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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments/arguments filed on 5/18/26. Claims 1 – 28 were previously cancelled and claims 29 – 42 are pending in the current application.
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 29 - 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 29 - 35 are directed towards a device, (machine), and claims 36 – 42 are directed towards a method, (process), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 29 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
29. An electronic device comprising: a display screen; and a computing hardware configured to execute a software product, wherein executing the software product by the computer hardware causes the computer hardware to generate and render a graphical user interface on the display screen, the graphical user interface being configured to facilitate user interactions, the computing hardware, the software product and the graphical user interface being implemented on a gaming system, the gaming system comprising a game, wherein the software product, when executed on the computing hardware, is configured to: present a map view on the graphical user interface, the map view including a visible area and one or more at least partially hidden areas, wherein the visible area includes at least a first territory defining an enemy territory in a war strategy game; detect a selection of a first graphical object on the graphical user interface, the first graphical object defining a troop transport unit; detect a selection of a first point in the first territory; execute a movement of the troop transport unit towards the selected first point in the first territory; detect a selection of a second graphical object on the graphical user interface, the second graphical object defining a supplemental fire unit; detect a selection of a second point in the first territory; execute an action associated with the supplemental fire unit at the selected second point; redirect the movement of the troop transport unit away from the selected first point in the first territory and towards the selected second point in the first territory responsive to the executed action associated with the supplemental fire unit; detect a selection of a user-selectable upgrade option object on the graphical user interface; render at least one of the one or more at least partially hidden areas visible; and redirect the movement of the troop transport unit to the at least one of the one or more at least partially hidden areas by selecting a third point on the at least one of the one or more at least partially hidden areas.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claim 36. Dependent claims 30 – 35 and 37 - 42 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that executes a video game wherein a player controls a plurality of troops in a war strategy game in order to progress through the game. The claimed invention can be practically performed as a mental process by a human managing game characters in a video game. A human can take control of game characters and make game determinations in their mind, see Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a war strategy video game that presents a map on a user interface, wherein said map displays an enemy territory, wherein the claims further disclose detecting selections of a plurality points that represent the movement of a plurality of troops, and a plurality of actions that represent a firing unit, the redirection, and an upgrade option of the plurality of troops, wherein the plurality of troops are redirected to a partially hidden area presented on the map. The claims recite instructions for controlling a game with these features. Here, a human can observe an enemy territory on the map, the movement of the troops, a firing action of the troops, the upgrading of the troops, and the redirection of the troops to a point or hidden area on the map after the firing action has been executed. A human can then determine the state of the troops and then make a game determination of a next step to make to further progress of the game that is favorable for the player. For example, in the event that the goal of a mission is to direct troops to eliminate an enemy character without being detected, a human can observe the area where the enemy character is located, wherein a human can then make the determination of where and how to guide the troops to avoid detection, (movement of the troops), eliminate the enemy character, (firing action), redirect the troops to a hidden area after eliminating the enemy character, and then upgrade the troops after accomplishing the goal. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite an electronic device and display screen along with instructions that generates and presents a video game to a player, wherein a player controls a plurality of troops in a war strategy game, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite an electronic device, a display screen, computing hardware and a game characters, (plurality of troops), associated with a player however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Olsen et al. 2008/0146302 par. 0081 regarding users controlling the actions of soldiers in a battle game as being conventional). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 29 – 42, Applicants argue that “claimed subject matter is not directed to an abstract idea but to a specific improvement in computer graphical user interface technology that solves a technical problem inherent in prior art gaming systems”. More specifically, it is argued that “the claims are directed to a specific technical solution to a technical problem: providing a user with greater control over game units within computer-based war strategy game by overcoming the limitations of conventional GUIs”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed towards controlling game characters, (troops), to progress through a war strategy video game and determining the moving direction and actions of said game characters during play the video game. Controlling a video game that allows a player to control a game character to progress through the video game represents rules for conducting a game as discussed in Alice and Bilski v. Kappos. The controlling of game characters in a video game to progress through the game are merely instructions or steps which are viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception. The control of video game characters does not represent a technical solution to a technical problem.
Applicant’s further argue that the “specification clearly identifies a technical problem with prior art gaming systems”. More specifically, it is argued that the specification states the technical problem of it being impossible for the user to control the deployment of troops and also stating the technical solution of “enabling users to define a war strategy as per their desire”. While the Examiner does acknowledge that Applicant’s specification may disclose a practical application, as discussed in the Applicant’s arguments, however, the current claim language does not recite steps that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field nor do the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of controlling troops, because the additional elements, terminal and server, are recited generically. For example, the claims do not recite how the “electronic device” and “computing hardware”, solves the problem of a user being prevented from controlling troops and providing the solution of enabling users to develop a war strategy that is favorable to a user. Steps like generating and detecting, for example, are generic instructions to apply an abstract idea using conventional components.
Applicants further argue that “the claims are not directed to the abstract idea of controlling troops but to the specific "how", which is a concrete improvement in GUI functionality”. More specifically, it is argued that the “redirection mechanism, visualized in the drawings, such as Fig. 4D (showing troop path 424 being redirected by flash fire at point 422), is a specific improvement to the functioning of the gaming system. It transforms a static, system-controlled pathing logic into a dynamic, user- controllable one”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to above, the current claim language does not recite steps that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer. For example, the claims are absent of any language of how “a system-controlled pathing logic” improves performance, reliability, or gameplay.
Applicants further argue that the claims are “nonetheless patent-eligible because they integrate that idea into a practical application and provide an inventive concept that amounts to "significantly more."”. More specifically, it is argued that the system initiated movement arrangement is “not a routine, conventional activity. It is a specific implementation that provides a solution to the identified technical problem of lack of user control”. It is further argued, that claim 29 recites the technical improvements of detecting an upgrade option, rendering hidden areas, a redirecting movement of troops. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner views these examples as game rules rather than technical improvements. Merely disclosing that an electronic device and computing hardware and software performing game rules does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. With respect to the Berkheimer decision, reference is made for example, (Yee et al. 2007/0188501), which shows a gaming system that provides autonomous battle actions as being known in the art, (see par. 0017 of Lo). For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights