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
The following Office Action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received on March 20, 2026.
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.
At step 1 claim 1 is directed to a system, claim 6 is directed to a system, claim 9 is directed to a method, and claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Thus, claims 1, 6, 9, and 10 are directed to statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
At step 2A, prong I, the independent claims recite, "acquire first information from a first server in a state in which a first condition is satisfied in use of a first information service by a user, the first server being configured to provide the first information service, and the first condition being a condition that can be satisfied in a course of use of the first information service by the user based on a result of the first information service; acquire second information from a second server in a state in which a second condition is satisfied in use of a second information service by the user, the second server being configured to provide the second information service, the second information service being different from the first information service; apply one or more objects among a plurality of objects to an avatar representing the user in an interactive service, the plurality of objects including a first object corresponding to the first information and a second object corresponding to the second information; and generate an image of the avatar of the user by applying one or more valid objects among the plurality of objects to an initial avatar, the one or more valid objects being indicated by applying data specifying the one or more objects applied to the avatar, and to transmit image data of an interaction screen including the avatar to a terminal apparatus of the user to cause a display of the terminal apparatus to display the interaction screen."
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed invention acquires information and applies objects representing a user according to first information and second information, which is following rules or instructions. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
At step 2A, prong II, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of one or more memories, one or more processors, a first server, a second server, a control system, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, and a computer system. These additional elements are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions (acquiring, generating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application the additional elements of one or more memories, one or more processors, a first server, a second server, a control system, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, and a computer system" are generic computing elements as supported by the specification. These additional elements are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions (acquiring, generating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 11, and 12, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1 and 6 without significantly more.
Claims 2-5,7, 8, 11, and 12 further limit claim 1 and 6. Making the information service a game service and adding third server do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more for the same reasons as claims 1 and 6.
Therefore, claims 1-12 are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amsterdam (US 2010/0251337) in view of Evans (US 8433656).
With reference to claims 1, 6, 9, and 10, Amsterdam teaches a control system comprising:
one or more memories configured to store instructions; and one or more processors communicatively connected to the one or more memories and configured to execute the instructions to (see Figure 1):
acquire first information from a first server in a state in which a first condition is satisfied in use of a first information service by a user, the first server being configured to provide the first information service, and the first condition being a condition that can be satisfied in a course of use of the first information service by the user based on a result of use of the first information service (see paragraphs 79, 83, 84, and Figure 5, steps 504-512 – based on the user’s metadata and the object tag, if a condition is met where there is significant overlap in the two, the user may acquire the object in the virtual environment);
apply one or more objects among a plurality of objects to an avatar representing the user in an interactive service, the plurality of objects including a first object corresponding to the first information (see paragraphs 57 and 70 – the object is added to the user inventory and/or the user’s avatar); and
generate an image of the avatar of the user by applying one or more valid objects among the plurality of objects to an initial avatar, the one or more valid objects being indicated by applying data specifying the one or more objects applied to the avatar, and to transmit image data of an interaction screen including the avatar to a terminal apparatus of the user to cause a display of the terminal apparatus to display the interaction screen (see paragraph 70 – graphical representation of the object on the user’s avatar).
Amsterdam fails to teach acquire second information from a second server in a state in which a second condition is satisfied in use of a second information service by the user, the second server being configured to provide the second information service, the second information service being different from the first information service.
However, Evans teaches first and second servers providing first and second information services which are different from each other (see column 2, line 42-column 3, line 2 – virtual world servers 18-1 through 18-N, each hosting a cell of the virtual world) and validating that objects have been properly acquired in each information service (see column 3, lines 26-38 – validating the object for the avatar is equivalent to acquiring information when a condition is satisfied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the single virtual world of Amsterdam to include the multiple virtual worlds (or cells of virtual worlds) controlled by multiple servers of Evans, as both are in the same field of endeavor of validating virtual objects for avatars in virtual worlds, and having multiple servers validating the use of objects across the virtual worlds allows for a distributed network that enables increased scalability and load handling to enable even larger virtual world networks with more online participants.
With reference to claim 3, Amsterdam and Evans teach the control system according to claim 1, and Evans further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to be allowed to apply the first object and the second object in parallel to the avatar (see column 3, lines 47-50 – multiple objects associated with the avatar).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claim 4, Amsterdam and Evans teach the control system according to claim 1, and Evans further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to acquire third information from a third server in a state in which a third condition is satisfied in use of a third information service by the user, the third server being configured to provide the third information service (see column 2, line 42-column 3, line 2 – virtual world servers 18-1 through 18-N, each hosting a cell of the virtual world), and
wherein the plurality of objects includes a third object corresponding to a combination of the first information and the third information (see column 3, lines 36-60 – the current server validates items that can be from other portions of the virtual world, i.e. from other virtual servers).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claim 5, Amsterdam and Evans teaches the control system according to claim 1, and Evans further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to acquire third information from a third server in a state in which a third condition is satisfied in use of a third information service by the user, the third server being configured to provide the third information service(see column 2, line 42-column 3, line 2 – virtual world servers 18-1 through 18-N, each hosting a cell of the virtual world).
Amsterdam further teaches wherein the plurality of objects includes a third object, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to:
change the third object depending on the third information; and apply a third object after change to the avatar (see paragraphs 69-70 – if the user accepts the object, it is applied to the avatar, thus changing the avatar).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claim 7, Amsterdam and Evans teach the information system according to claim 6, and Amsterdam further teaches wherein the first server is configured to: determine whether the first condition is satisfied, and transmit the first information in response to determining that the first condition is satisfied (see Figure 5, items 512-516 – determining is equivalent to there being a level of similarity, and the information being transmitted is equivalent to presenting and accepting the virtual object).
Evans further teaches wherein the second server is configured to: determine whether the second condition is satisfied, and transmit the second information in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied (see column 2, line 42-column 3, line 2 – virtual world servers 18-1 through 18-N, each hosting a cell of the virtual world, and see column 3, lines 36-60 – the current server validates items that can be from other portions of the virtual world, i.e. from other virtual servers).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claim 8, Amsterdam and Evans teach the information system according to claim 6, and Amsterdam further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to execute authentication processing for the user, and wherein the first information service or the second information service is provided to the user on condition that the authentication processing is successful (see Figure 5 element 512 – yes/no determination is equivalent to the authentication processing being successful).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claim 11, Amsterdam and Evans teach the control system according to claim 1, and Amsterdam further teaches wherein the first server is configured to determine whether the first condition is satisfied in the first information service based on result data indicative of a result of the use of the first information service by the user, and to transmit the first information to the control system in response to determining that the first condition is satisfied, wherein when the first condition is not satisfied, the first information is not transmitted to the control system (see Figure 5 element 512 – yes/no determination is equivalent to determining whether the condition is satisfied, and when the determination is no, the process ends);
wherein an amount of communication between the control system and the first server and the second server is reduced and a processing load of the control system is reduced compared to a configuration in which the control system determines whether the first condition and the second condition are satisfied (see Figure 5, steps 514-518 do not occur when the determination is no at step 512, thus reducing the communication and processing load inherently by not carrying out the communication and processing necessary for steps 514-518).
Evans further teaches wherein the second server is configured to determine whether the second condition is satisfied in the second information service based on result data indicative of a result of the use of the second information service by the user, and to transmit the second information to the control system in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied, wherein when the second condition is not satisfied, the second information is not transmitted to the control system (see column 2, line 42-column 3, line 2 – virtual world servers 18-1 through 18-N, each hosting a cell of the virtual world, and see column 3, lines 36-60 – the current server validates items that can be from other portions of the virtual world, i.e. from other virtual servers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that when combining Amsterdam and Evans as discussed above, the method of Amsterdam would be duplicated in the multiple virtual worlds of Evans. Therefore, just as Amsterdam is able to not transmit information when the condition is not met, this would be duplicated in the system of Amsterdam and Evans such that the second information would also not be transmitted if the second condition were not met, based on the rationale provided above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amsterdam in view of Evans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferraro (US 2009/0319609).
With reference to claim 2, Amsterdam and Evans teach the control system according to claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the first information service is a game service in which a first game is provided to the user, and wherein the second information service is a game service in which a second game is provided to the user, the second game having a title that is different from a title of the first game.
Ferraro teaches wherein the first information service is a game service in which a first game is provided to the user, and wherein the second information service is a game service in which a second game is provided to the user, the second game having a title that is different from a title of the first game (see claim 12 – each virtual world environment is a separate MMO game environment).
Ferraro teaches bringing virtual objects across virtual worlds, just as Evans does. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the multiple games of Ferraro with the combination of Amsterdam and Evans, as they are in the same field of endeavor of object control across virtual worlds, and the combination of Amsterdam and Evans would benefit from teachings of Ferraro of allowing users to make use of their investments in one virtual world across other virtual worlds where they use their avatars (see Ferraro, paragraph 6).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amsterdam and Evans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Deren (US 2019/0070507).
With reference to claim 12, Amsterdam and Evans teach the control system according to claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the first condition is a condition that is satisfied in a course of use of the first information service by the user, the first condition being a condition in which an ability score of a character used by the user should become a predetermined value, a condition in which the user should clear a predetermined event, or a condition in which the user should acquire a predetermined performance.
Van Deren teaches wherein the first condition is a condition that is satisfied in a course of use of the first information service by the user, the first condition being a condition in which an ability score of a character used by the user should become a predetermined value, a condition in which the user should clear a predetermined event, or a condition in which the user should acquire a predetermined performance (see paragraphs 55-57 and Figure 2 – the user must complete a practice in order to receive a characteristic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the criteria for achieving a virtual object of Van Deren with the validation of a virtual object as taught by Amsterdam and Evans, as it provides the benefit of only granting characteristics to users once they have earned them, thus encouraging certain behaviors in users and encouraging further engagement with the game.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to overcome the 101 rejection. Specifically, Applicant states that the claims recite a technical evaluation of service usage results, thus integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. However, receiving and analyzing data, even if the data occurs based on computer usage information, is still an abstract concept. The source of the data does not change the abstract nature of the analysis. Applicant further argues that the generation of the avatar is also a technical process. However, the way that the generation is disclosed is at a very high level of generality, such that it amounts to merely using the computer as a tool to carry out a generic computing function, i.e. converting data into a displayed image, without discussing anything technical about how the image is generated that might go beyond just the abstract idea. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant also argues that the additional elements do not perform generic computing. However, Applicant has not pointed out how any of the claimed features or their combination are specific and non-generic, other than mere allegation. Each of these computing components and their respective functions are only claimed at a high level of generality, and there is nothing novel about the architecture itself, such that it does not appear to impose meaningful limits on the claim.
Applicant further argues that there is a specific technical problem identified. However, reflecting diverse information services in an avatar is not a technical problem, but a data management problem, which is still abstract. Gathering information across multiple servers and reflecting it in a single data location (the avatar) only shows an improvement in the abstract idea of following rules, or collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying the results of the analysis. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive, and the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102/103 rejections are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ILANA L SPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7537. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/ILANA L SPAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights