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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-15 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 14 recites, in part, the limitations of […]: determining at least one type of parameters among a plurality of types of parameters as utilization parameters to be utilized in a game; determining, as a first rendering setting, a rendering setting corresponding to a type of the utilization parameters satisfying a first condition among the utilization parameters; determining, as a second rendering setting, a rendering setting corresponding to a type of the utilization parameters satisfying a second condition among the utilization parameters when a plurality of the parameters is determined as the utilization parameters; and rendering areas […] on the basis of the first rendering setting and the second rendering setting in the game. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 14 (substantially similar to claim(s) 1, 12-13, and 15). 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).
Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims also recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
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 14 recites the additional element(s) of: An information processing apparatus comprising one or more processors, the one or more processors being configured to perform game processing comprising: […]; […]; […]; and rendering areas in a virtual space […]. These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to receive data related to settings, combine data, and display combined data amounts to electronic data query and output—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The 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 (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
Additionally, the specification makes it clear that the apparatus and method can be implemented on or by a generic computer.
[0047] First, an information processing apparatus for executing information processing according to the exemplary embodiment will be described. The information processing apparatus is, for example, a smartphone, a stationary or hand-held game apparatus, a tablet terminal, a mobile phone, a personal computer, a wearable terminal, or the like. In addition, the information processing according to the exemplary embodiment can also be applied to a game system that includes the above game apparatus or the like and a predetermined server. In the exemplary embodiment, a stationary game apparatus (hereinafter, referred to simply as a game apparatus) will be described as an example of the information processing apparatus.
As such, the method and apparatus, for implementing the abstract idea, may require no more than generic, conventional, and well-known computer devices such as a general purpose computer (as evidenced in Para. 47 above).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Thus, Claim 14 is rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 2-11 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 14 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-11 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 14. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 14, Claims 2-11 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
For at least the above reasons, the claims are not considered patent eligible. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or adds 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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takizawa et al. (US 2004/0116181 A1) (henceforth, “Takizawa”).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 13, and 14, Takizawa teaches a method, apparatus, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored therein an information processing program causing one or more processors of an information processing apparatus capable of executing a game to perform game processing (e.g., CPU 202 and main memory 205 in Fig. 2 and Para. 48-49) comprising:
determining at least one type of parameters among a plurality of types of parameters as utilization parameters to be utilized in the game (e.g., determining texture colors out of determining brightness calculating, texture coordinate generating, and texture colors in Steps 21-23 of Fig. 9);
determining, as a first rendering setting, a rendering setting corresponding to a type of the utilization parameters satisfying a first condition among the utilization parameters (e.g., determining the value of the S component of the texture coordinates in relation to a first threshold value in Para. 83, Fig. 9 and Fig. 6A);
determining, as a second rendering setting, a rendering setting corresponding to a type of the utilization parameters satisfying a second condition among the utilization parameters when a plurality of the parameters is determined as the utilization parameters (e.g., determining the value of the T component of the texture coordinates in relation to a second threshold value in Paras. 84-85, Fig. 9, and Fig. 6A); and
rendering areas in a virtual space on the basis of the first rendering setting and the second rendering setting in the game (e.g., at step S30, the display color of the polygon is determined based on the texture color data in Para. 90 and Figs. 9-10).
Regarding claims 15, 2, and 3, Takizawa teaches one or non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored therein an information processing program causing one or more processors of an information processing apparatus capable of executing a game to perform game processing (e.g., CPU 202 and main memory 205 in Fig. 2 and Para. 48-49) comprising:
determining at least one type of parameters among at least three types of parameters, as utilization parameters utilized in the game (e.g., determining texture colors out of determining brightness calculating, texture coordinate generating, and texture colors in Steps 21-23 of Fig. 9);
if there is a type of the utilization parameters satisfying a first condition among the utilization parameters, determining a texture corresponding to the type of the utilization parameters as a first texture (e.g., determining the value of the S component of the texture coordinates in relation to a first threshold value in Para. 83, Fig. 9 and Fig. 6A);
if there is a type of the utilization parameters satisfying a second condition among the utilization parameters, determining a texture corresponding to the type of the utilization parameters as a second texture (e.g., determining the value of the T component of the texture coordinates in relation to a second threshold value in Paras. 84-85, Fig. 9, and Fig. 6A); and
rendering areas in a virtual space on the basis of the first texture and the second texture in the game (e.g., at step S30, the display color of the polygon is determined based on the texture color data in Para. 90 and Figs. 9-10).
Regarding claim 4, Takizawa teaches treat one or more utilization parameters whose number is largest among the parameters determined as the utilization parameters, as satisfying the first condition (e.g., at least the value of the S component of the texture coordinates wherein the value is greater than a first threshold value in Para. 83); and treat one or more utilization parameters whose number is second largest among the parameters determined as the utilization parameters, as satisfying the second condition (e.g., at least the value of the S component of the texture coordinates wherein the value is smaller than the first threshold value in Para. 83).
Regarding claim 5, Takizawa teaches determine the utilization parameters on the basis of an operation performed by a user (e.g., player’s operation and special effect generated in Paras. 77-78).
Regarding claim 6, Takizawa teaches on the basis of virtual items utilized in the game, determine the parameters corresponding to the virtual items as the utilization parameters (e.g., player’s operation including a bomb is exploded in Para. 77).
Regarding claim 7, Takizawa teaches give at least one of the virtual items to the user in accordance with progress of the game (e.g., player’s operation and bomb is exploded in Para. 77).
Regarding claim 8, Takizawa teaches render a first range set on the basis of an operation performed by a user, on the basis of the first rendering setting and the second rendering setting (e.g., player’s operation and special effect generated in Paras. 56 and 77-78).
Regarding claim 9, Takizawa teaches render a second range set regardless of an operation performed by the user, on the basis of a third rendering setting different from the first rendering setting and the second rendering setting (e.g., no special effect in Paras. 78 and 94).
Regarding claim 10, Takizawa teaches the game is a game in which a character object corresponding to a user is controllable in the virtual space (e.g., gorilla player object in Para. 93 and Fig. 10), and the information processing program causes the one or more processors to change a state of the character object if the character object is at least in a first range (e.g., special effect generated in Paras. 77-78).
Regarding claim 11, Takizawa teaches set a setting regarding use of color vision aid for a user on the basis of an operation performed by the user (e.g., special effect generated in Paras. 77-78, 6, and 20); and render a first range on the basis of a fourth rendering setting regardless of the first rendering setting and the second rendering setting if the setting regarding use of color vision aid for the user is enabled (e.g., special effect generated and effect display color in Paras. 77-78 and 56).
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 (10-6).
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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights