled by a first
player to an enemy character; and
granting a benefit to the first player based on the loss information in a case in which a second character controlled by a second player, different from the first player, wins against the enemy character to which the first character has lost.
Independent Claim 12 recites:
An information processing system comprising: a first information processing
apparatus including a processor and configured to provide a first virtual space in which a first
character controlled by a first player is arranged; and a second information processing apparatus
including a processor and configured to provide a second virtual space in which a second
character controlled by a second player, different from the first player, is arranged, the second
virtual space being different from the first virtual space,
wherein the processor of the second information processing apparatus is configured to acquire loss information regarding a loss of the first character to an enemy character
in the first virtual space, and
make a notification about a win of the second character against the enemy character to which the first character has lost based on the loss information in a case in which the second character wins, in the second virtual space, against an enemy character corresponding to the enemy character to which the first character has lost in the first virtual space, and
the processor of the first information processing apparatus is configured to grant a benefit to the first player in the first virtual space in a case in which the notification about the win of the second character against the enemy character to which the first character has lost is made.
Accordingly, as indicated above in bold, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea, as well as independent claims 10 and 11. Further, dependent Claims 2 - 9 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’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 10 - 12 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 9) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 10 - 12), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a computer and processor as recited in independent Claims 1 and 10 - 12 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified 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 computer and the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 10 – 12 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 9) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract
idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.
a computer and processor as recited in independent claims 1 and 10 - 12). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 10 - 12 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 9 are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the Claims 1 – 12 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: a computer and processor as recited in the independent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components
which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic
functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as
well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner
(e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev.
Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Like SAP America vs InvestPic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 – 12 amounts to
mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or
other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or
transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the
fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does
not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing
technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a
technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification
for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or
upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide
sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention
as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of
how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the
prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution
that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d
1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide
sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any
technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 1 - 12 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1 – 12 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements
do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified
additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 10 - 12 (and their dependent claims) do not add
significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other
additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional
elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these
above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed
functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of
generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept
sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the
above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful
limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea
such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 – 12 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a
technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 1 - 12 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea
itself.
Accordingly, claims 1 – 12 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as
being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme
Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 6, 7 and 9 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berger et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0008722 A1).
As per claim 1, Berger et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium in which an information processing program is recorded, the information processing program causing a computer to execute (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5); acquiring loss information regarding a loss of a first character controlled by a first player to an enemy character (the nemesis creation condition is that a player is defeated by a computer-controlled NPC, one or more player characters of a first player account are defeated by an enemy NPC (see Fig. 2 and [0037] – [0044]); and granting a benefit to the first player based on the loss information in a case in which a second character controlled by a second player, different from the first player, wins against the
enemy character to which the first character has lost (the system generates rewards for the accounts of players previously defeated by the nemesis, the reward items automatically appearing in the defeated (first) player’s inventory or stash and the defeated player receiving a message that they have been “avenged”, see Fig. 3 and [0055] – [0064]).
As per claim 2, Berger et al. discloses the loss information is information regarding the loss of the first character to the enemy character in a first virtual space in which the first character is arranged (See [0049]), the information processing program causing the computer to execute granting a benefit to the first player in the first virtual space based on the loss
information in a case in which the second character wins against an enemy character
corresponding to the enemy character to which the first character has lost in the first virtual
space in a second virtual space in which the second character is arranged, the second virtual
space being different from the first virtual space (see Fig. 3 and [0055] – [0064]).
As per claim 3, Berger et al. discloses enhancing, based on the loss information, the enemy character to which the first character has lost (the system uses the precursor NPC’s characteristics as a baseline and scales those attributes higher to create a tougher version of that NPC and may add abilities not ordinarily available to the NPC, [0019], [0020] and [0050]).
As per claim 4, Berger et al. discloses increasing, in a case in which a plurality of the first characters controlled by a plurality of the first players have lost to one identical enemy character, a degree of enhancement of the one enemy character as a number of the first characters having lost to the one enemy character increases (as the nemesis defeats successive players it is upgraded to an increasingly powerful version, with its characteristics (e.g., health, damage, model size, and number of abilities), see [0073]).
As per claim 6, Berger et al. discloses granting a benefit to the second player based on the loss information in a case in which the second character wins against the enemy character to which the first character has lost (see [0070]).
As per claim 7, Berger et al. discloses granting a better benefit to the second player as a number of the first characters having lost to the enemy character increases in a case in which the second character wins against the enemy character to which a plurality of the first characters controlled by a plurality of the first players has lost (see Fig. 3 and [0070] – [0074]).
As per claim 9, Berger et al. discloses acquiring the loss information at each specific timing (see Fig. 3: 300- 301).
As per claim 12, Berger et al. discloses an information processing system comprising: a first information processing apparatus including a processor and configured to provide a first virtual space in which a first character controlled by a first player is arranged (each game client incorporates aspects of both a client and a server, has access to the game-world database and generates its own instance of the game world, see Fig. 5 and [0024]); and a second information processing apparatus including a processor and configured to provide a second virtual space in which a second character controlled by a second player, different from the first player, is arranged, the second virtual space being different from the first virtual space (see [0021]);
wherein the processor of the second information processing apparatus is configured to
acquire loss information regarding a loss of the first character to an enemy character
in the first virtual space (the nemesis creation condition is that a player is defeated by a computer-controlled NPC, one or more player characters of a first player account are defeated by an enemy NPC (see Fig. 2 and [0037] – [0044]), and make a notification about a win of the second character against the enemy character to which the first character has lost based on the loss information in a case in which the second character wins, in the second virtual space, against an enemy character corresponding to the enemy character to which the first character has lost in the first virtual space (see Fig. 3 and [0055] - [0064]), and the processor of the first information processing apparatus is configured to grant a benefit to the first player in the first virtual space in a case in which the notification about the win of the second character against the enemy character to which the first character has lost is made (see Fig. 3 and [0055] - [0064]).
As per claim 10, the instant claim is a method in which corresponds to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
As per claim 11, the instant claim is an apparatus in which corresponds to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the independent claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection above. Berger et al. does not expressly disclose or teach the information processing program
causing the computer to execute setting an upper limit value of the degree of enhancement designated by the second player (claim 5) and the information processing program causing the computer to execute: displaying a mark at a position where the first character has lost to the enemy character based on the loss information; and enhancing the second character in a case in which the second character performs a predetermined action with respect to the mark (claim 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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 at 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 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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights