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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/15/26 has been entered.
Currently, claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, 16 is/are pending.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, 16 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 13, 1,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “store a plurality of positional information respectively corresponding to a plurality of sequential checkpoints, determine, for each checkpoint among the plurality of sequential checkpoints, whether the position of the mobile terminal is within a predetermined distance of positional information corresponding to the checkpoint, and provide, in response to determining that the position of the mobile terminal is within the predetermined distance of each of the positional information corresponding to the checkpoint, a reward from among a plurality of rewards as content of a game to a player corresponding to the mobile terminal, store evaluation corresponding information indicating a correlation between a combination of contents of the plurality of rewards, and evaluation information including at least one of winning/losing, a ranking, and an earned point of the player in the game, determine the evaluation information of the player corresponding to the mobile terminal in the game based on the evaluation corresponding information according to the combination of the contents of rewards provided to the player, receive an instruction to set each checkpoint among the plurality of sequential checkpoints, the instruction including a central position indicating the positional information and a positional range of the checkpoint indicating the predetermined distance to be set by the host terminal, and accept the instruction when the position indicated by the positional information acquired by the GPS receiver of the host terminal is located within a position indicated by the central position and the positional range of the checkpoint” (claims 1, 13), “store a plurality of positional information respectively corresponding to a plurality of sequential checkpoints; acquire positional information indicating a position of the host mobile terminal that is acquired via the GPS receiver, receive an instruction to set each checkpoint among the plurality of sequential checkpoints, the instruction including a central position indicating the positional information and a positional range of the checkpoint indicating a predetermined distance to be set by the host mobile terminal, and accept the instruction when the position indicated by the positional information acquired by the GPS receiver of the host terminal is located within a position indicated by the central position and the positional range of the checkpoint” (claim 16) are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, social activities, rules). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-6, 9-12 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 are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “a mobile terminal among a plurality of mobile terminals and a server configured to communicate with the mobile terminal, the game system comprising: a processor; and a memory, the mobile terminal includes a GPS receiver, the processor is configured to: acquire first positional information indicating a position of the mobile terminal that is acquired via the GPS receiver, the mobile terminal includes at least one mobile terminal and a host terminal including a first processor among the plurality of mobile terminals”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these 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 above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in view of Berkheimer, the additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Rizvi et. al. (2021/0097761) and Sprogis (2003/0144047) teach the recited additional elements (Rizvi, Fig 1-3, ¶¶0027, 0033, 0039, 0056, 0074-0075, 0086; Sprogis, Fig 1, ¶¶0023, 0029).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-6, 9-13, 16, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and rules in In re Smith.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, 16 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection,
Applicant argues that claims 1 and 13 do not merely recite some control of human behavior because they recite limitations relating to the control of the operation of the host terminal. Specifically, the host terminal verifies the player visits the location. This argument is not persuasive. As discussed previously, the patent eligibility rejection follows the USPTO 2019 PEG. In Step 2A Prong 1, the office action identifies the limitations that fall within the abstract grouping. Here, the limitations describe a process of a location-based game system where players move to preset check points in the real world. In other words, this is a rule set governing how each time a player reaches a check point, the system gives that player a game reward. The Federal Circuit has treated rules for games as abstract. See, e.g., In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (card game rules abstract); Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The additional elements such as the host terminal and a GPS are used to run the location-based game and are analyzed integration into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong 2. As discussed above, there is no recited improvement to the functioning of the computer itself (e.g., no change to memory hierarchy, graphics pipeline, input handling, networking, or processor operation). Verifying a player’s actual location is part of game play, not a computer-function improvement. In fact, the specification describes the claimed invention that would improve the flexibility of the game, i.e., the improvement is on the abstract game but not a technical improvement (¶0005). In addition, the specification describes generic computer elements such as the terminal, a processor, and GPS (¶¶0013-0016). There is no particular machine beyond generic computer elements; merely executing game rules on generic computer elements is insufficient to integrate an exception into a practical application. Field-of-use limitation to “a game” is insufficient under MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 16 recites similar limitations as claims 1 and 13, as such, it is rejected under the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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 on 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 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
