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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 8/8/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/8/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S.___(2014).
Claims 1-7 are directed to a system; claims 7-13 are also directed to a server resource management method; and claims 14-15 are directed to a recording medium storing a program. As such, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice flowchart as directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Addressing the claims under Step 2A, the claims are held to be directed to concepts similar to those found to be abstract, either as outlined in the 2014 lEG/July 2015 Update to Subject matter eligibility, or, as compared to certain decisions rendered by the courts. The claims recite a game, wherein the game is linked to current real-world environment/events. The addition of the limitations that narrow the idea merely aide in the description of the abstract idea and therefore do not render the claims any less abstract.
The concept of linking a game environment to current real-world environment represents ‘an idea itself’ (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)) inasmuch as it is related to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data. Several precedential cases have found concepts relating to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data to be mere ideas in themselves. One example includes selecting/identifying displayed data, manipulating the data through encoding and decoding processes, and generating new outputs/displays (Recognicorp, LLC, v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01873-RAJ (2017)). The courts have addressed other computerized processes for of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data including data collecting and comparing known information (Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC 659 F.3d 1057(Fed. Cir. 2011)), collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016))] extracting, organizing, storing and transmitting data (Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass'n. 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc. 654 F.3d 1366, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)).
Therefore, while it is understood that the claims in the current application are not verbatim recitations of the guidelines or case law, the detailed analysis provided above shows how the current claim limitations at issue closely parallel the concepts provided by the guidelines and the precedential case law, and are therefore considered to be directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claims 1-15 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; MPEP § 2106.05(f). (2) generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment MPEP § 2106.05(h); (3) are insignificant extra solution activity; MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements are limited to generic computer components, which include: “a game server”, “client terminal” and “client program”.
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/computer components and is not a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Claim 1-15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the examiner acknowledges the additional limitations do not provide element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. For example, the computer components generically claimed to enable the management of the game by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, and (ii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized these functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Particularly, In re TLI Communications LLC (Fed Cir, 2016) held that adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible. As such, the recitation of the computer limitations in Claims 1 to 15 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
These limitations however are used for data gathering and presentation and as such merely represents insignificant pre and post solution activity. Even assuming arguendo that the claims are not insignificant pre and post solution activities or mental activities, each of the functions performed by the machinery are well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving and processing data, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data (see July 2015 Update: Section IV)).
Additionally, these are merely generic recitations of computers and networks performing basic functions and the claims amount to nothing more than implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The limitations taken as a whole amount to nothing more than implementing the concept of a game, wherein the game is linked to current real-world environment/events; with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claims as a whole do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of identifying and transmitting auction information to a user.
Ultimately, the claimed machine(s) function solely as an obvious mechanism to achieve the claimed result, failing to impart a meaningful limit on the claim scope [see SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2010)]. The claims at issue here do not rise to overriding the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily performed by the computer, nor do they set forth with any specificity the interactions of the machine itself. Conversely, the claims are only specific in how the computer is used to facilitate the abstract idea itself using routine and conventional operations of the generic machinery, and are silent as to any detail or property that would transform the otherwise generic machinery into a specialized or special purpose machine. Even when considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of applicant's method add nothing that is not already present when they are considered individually. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply convey the idea itself facilitated by generic computing components.
Thus, under Step 2B, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims provide minimal technical structure or components for further consideration either individually or as ordered combinations with the independent claims. As such, additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the identified abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
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 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter wherein the claim recites a recording medium not claimed as embodied in a non- transitory storage medium. The Applicant's disclosure is not limited solely to tangible embodiments, the claimed subject matter, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be a carrier wave comprising of instructions and is, therefore, non-statutory. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO (see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium typically covers forms of non- transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable storage media, particularly when the specification is silent (§MPEP 2111.01). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Patent Pub. 20120231887; referred to hereinafter as Lee).
Claims 1, 7 & 14: Lee disclose a system, as a game server resource management system (0013 & figure 1), comprising, a service server (figure 1, element 112 which is a database) that receives member information of a game service user from a client terminal (0024-0025 mobile device), registers the member information and performs member management (0021 user registration data), and a game server (0017) that provides a client program for game execution on the client terminal (0024-0025, disclose information exchange with mobile device through API) wherein the client program includes a matching table between a real environment to which the game service user belongs and a generated game environment (0014, 0024 template database & 0026-0030 includes items looked-up from database in object recognition algorithm), and when the user runs the game, the client terminal generates a virtual game environment based on the matching table (0028-0032).
Claims 2 & 8: Lee disclose when the user runs the game, the client program receives real environment information to which the user belongs based on GPS values from a relevant API or map server (0030), and generates a virtual game environment that matches the real environment information based on the matching table (0030-0031).
Claims 3, 9-10 & 15: Lee disclose the game server comprises, a client program providing unit providing the client program (0017), an interaction confirmation unit that confirms changed elements from interaction of a player in a game environment, and generates interaction data (0024-0029, objection recognition algorithms), a non-volatile storage processor that continuously stores non-volatile data among the interaction data and provides the non-volatile data to the client terminal upon user connection (0017), such that changed elements are incorporated when the client terminal generates a virtual game environment (0029-0032), and a volatile storage processor that stores volatile data among the interaction data and provides the volatile data to the client terminal upon user connection such that changed elements are incorporated when the client terminal generates a virtual game environment (0024-0026).
Claims 4 & 11: Lee disclose the non-volatile data is information related to the player's growth and includes one or more of experiences, a level, equipment, and goods (0032 experience).
Claims 5-6 & 12-13: Lee disclose the volatile data is temporary interaction data of the player (0025), and the volatile storage processor deletes the volatile data when one or more of the following occurs: when a predetermined period for the volatile data has elapsed, when there is no utilization during the predetermined period, and when the number of utilizations is less than a predetermined number (0025-0026).
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watkins (8,668,592) refers to enabling virtual gameplay with a character in a game environment. A game environment is provided in which a player can play a game via a character. The player's geographic location is detected and stored. In response to the detected geographic location, a storyline is retrieved for the character to interact with. The retrieved storyline is related to the geographic location of the player.
Pickover (20180311573) refers to deterring augmented reality game players from intruding on undesirable locations (e.g., high risk locations, culturally sensitive locations, locations marked by property owners). The exemplary method includes obtaining a location of a mobile device using a first sensor of the mobile device and accessing a first locational database responsive to the location of the mobile device. The exemplary method further includes retrieving from the first locational database an augmented reality object; obtaining an indication that the location of the mobile device is an undesirable location; and modifying the augmented reality object responsive to the indication that the location of the mobile device is an undesirable location. The exemplary method also includes displaying the modified augmented reality object at a display of the mobile device.
Hickman (20190076731) refers to obtaining, from a camera of a computing device, an image of an environment and then determining, based on a first comparison of the image to a stored dataset in a database, that the stored dataset lacks one or more details of the environment. Following, the method includes providing a command by the computing device that indicates a request to obtain additional data of the environment, and in response to the command, obtaining, from one or more sensors of the computing device, additional data of the environment. The method also includes determining, based on a second comparison to the stored dataset in the database, that the additional data of the environment differs from data of the environment in the stored dataset, and then providing one or more points for gameplay on an interface of the computing device.
The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...." In re Fulton, 391F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/SUNIT PANDYA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715