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
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 3/16/26.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9-13.
Claim(s) 15 is/are added.
Claim(s) 7-8, 14 is/are cancelled.
Currently, claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, 15 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, 15 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, 15 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, 15 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, 15,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “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 provided to the player, and evaluation information including at least one of winning/losing, a ranking, and an earned point of the player in the game, and 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, 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, 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), “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 randomly selected reward from among a plurality of rewards, store evaluation corresponding information indicating a correlation between a combination of the plurality of rewards, and determine evaluation information of a user of the mobile terminal among a plurality of users of the plurality of mobile terminals based on the evaluation corresponding information, a combination of each randomly selected reward provided to the user, and combinations of randomly selected rewards provided to other users among the plurality of users” (claim 15) are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, interactions between people, 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 2-12 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 and a server configured to communicate with the mobile terminal, the game system comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store a plurality of positional information respectively corresponding to a plurality of sequential checkpoints, wherein the mobile terminal including 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”, “a non-transitory storage medium storing therein a program, the mobile terminal includes at least one mobile terminal and a host terminal including a first processor among the plurality of mobile terminals, the first processor of the host terminal is configured to receive an instruction”, 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, 15, 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, 15 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 3/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection,
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patent eligible because they reflect the improvement to the setting of checkpoints for a stamp rally game, e.g., treasure hunt, scavenger hunt, race, etc. Specifically, Applicant argues that the amended claims provide an improvement to other technology or a technical field in view of Ex Parte Dejardins. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the amended claims describe how a stamp rally game is played and the additional limitations merely further define the abstract idea, and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract. For instance, the recited elements of “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, 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” describe rules for determining whether a player has entered a valid checkpoint among the plurality of sequential checkpoints. 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).
Furthermore, in Ex Parte Desjardings, the claims recited elements that improve a machine learning model on a series of tasks. In contrast, the present claims do not specify a particular technical data structure or algorithm that improves computer or network performance. 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). There is no particular machine beyond generic computer terminals, a processor, and a memory such that 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). Therefore, for the reasons as set forth above, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 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 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights