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 .
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, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims present an abstract idea, and do not present a practical application or activities that are significantly more than activities well-understood, routine, and conventional previously known in the industry.
Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), as the claims are directed towards the abstract idea of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” through game rules. The instant application, describes a game that includes acquiring game items and associated properties with the act of acquiring said game items. For example, the limitations provide instruction that “decreases the number of game media of a selected kind among game media of the player and changes a first parameter of the game media within a prescribed value as a limit,” “decreases the number of game media of a selected kind among game media of the player and changes a second parameter of the player, wherein the second update unit, on the basis of a third input by a player,” “decreases the number of specific game media with which the first parameter has reached the prescribed value among game media of the player and changes the second parameter of the player.” Each are abstract rules for playing a game. Thus, a game organizer can create a game that includes game items with associated rules for players to follow, and therefore the claims represent the abstract idea of a managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims relate to a game that focuses on acquiring duplicate characters and decreasing said characters. Additionally, the claims discuss an over-limiting button to decrease the number of duplicate players and increase a maximum level. However, neither of these issues are longstanding issues grounded in computer history. Thus, the over-limiting button fails to provide a practical application to the abstract idea. Furthermore, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
3. Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here, Applicant has outlined a well detailed graphic user interface (GUI) for implementing the aforementioned game, however the GUI fails to establish an inventive concept that goes beyond simply using a GUI as a tool for implementing the game. The GUI does not offer any technical improvements to computing or display technology, and for these reasons, the GUI will be considered a generic GUI that is a programmed to provide Applicant’s gam. In its totality, the claimed invention does not recite significantly more as the claim language only recites a processor, display, input, a graphic user interface, memory and game mediums and associated functions such as displaying information, receiving input, adjusting the game according to user input, for performing said game. Examiner takes Official Notice that said elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible. Therefore, the abstract idea lacks significantly more to make the claims eligible patent subject matter.
Additionally, claims 1-4 state only the use of a “non-statutory computer readable medium.”. However, such can only be deemed statutory if they are claimed as a “non-statutory computer readable storage medium.” Please make corrections that follow this format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims to further recite technical features of the claimed invention including:
“(1) executing, within a terminal device, a computer game using a graphical user interface (GUI), where the computer game grants various game characters to a player during the execution of the computer game, (2) displaying a first display area on a display device within the terminal device, where the first display area includes various GUI buttons that further includes an over-limiting selection button, (3) receiving, from an input device within the terminal device, various player inputs in response to displaying the GUI, where a first player input corresponds to a selected character among various character objects within the GUI and a second player input corresponds to a selection of the over-limiting selection button within the GUI, (4) displaying a second display area on the display device and in response to receiving the first player input and the second player input, where the second display area includes an image of the selected character, a list indication indicating various parameters of the selected character, and an over-limiting button, and where the second display area displays a current maximum level of the selected character, a duplicate number of the selected character, and one or more special items possessed by the player, (5) receiving, from the input device, a third player input that corresponds to a selection of the over- limiting button, (6) displaying a third display area on the display device and in response to receiving the third player input for selecting the over-limiting button, where the third display area includes a stack selection button that determines a duplicate number of characters to consume based on the selected character in order to perform an over-limiting function, (7) receiving, from the input device, a fourth player input in response to displaying the third display area within the GUI, where the fourth player input corresponds to a selection of a duplicate number of game characters based on the selected character that is greater than or equal to one, and where the fourth player input decreases the duplicate number of game characters corresponding to the selected character, (8) changing, through communication with a server, a first parameter of a game character within a prescribed value as a limit using the over-limiting function to produce a first changed parameter of the game character, where the first parameter corresponds to a reference maximum level of the game character and the first changed parameter corresponds to a raised maximum level that enables the game character to obtain character experience above the prescribed value for the reference maximum level, and (9) executing the computer game within the GUI using the game character, the first changed parameter, and a second changed parameter.”
However, this is merely, further describes the computer game itself, and the method in which the game rules are implicated. A graphic user interface, as discussed here, does not add to the practical application of the invention as it doesn’t solve a problem long standing in computer history. Instead the GUI discussed here is merely, built around the game, instead of around a problem in which its solving. At the heart of the discussion in Core Wireless, which Applicant has cited in their Remarks, is a claimed invention that was determined to have practical application “as the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens.” In regards to the claimed invention, Applicant states that “the independent claim 1 is directed to an improved interface that implements unconventional "over-limiting" processing that reduces "a management burden for the player." However, the burden for the player, is the many activities within Applicant’s own game. This is not a problem long rooted in computer technology as Applicant’s game is not grounded in said history. For example, the over-limiting button mentioned by Applicant, is used to modify the number of duplicate characters belonging to a player, as well as adjusting the maximum level by “5.” However, neither of these issues are longstanding issues grounded in computer history. Thus, the over-limiting button fails to provide a practical application to the abstract idea.
Additionally, Applicant argues that the specific GUI in the claimed limitations does not present an abstract, wherein “…the USPTO contends that claim 1 of the Graphical User Interface Example integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and is thereby patent eligible under Prong Two of Step 2A.” However, the Examples given by the USPTO are accompanied by specific conditions for the GUI to be patent eligible wherein such includes, determining the amount of use of various icons on the GUI in order to arrange the icons within a particular manner. Applicant’s invention lacks explanation as to how a problem is being solved by the GUI as such was instructed by USPTO Examples. For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
