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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 4/21/26.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 1, 19-20.
Currently, claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-15, 17-20 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 19, 20,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “determine, during a player-versus-player (PVP) match of a video game, that a metric associated with a character involved in the PVP match has reached a certain threshold; activate a reserve skill of the character in response to the metric reaching the certain threshold, the reserve skill being unavailable for activation prior to the determination; presents a set of elements corresponding to the PVP match; and an action associated with the reserve skill of the character” (claim 1), “determining, during the PVP match, that a metric associated with a character involved in the PVP match has reached a certain threshold; applying the reserve skill of the character in at least one of: a defensive context intended to prolong a duration of survival for a player side of the PVP match that involves the character; or an offensive context intended to reduce a duration of survival for an opponent side of the PVP match that does not directly involve the character” (claims 19, 20), are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, rules). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-15, 17-18 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “a system, a computer, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising: circuitry, a graphics processing unit (GPU), one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor of a computing device, ”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Dong (2018/029620) teaches the recited additional elements (Fig 4, 6, ¶¶0053-0058).
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-15, 17-20, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and rules in In re Smith.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-15, 17-20 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busey et al. (2009/0149248) in view of Sato (2007/0265046).
Re Claim 1,
Busey discloses a system comprising: circuitry configured to activate a reserve skill of a character involved in a player-versus-player match of a video game; and a graphics processing unit (¶¶0002, 0024-0025, 0039, 0091) configured to:
render a user interface that presents a set of digital elements corresponding to the PVP match; and render, in the user interface during the PVP match, a graphical representation of an action associated with the reserve skill of the character (Fig 2, 4, 6-7, ¶¶0002, 0042-0043, 0046-0047, 0050-0051, 0055-0058, 0061, 0068-0071; a character viewing pane displays the various combinations of equipment and actions selected by a user, wherein the selected equipment or ability is used for specific challenge with another player, further, the game play animation plays out each of the opponent's loadouts and assigns outcomes as a function of preprogrammed criteria).
Busey is silent on determining, during a video game, that a metric associated with a character has reached a certain threshold and activating a skill of the character in response to the metric reaching the certain threshold, the reserve skill being unavailable for activation prior to the determination.
However, Sato teaches determining, during a video game, that a metric associated with a character has reached a certain threshold and activating a skill of the character in response to the metric reaching the certain threshold, the skill being unavailable for activation prior to the determination (¶¶0190, 0194-0199; the ATB value is added to the player during the game, wherein an auto-ability is activated if the accumulated maximum ATB reaches the required threshold). Sato further teaches such a configuration improves player’s interest in the game by improving ability of a player character in a video game (¶0009). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sato into the game of Busey in order to improve player’s interest in the game by improving ability of a player character in a video game.
Re Claim 2,
Busey discloses applying the reserve skill of the character in the PVP match based at least in part on input received from a player controlling the character (¶¶0002, 0042-0043, 0046-0047, 0050-0051, 0055-0058, 0061, 0068-0071).
Re Claim 3,
Busey discloses determining that a metric associated with the character has reached a certain threshold and activating the reserve skill of the character in response to the metric reaching the certain threshold (¶¶0002, 0042-0043, 0046-0047, 0050-0051, 0055-0058, 0061, 0068-0071).
Re Claim 4,
Busey discloses increasing the metric associated with the character based at least in part on: a performance of a player controlling the character; or a passage of time (¶¶0002, 0042-0043, 0046-0047, 0050-0051, 0055-0058, 0061, 0068-0071).
Re Claim 5,
Busey discloses applying the reserve skill of the character in a defensive context intended to prolong a duration of survival for a player side of the PVP match that involves the character (¶¶0002, 0042-0043, 0046-0047, 0050-0051, 0055-0058, 0061, 0068-0071).
Re Claim 7,
Busey discloses applying the reserve skill of the character in an offensive context intended to reduce a duration of survival for an opponent side of the PVP match that does not directly involve the character (¶¶0002, 0042-0043, 0046-0047, 0050-0051, 0055-0058, 0061, 0068-0071).
Re Claim 9,
Busey discloses applying the reserve skill of the character in both: a defensive context intended to prolong a duration of survival for a player side of the PVP match that involves the character; and an offensive context intended to reduce a duration of survival for an opponent side of the PVP match that does not directly involve the character (¶¶0002, 0042-0043, 0046-0047, 0050-0051, 0055-0058, 0061, 0068-0071).
Re Claim 11,
Busey discloses activating an additional reserve skill of an additional character involved in the PVP match; and the GPU is further configured to render, in the user interface, a graphical representation of an additional action associated with the additional reserve skill of the additional character (¶¶0002, 0042-0043, 0046-0047, 0050-0051, 0055-0058, 0061, 0068-0071).
Re Claims 19, 20,
Claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and further adds activating a reserve skill of a character involved in the PVP match and the reserve skill of the character in at least one of a defensive context intended to prolong a duration of survival for a player side of the PVP match that involves the character; or an offensive context intended to reduce a duration of survival for an opponent side of the PVP match that does not directly involve the character; and rendering, in the user interface, a graphical representation of an action associated with the reserve skill of the character (Fig 2, 4, ¶¶0002, 0042-0043, 0046-0047, 0050-0051, 0055-0058, 0061; the equipment and skill are activated based on the player’s level and the player can select different equipment or ability for offensive and defensive actions).
Claim(s) 6, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busey et al. (2009/0149248) in view of Sato (2007/0265046), further in view of Dong (2018/0296920).
Re Claims 6, 8,
Busey as modified by Sato discloses all limitations as set forth above including applying loadouts for characters that can be arranged into leaders, players, offensive characters, defensive characters and supporting characters for group competitions but is silent on rendering one or more antagonists that move along a lane on the player side of the PVP match and enabling a player controlling the player side of the PVP match to prolong the duration of survival for the player side. However, Dong teaches one or more antagonists that move along a lane on the player side of the PVP match and enabling a player controlling the player side of the PVP match to prolong the duration of survival for the player side (Fig 2A-2D, ¶¶0035-0043, 0052). Dong further teaches such a configuration allows strategic selection and positioning of defensive elements during the gameplay (¶0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Dong into the game of Busey as modified by Sato in order to enhance gameplay by allowing strategic selection and positioning of defensive elements.
Re Claim 10,
Busey as modified by Sato discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on render one or more antagonists that move along a lane on the player side of the PVP match, and render one or more additional antagonists that move along an additional lane on the opponent side of the PVP match, enabling a player controlling the player side of the PVP match. However, Dong teaches render one or more antagonists that move along a lane on the player side of the PVP match, and render one or more additional antagonists that move along an additional lane on the opponent side of the PVP match, enabling a player controlling the player side of the PVP match (Fig 2A-2D, ¶¶0035-0043, 0052). See claim 6 for motivation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection,
Step 2A,
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patent eligible because they recite a specific mechanism for dynamically managing and controlling gameplay behavior of a PVP match. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. For examples, in Ultramercial, Inc., et al. v. Hulu, Inc. and WildTangent, Inc. 2010-1544 (Fed. Cir., 2014), the claims described a specific 11-step method as "using advertising as an exchange or currency.", and in Gametek LLC v. Zynga Inc., 597 Fed. Appx. 644 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the claims described methods which use a programmed computer to effect twelve specific concrete steps. The Court found that the claims in both Ultramercial and Gametek nonetheless recited a judicial exception. Similarly, here, Examiner finds that despite being specific, the claims are still drawn to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claim does not fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping because the amended claim is directed to how a computing system operates at runtime to control availability of character abilities during gameplay. This argument is not persuasive. The recited computing elements, e.g., circuitry and GPU, are all generic computer elements. Instructing one to “apply” an abstract idea and reciting no more than generic computer elements performing generic computer tasks does not make an abstract idea patent eligible. For example, Planet Bingo LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining that claims to a computer- aided management system for bingo games was directed to an abstract idea).
Applicant further argues that the amended claim improves the functioning of the computing system itself by enabling dynamic state changes and rendering updates when threshold conditions are satisfy, thereby governing how processing and graphics resources are invoked. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recitation of circuitry and GPU is not enough by itself to transform the exception into a patentable invention, because these limitations are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Merely using these generic computer components to perform the identified basic functions does not constitute meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the ordered combination of claim features constitutes a non-conventional, no-generic arrangement of computing components and operations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted, the amended claim is written in largely functional terms, claiming “a collection of instructions” that perform the functions of determining a metric associated with a character, activating a reserve skill of the character, displaying a set of digital elements and an action associated with the reserve skill. The claims thus do not go beyond “stating [the relevant] functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology.” Elec. Power Grp., slip op. at 2. The features set forth in the claims are described and claimed generically rather than with the specificity necessary to show how those components provide a concrete solution to the problem addressed by the patent. That is, Applicant has not identified any “improved technological result” generated by the identified limitations. Cf. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316. Further, viewing the additional limitations as a combination, the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of controlling a character during a PVP match of a video game with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. Therefore, for the reasons as set forth above, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19, 20 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 JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights