DETAILED ACTION
This is a First Office Action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on April 26, 2024. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and are examined below.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a reward” in lines 3, and then again in line 7. It is unclear if these are two separate rewards. For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation will be interpreted as one reward. Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a reached game stage” in lines 3-4, and then again in line 8 of the claim. It is unclear if these are different stages of the game that is reached. For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation will be interpreted reaching the same game stage. Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the determined reward” in line 12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the reward determined” in line 14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the type” in line 15 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the basis” in lines 3, and then again in lines 5, and 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the passage of time” in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the amount of time required” in line 17 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the shortest time” in line 18 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the basis” in lines 4, and then again in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a reward” in lines 3, and then again in line 7. It is unclear if these are two separate rewards. For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation will be interpreted as one reward.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a reached game stage” in lines 3-4, and then again in line 8 of the claim. It is unclear if these are different stages of the game that is reached. For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation will be interpreted reaching the same game stage.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the determined reward” in line 12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the reward determined” in line 14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the type” in line 17 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the basis” in lines 3, and then again in lines 5, and 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the passage of time” in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the amount of time required” in line 17 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the shortest time” in line 18 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a reward” in lines 3, and then again in line 7. It is unclear if these are two separate rewards. For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation will be interpreted as one reward.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a reached game stage” in lines 3-4, and then again in line 8 of the claim. It is unclear if these are different stages of the game that is reached. For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation will be interpreted reaching the same game stage.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the determined reward” in line 12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the reward determined” in line 14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the type” in line 17 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the basis” in lines 3, and then again in lines 5, and 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the passage of time” in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the amount of time required” in line 17 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the shortest time” in line 18 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Contingent Limitations
Claims 1-2, and 4-5 contain Contingent Limitations:
Claim 1: “determining a reward on the basis of a reached game stage when a game is started in a first play mode in which game stages proceed on the basis of an operation input by a player while a game screen is displayed”
Claim 1: “determining a reward on the basis of an elapsed time or a reached game stage when the game is started in a second play mode”
Claim 2: “advancing the game on the basis of the operation input by the player in the case in which the game is started in the first play mode”
Claim 2: “the processing for advancing the game on the basis of the operation input by the player skips one or more game stages and the game is started from a second game stage.”
Claim 4: “determining a reward on the basis of a reached game stage when a game is started in a first play mode in which game stages proceed on the basis of an operation input by a player while a game screen is displayed”
Claim 4: “determining a reward on the basis of an elapsed time or a reached game stage when the game is started in a second play mode”
Claim 5: “determining a reward on the basis of a reached game stage when a game is started in a first play mode in which game stages proceed on the basis of an operation input by a player while a game screen is displayed”
Claim 5: “determining a reward on the basis of an elapsed time or a reached game stage when the game is started in a second play mode”
The MPEP recites the following guides for Contingent Clauses:
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.” See MPEP 2111.04 II.
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.” See MPEP 2111.04 II.
Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitation (1)-(4) and (7)-(8) as noted above, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim limitations (5)-(6) as noted above, are a process claim and Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to that limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II
"‘[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed…’ Therefore ‘[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);’ however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations”
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require “an operation input by a player” and the steps that come after determining a reward since the conditional phrases “on the basis of” does not require that the interaction event is actually made (i.e., “determining a reward on the basis of a reached game stage when a game is started in a first play mode in which game stages proceed on the basis of an operation input by a player while a game screen is displayed”; rather than that the reached game stage is made).
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a non-transitory computer readable medium” (i.e. a machine), claim 4 is directed to “an information processing method” (i.e. a process), and claim 5 is directed to “an information processing system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “determining a reward” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
The claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental process.” Independent claim 1, analyzed as the representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are in italics. The additional elements recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
Representative Independent claim 1: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute:
processing for determining a reward on the basis of a reached game stage when a game is started in a first play mode in which game stages proceed on the basis of an operation input by a player while a game screen is displayed;
processing for determining a reward on the basis of an elapsed time or a reached game stage when the game is started in a second play mode in which the player operation input and the game screen display are not required and the game stages proceed in association with the passage of time; and
processing for giving the determined reward to the player, wherein
the type of the reward determined in the second play mode is the same as the type of the reward determined in the first play mode and,
in the second play mode, the amount of time required to reach a first game stage is greater than the shortest time by which the first game stage can be reached in the first play mode.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “ a computer” is claimed, as this element is merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “determining a reward” is not providing a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “ a computer” is claimed this limitation is generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that this element is generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “ a computer” is described in the following paragraph:
“[0131] Fig. 14 is a diagram for explaining the configuration of the memory 12 in the player terminal 1 and functions as a computer. The memory 12 of the player terminal 1 is provided with a program storage area 12a and a data storage area 12b. The CPU 10 stores, when the game is started, various kinds of programs (modules) in the program storage area 12a. The programs stored in the program storage area 12a include a login processing program 80, an information acquisition program 81, a preparation processing program 82, and a normal-play execution program 83. Note that the programs indicated in Fig. 14 are examples, and numerous other programs are provided as the programs to be stored in the program storage area 12a.”
This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “ a computer” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more.
Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2-3 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-3 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1.
Therefore, claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-2, and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nariaki Yamamoto (JP 2017006279 A; hereinafter Yamamoto) in view of AION (NCSOFFT) as evidenced by Alexander Leitsch (“AION introduces controversial auto-play with the new update – players see their MMORPG in danger” August 19, 2020; hereinafter Leitsch).
Regarding claim 1,Yamamoto discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute (“An information storage medium according to an aspect of the present invention is a computer-readable information storage medium storing the above program” (recited in at least: pg. 103 of attached translation)): processing for determining a reward on the basis of a reached game stage when a game is started in a first play mode in which game stages proceed on the basis of an operation input by a player while a game screen is displayed (“The “reward” is a game object (game item or the like) or parameter (points or in-game currency) given to the user. The content of the “reward” changes depending on the result or content of the game, and the user plays the game with the aim of obtaining a better reward. Good reward means that there are many rewards or that the degree of scarcity of rewards is high” (recited in at least: pg. 10 of the attached translation)); processing for determining a reward on the basis of an elapsed time or a reached game stage when the game is started in a second play mode and the game stages proceed in association with the passage of time (“based on the user's operation, the change target selection means (1030) for selecting any one of the plurality of second game objects as the change target, and the second selected by the change target selection means (1030) Parameter changing means (1040) for changing the second parameter of the game object, use target selecting means (1050) for selecting at least one of the plurality of second game objects as a use target, and the use target selecting means Based on the second parameter of the second game object selected by (1050), the first parameter An effect generating means (1021) for generating an effect on the game relating to conversion or setting, and when the operation for selecting the change target is performed, for each second game object, the second game object Display control means (1060) for executing control for causing the display means (15) to display correspondence information indicating the correspondence between the second parameter and the effect generated by the effect generating means (1021)” (recited in at least: pg. 101 of the attached translation)); and processing for giving the determined reward to the player, wherein the type of the reward determined in the second play mode is the same as the type of the reward determined in the first play mode and, in the second play mode (Yamamoto states that the reward is the something that is given in game as stated above in pg. 10 of the attached translation; “the second game is a game to which a reward according to the content or result of the second game is given, and the second effect generating means (1172) is the user Generating an advantageous or unfavorable effect in the second game for obtaining a reward” (recited in at least: pg. 108 of the attached translation)). However, Yamamoto doesn’t explicitly disclose that in the second game mode that the player operation input and the game screen display are not required and the amount of time required to reach a first game stage is greater than the shortest time by which the first game stage can be reached in the first play mode.
Leitsch teaches the player operation input and the game screen display are not required (“This feature brings an automatic combat function to AION, which you would otherwise expect in such scope from mobile game” (recited on pg. 8 of the attached NPL) and the amount of time required to reach a first game stage is greater than the shortest time by which the first game stage can be reached in the first play mode (“The “bot” is more limited than illegal programs because it only knows 5 skills and cannot perform chain attacks” (recited on pg. 5 of the attached NPL). Since the second game mode is automatically playing and they can only equip five skills and not perform a “chain attack” or play the way a person would it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the automatic combat would take longer.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the use of “automatic combat” for farming in games as taught by Leitsch into the game system of Yamamoto for the added benefit of giving users a way to implement a bot in game that is legal and can clear stages for them automatically.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto in view of Leitsch teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Yamamoto further suggests processing for advancing the game on the basis of the operation input by the player in the case in which the game is started in the first play mode (“the user may advance to the sections 3B and 4B only within a specific period, and the user may not be allowed to advance to the sections 3B and 4B outside the specific period” (recited in at least: pg. 24 of the attached translation); and processing for receiving a skip operation input by the player in the first play mode, wherein, in the case in which the skip operation is received in the first play mode, the processing for advancing the game on the basis of the operation input by the player skips one or more game stages and the game is started from a second game stage (“The processing object P823 is associated with processing for turning on / off the skip function. The skip function is a function for automatically sending the text displayed on the display unit 15 at a faster speed than the auto function. When the skip function is set to on, text is automatically sent at a faster speed than the auto function even if the user does not tap the display unit 15. The user can turn on / off the skip function by selecting the processing object P823” (recited in at least: pg. 26 of the attached translation).
Regarding claim 4, An information processing method executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising: steps similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, An information processing system in which a computer executes: steps similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Leitsch in further view of Abishek Kumbhat (WO 2010044090 A1; hereinafter Kumbhat).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto in view of Leitsch teach the claimed matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly disclose receiving a skip operation input by the player in the second play mode, wherein, in the case in which the skip operation is received in the second play mode, the amount of time required to reach a prescribed game stage is reduced.
Kumbhat teaches receiving a skip operation input by the player in the second play mode, wherein, in the case in which the skip operation is received in the second play mode, the amount of time required to reach a prescribed game stage is reduced (an automatic play option can be given to a player while playing a player interactive lottery. Using the automatic option, the player can skip one or more interactive games incorporated in the player interactive lottery to determine the winning for the lottery ticket, which is determined by the winning determination module 112 (recited in at least: Kumbhat paragraph [00040])).
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 skip operation as taught by Kumbhat to the game system of Yamamoto in view of Leitsch for the added benefit of saving players time who are using the second game mode with the automatic clearing.
Conclusion
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
/PETER S VASAT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715