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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e. a manufacture) in claim 1-8, 12 an information processing system/apparatus (i.e., a machine) in claims 9-10, 13-14 and an information processing method (i.e., a process) in claims 11, 15.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored with an information processing program executable by a computer of an information processing apparatus configured to execute a game and comprises one or more processors, wherein the information processing program causes the one or more processors of the computer to provide execution comprising:
making a character object utilized in the game perform a predetermined action;
acquiring operation input data to an operation input portion by a player;
determining, during a time period that the character object executes the predetermined action, whether an operation input by the player is performed within a timing range associated in advance with the predetermined action, based on the operation input data;
generating a first game effect is association with the operation input by the player not being performed within the timing range;
generating a second game effect different from the first game effect in association with the operation input by the player being performed within the timing range;
generating for display, within the timing range, a guide corresponding to the timing range when a guide presentation flag is turned on;
storing number of success times that the operation input by the player is performed within the timing range, in a storage; and
turning the guide presentation flag off when the number of success times satisfies a first change condition.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for observing and evaluating user inputs and providing judgement and/or feedback based thereon as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth rules defining the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a game interface.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a storage medium, and a computer of an information processing apparatus including a computer comprising one or more processors, it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other devices such as generic computers, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a storage medium, and a computer of an information processing apparatus including a computer comprising one or more processors, amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Pages 1-2, and 9-12). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Pages 1-2, and 9-12). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-15 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a storage medium, and a computer of an information processing apparatus including a computer comprising one or more processors, as respectively presented in certain claims that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of each of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B because they each present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and accordingly for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 1st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Commencing on pages 9 and 10 of the above dated remarks the Applicant proposes that the claimed invention is patent eligible for at least the reasons, that it satisfies steps 2(A)(2) & 2(B) of the Alice/Mayo test as described in the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance for at least the reason that the claimed invention is directed to the proposed practical application of improving video game and/or software technology by selectively presenting game action timing guidance in the form of icons based on when a player has successfully completed an operational input with a timing range to provide that advantage of improving the presentation of the game.
Responsive to the preceding, it is not immediately clear how the selective presentation of content based on the correct timing of input improves technology as proposed. Specifically, games update their respective state responsive to user interactions during time periods indicated through the use of icons, is noted as conventional operations in the background section of the instant application. Additionally, the generation and presentation of contextual and dynamic displays have been noted by the courts as respectively ineligible concepts in analogous decisions including, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016) describing, generating a second menu from a first menu based on user inputs; Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) wherein instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result; and Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019) directed to arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly. In view the preceding the proposed improvement in technology does not depart from the conventional operation of a gaming apparatus in a manner that supports the presence of an improvement in technology as proposed.
Continuing on pages 10-12 of the above dated remarks the Applicant proposes that the claimed invention as amended teaches a guide presentation flag based on the number of times an operation has been successfully performed by a player over a time range that is not present in either the previously applied prior art references of Aghdaie et al (US 10,279,264) or Tabata (US 9,254,441).
The applicant presented amendments are reasonably persuasive in separating the claimed invention from the prior art of record as argued and accordingly the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 & 103 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fleming (US 2009/0310027) teaches systems and methods for separate audio and video lag calibration in a video game; and
Kim et al (US 2010/0137048) teaches system and method for providing an edutainment interface for musical instruments.
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 ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights