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 Amendments
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 04/22/2026. Presently, claims 1-5 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunezo Muroya (JP 2020189162 A; hereinafter Muroya) in view of Jerish Augustine (US 9117343 B2; hereinafter Augustine).
Claim 1, Muroya discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to perform a method (“As described above, the recording medium in which the program is stored may be a non-transient recording medium such as a CD-ROM. The recording medium also includes an internal or external recording medium that can be accessed from the distribution server to distribute the program” (recited in at least: XX paragraph [0199])) comprising: displaying, on a display device within a player terminal, a first game screen that presents a plurality of operation portions for a computer game (“The figure which shows an example of the play screen of the music game which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the skill set to the character which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the play result screen of the music game which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the play start screen of the music game which concerns on embodiment” (recited in at least: Muroya paragraph [0009])), wherein the first game screen provides a user interface using the plurality of operation portions for selecting a first play mode and an auto play mode for executing the computer game (“a play start screen in which the user starts play will be described. On this game start screen, the user can select whether to perform normal play (normal play) or auto play. FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of a play start screen among the game screens of the music game according to the present embodiment” (recited in at least: Muroya paragraph [0045])); receiving, from an input unit within the player terminal, a first operation input from a player for the computer game in response to displaying the first game screen wherein the first operation input corresponds to the first play mode (“The normal play execution unit 111 executes a game play process (that is, a normal play process) based on the user's operation under the first play condition” (recited in at least: Muroya paragraph [0067])); executing the computer game using the first play mode to achieve a reached game stage and in response to receiving the first operation input, wherein executing the computer game using the first play mode comprises completing a first game stage using one or more operation inputs by the player to the input unit while a second game screen is displayed on the display device while executing the computer game (“Further, the user terminal 10 (an example of a game device) includes an execution result of a normal play process executed by the normal play execution unit 111 (an example of the first play execution unit) and an auto play execution unit 112 (an example of the second play execution unit). It is provided with a play result update unit 114 that updates a value based on the user's play result based on the execution result of the auto play process executed by (one example). The value based on the user's play result is, for example, a score as a play result as described above. Depending on the game, the value based on the user's play result may be that the experience value is updated according to the result and the level is raised, or if the reward is given according to the number of plays, the number of plays. It may be counted as. That is, the value based on the user's play result is, for example, a score or point based on the play, or an evaluation value for the play” (recited in at least: Muroya paragraph [0094])); receiving, from the input unit within the player terminal, a second operation input from the player for the computer game in response to displaying the first game screen, wherein the second operation input corresponds to the auto play mode executing the computer game using the auto play mode and an elapsed time clock, wherein executing the computer game using the auto play mode comprises measuring an elapsed time using the elapsed time clock (“Further, the auto play execution unit 112 executes the auto play process under the second play condition based on the play data stored in the play data storage unit 152 instead of the user's operation. Here, the first play condition and the second play condition are setting conditions and parameter conditions for playing, and are, for example, conditions based on the character used for playing the game. For example, if the characters set in the deck are the same, the play conditions can be the same, but if the characters set in the deck are different, the play conditions are different” (recited in at least: Muroya paragraph [0067]) It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when a game is cleared through auto-play that there would be an elapsed time that happens so the game can start and end the operations needed to complete that game stage).
However, Muroya does not explicitly disclose wherein executing the computer game using the auto play mode further comprises completing a second game stage without displaying the second game stage on any game screen on the display device, wherein, in the second auto play mode, an amount of elapsed time that is measured by the elapsed time clock and required to complete the second game stage is greater than the shortest an amount of time by which the second game stage is completed in the first play mode using a plurality of operation inputs by the player to the input unit.
Augustine teaches wherein executing the computer game using the auto play mode further comprises completing a second game stage without displaying the second game stage on any game screen on the display device, wherein, in the second auto play mode, an amount of elapsed time that is measured by the elapsed time clock and required to complete the second game stage is greater than the shortest an amount of time by which the second game stage is completed in the first play mode using a plurality of operation inputs by the player to the input unit (“When a second option has been added, electronic gaming device 100 and/or electronic gaming system 200 may ask if the player wants the second in combination with the first or to set the two opposing each other (e.g., if the player has selected "auto-play for 10 minutes only" and "quit auto play after a total of 4 winning games", and has selected the two criteria opposing each other, electronic gaming device 100 and/or electronic gaming system 200 may quit auto-play either after 10 minutes or 4 winning games, whichever happens first. If a player selected "auto-play for 10 minutes only" and "quit auto play after a total of 4 winning games", and has selected the two criteria combining with each other. Electronic gaming device 100 and/or electronic gaming system 200 may quit when it had been both 10 minutes and 4 winning games). (109) Chosen criteria 610 may read "None Selected" until the player has changed one of example 604 drop-drown list 608. Recall criteria button 630 may reset all of the drop-down lists 608 to "Specify" (e.g., if a player has chosen one drop-down lists 608, but then changes his mind, the player may click on recall criteria button 630 to reset all of the options)” (recited in at least: Augustine [column 19, lines 42-62])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the autoplay feature without showing the game play as taught by Augustine for the added benefit of allowing users to play on mobile devices and having the operations run without thinking they need to watch the game play. Furthermore, as taught by Augustine the autoplay can have a timer or a win condition and taught by Muroya a person can play the game and hit all perfect scores and know how to play better than others, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that a person who knows how to play the game can clear the game faster if they play it themselves and by making the time longer on autoplay it keeps users engaged by just clearing the level themselves.
Claim 2, Muroya in view of Augustine teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Muroya further teaches advancing the computer game using a third operation input by the player the first play mode; and receiving a skip operation input by the player in the first play mode, wherein, in response to receiving the skip operation input is received in the first play mode, the computer game skips one or more game stages and the computer game is started from a third game stage (“in the auto play process in the above embodiment, the execution of the auto play may be skipped. For example, the play may be interrupted before the start of the auto play or during the auto play so that the play result is displayed. In this case, the user terminal 10 displays the play result as if it had been played to the end. That is, even if the user terminal 10 skips the execution of the auto play, the process of calculating the technique evaluation score, the score, etc., as in the case of executing the auto play (when the play is reproduced (displayed))” (recited in at least: Muroya paragraph [0115])).
Claim 3, Muroya in view of Augustine teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Muroya further teaches receiving a skip operation input by the player in the auto play mode, wherein, in response to receiving the skip operation input the auto play mode, the amount of elapsed time that is required to complete the second game stage is reduced (“When the user terminal 10 skips the execution of the auto play, the user terminal 10 does not perform the same processing as when the execution of the auto play is executed, and calculates the score or the like based on the technique evaluation score or the like instead of the play data. May be good. Since the technique evaluation point is not affected by the play conditions (for example, the condition based on the skill of the character set in the deck), the processing load can be reduced by not recalculating the technique evaluation point” (recited in at least: Muroya paragraph [0115])).
Regarding claim 4, Muroya discloses an information processing method executed by a computer (recited in at least: Muroya [Abstract])), the information processing method comprising: steps similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Muroya discloses an information processing system (recited in at least: Muroya [Abstract])) in which a computer executes: steps similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Specification:
The objection to the lengthy Specification has been withdrawn. The Examiner thanks the Applicant for their cooperation in correcting errors and reviewing the Specification.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and Contingent Limitations:
Applicant’s amendments filed on 04/22/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) rejections and no longer contain contingent limitations.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims, see at least remarks pages 19-23, filed on 04/22/2026, with respect to the rejection set forth under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the Non-Final Action mailed out on 01/23/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-5 has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights