Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/658,573

NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
May 08, 2024
Examiner
LIDDLE, JAY TRENT
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Cygames Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
345 granted / 601 resolved
-12.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
640
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
§103
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 601 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
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 . Status of Application This present rejection replaces the previous rejection that was mailed on 01/20/2026 to add in a rejection based upon 35 USC 101 noted below. 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute: a process for deciding one item of content from a plurality of kinds of content; a process for playing back the decided content; a process for deciding a display pattern of an object associated with the content that is played back; and a process for displaying the object in the decided display pattern at least one of during playback of the content and in a state in which the content that is played back is decided. The underlined portions above are categorized as a mental process that one could be done in the human mind. The other portions of the claim are viewed as insignificant extra solution This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is presently claimed as an abstract idea embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium and thus is merely applying the abstract idea to a technological area. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above the only elements in the claim that are not an abstract idea are considered to be insignificant extra solution activity. Even though the claim limitations are embodied upon a non-transitory computer readable medium, this is merely adding in a generic computing part which the Supreme Court determined in Alice to not be significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims have been considered but they merely add additional abstract ideas to the claims and thus do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0207537 to Kishimoto. With regard to claim 1, Kishimoto discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute: a process for deciding one item of content from a plurality of kinds of content (0042-0044; 0063; 0065; 0075; 0221-0223); a process for playing back the decided content (0053-0057); a process for deciding a display pattern of an object associated with the content that is played back (00420044; 0063; 0065; 0075; 0129 wherein pattern is so broad that it can apply to different characters shown/different abilities shown); and a process for displaying the object in the decided display pattern at least one of during playback of the content and in a state in which the content that is played back is decided (0043-0055; 0067). With regard to claim 2, Kishimoto discloses that the process for deciding one item of content includes a process for deciding the one item of content by lottery regardless of an operation input made by a player (0043-0044). With regard to claim 3, Kishimoto discloses that the object is a character, and a display mode of the character differs depending on the decided display pattern (0053-0055; 0067). With regard to claim 4, Kishimoto discloses a process for enabling a player to evaluate the content that is played back (0071; 0156). Claims 5 and 6 are mirrored claims to claim 1 and are rejected in like manner. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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. /Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 08, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594502
CONTENT STREAM PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589314
RECORDING MEDIUM AND INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE THAT GUIDE USER TO UTILIZE PLURAL FUNCTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585622
METHODS AND SYSTEMS PROVIDING NFT CHARACTERS ON A BLOCKCHAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582913
SYSTEM, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM, METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576335
SELECTIVE GAME LOGIC PROCESSING BY A GAME SERVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+23.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 601 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month