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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of […]; and […]: allow visual programming for creating a program causing a character to perform a series of actions, the program being created by combining program components; and […] selecting an object to be set in a program component indicating an action to be instructed to the character, the object being a target of the action, […] displays a position of the object on a map of a space in which the character acts. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1 (substantially similar to claims 19 and 20). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “at least one memory” and “at least one processor”. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because they are all recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to implement or perform the steps of the abstract idea. The additional elements when considered alone and in combination amount to no more than using generic computing components to apply the judicial exception. The recitation(s) “display a screen for selecting…” and “the screen displays…” are insignificant extra-solution activity i.e., data gathering and/or data output. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2, No). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. 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 and the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying and/or receiving data is no more than data gathering and data output. The same analysis applies here in step 2B and does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B, No).
The dependent claims fail to add “significantly more” because they merely represent further use of generic computers for routine data-processing functions related to steps/rules for combining program components (Claims 2-18).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (US 2017/0344127 A1) (henceforth, “Hu”).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Hu teaches an information processing device and method comprising:
at least one memory (e.g., computing device 104 in Figs. 1-2 and Para. 29); and
at least one processor (e.g., computing device 104 in Figs. 1-2 and Para. 29);
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
allow visual programming for creating a program causing a character to perform a series of actions (e.g., the computing device 104 includes executing commands to manipulate a target virtual object 122 based on interface objects 120 in Para. 29 and Fig. 1), the program being created by combining program components (e.g., sequence of objects in Fig. 5 and Para. 89); and
display a screen for selecting an object to be set in a program component indicating an action to be instructed to the character (e.g., virtual scene 118 in which virtual object 122 can be manipulated to move in Fig. 1, Fig. 8A, Para. 29, and Para. 33), the object being a target of the action (e.g., interface object in Para. 70 and Fig. 4A),
wherein the screen displays a position of the object on a map of a space in which the character acts (Figs. 8A-E).
Regarding claim 2, Hu teaches set the object selected from the map in the program component (Fig. 8E, command detection window 806 in Para. 106).
Regarding claim 7, Hu teaches a type of the object corresponds to the action (objects 120 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 8, Hu teaches the map does not display a position of an object that is not the target of the action (Figs. 8A-E).
Regarding claim 9, Hu teaches the screen displays a positional relationship between the character and the object (Figs. 8A-E).
Regarding claim 10, Hu teaches the screen displays a list of the object with the map (Fig. 8E).
Regarding claim 11, Hu teaches set, in the program component, the object selected in the list (Fig. 8E).
Regarding claim 12, Hu teaches highlight the position of the object selected in the list on the map (Figs. 8A-E).
Regarding claim 13, Hu teaches highlight, in the list, the position of the object selected on the map (Figs. 8A-E).
Regarding claim 14, Hu teaches synchronize a selection state of the object in the map with a selection state of the object in the list (Fig. 1 and Figs. 8A-E).
Regarding claim 15, Hu teaches display a second screen for creating the program, the program components being arranged in the second screen and connected to make the program (Fig. 8E, command detection window 806 in Para. 106), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to display the screen in response to an operation on an input field of the program component on the second screen (Fig. 8E, command detection window 806 in Para. 106).
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on dependent claims 3-6 and 16-18 as currently presented, the claims currently overcome prior art. No prior art rejection has been made to claims 3-6 and 16-18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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, David Lewis can be reached at (571)272-7673. 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715