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 Status
Claims 1-8, 11-19, 22, and 63-64 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 11-12, 17, and 22 have been amended and claims 9-10 and 20-21 have been canceled and claims 63-64 have been newly added. Claims 23-62 were previously cancelled by preliminary amendment without prejudice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that rejection under 35 USC 101 is improper because providing one or more velocity profiles associated with an object for downloading is neither a mental nor a mathematical relationship (see Remarks, pg. 6-7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation to provide information for downloading amounts to data gathering associated with communicating game state and arranging and displaying three-dimensional objects of a virtual scene of a game. A review of the Specification indicates that velocity profiles are data associated with game objects such as “player characters or non-player characters” that are defined by mathematical relationships (e.g., piecewise linear function, polynomial, a spline interpolation) that an instruction as to how velocity of an object changes when the object moves in a game (see Specification, 0031-0032). Stated differently, as is consistent with the Specification, the limitation has been found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas because managing a game including instructions to manage the movement of game objects amounts to managing a game which is analogous to managing a social activity including rules and/or instructions. Additionally, the additional limitations that are directed to downloading the data and/or rendering of the objects on the display, when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements recites performing highly-generalized computer functions that amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea.
Moreover, the limitation “determining, by the game server, that movement of the object has not changed at a second time corresponding to a scheduled publication of updated game state data” further recites a steps and/or instruction to manage the game and/or a mental process because it recites an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind because it recites a rule and/or instruction for managing the game including game objects (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s is not persuasive and the claims are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative further argues that the Office Action’s analysis is misplaced and improper because the character of the claims, as a whole, are not directed to, nor recite, patent-ineligible subject matter (see Remarks, pg. 7). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite an improved system and method for communicating game state data in that game data to reduce traffic between the game server and improving latency (see Remarks, pg. 7-8)y. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the claims recite steps and/or instructions for managing a game by communicating game state data to render three-dimensional objects. When viewed as a whole, the additional limitations such as: “providing, by a game server”, “publishing, by the game server,….in response to input received and without waiting for a subsequent network tick” “determining, by the game server”, and “publishing, by the game server, updated game state data at the second time for use by the one or more client computer systems…the coordinate data for the object at the first time, and the velocity for the object at the first time” recites steps that invoke general purpose functions such as: transmitting/publishing information which the courts have indicated are computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional or insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)I-II). Furthermore, with respect to downloading of the “velocity profiles” and publishing of the “game state data”, as indicated by the courts, “information is an intangible” and even when limited to particular content” does not change its character as information and is within the realm of the abstract ideas (see Microsoft v. ATT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., 788 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It follows that when viewed a whole, these additional elements does not transform the abstract idea but amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For instance, the claimed invention recite a desired-functional result (e.g., wherein the steps and /or instructions recite steps for receiving downloaded information on game state and velocity profiles on game objects, publish the information, determine the movement of game objects without waiting for a subsequent network tick, publish that the determination that the game object has not changed) which is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity by invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). While the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims reflect an improvement to computer functionality, the claims do not reflect such an improvement. In contrast, the claims recite that “in response to input received and without waiting for subsequent network tick”. A review of the Specification, indicates that the game server may publish the state data without waiting for subsequent network tick and that “tick-less” publishing may both improve latencies and reduce traffic, but does not provide details and/or define “tick-less UDP” and/or how it is adopted by the updated game state information and velocity profiles to achieve the purported technological benefit. It follows that the lack of details in the Specification and/or the interrelationship between the game state data, velocity profiles, and “tick-less UDP” communication is achieved to provide the purported improvement. It follows that as currently claimed, the subject matter recites at a high-level of generality invoking a general purpose and commercially game server to perform computer functions to achieve its desired results that is indicative of invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the claim, when viewed as a whole, are note found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
Moreover, the mere general statement that “tick-less” publishing may improve latencies and reduce traffic does not provide sufficient details as to how the claimed steps recite an improvement in online gaming. Rather the cited portions recite a desired functionality of the game server that purports to provide a technical solution to a technical problem as opposed to sufficient details as to how “tick-less” publishing is achieved or provides a solution to technical problem in online gaming. For instance, the particulars and details of how the inventor intended for “tick-less” publishing to be achieved by the computer to perform the desired result, details as to the interrelationship between the game state data and the velocity profiles, and/or how tick-less reduces the amount of information or improves latency does not appear in the instant Specification. A review of the cited applications that are incorporated by reference, the Examiner has not found further details of the claimed “tick-less” publishing or the purported improvement or “tick-less UDP” other than a general statement of a desired result which does not indicate a technical solution to a technical problem but merely the application of a concept of a desired result in online gaming communication. The Examiner notes that if these findings are contested , the Applicant’s representative is encouraged to provide citations and indicate where the disclosure is contained in any of the references incorporated by reference in paragraphs 0001, 0024-0025, 0044, 0056-0057, 0064-0065. It follows that the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained 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 1-8, 11-19, 22, and 63-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites limitations that are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. A computer-implemented method of communicating game state data used to render three-dimensional objects within a virtual scene, the method comprising:
providing, by a game server, one or more velocity profiles associated with an object for downloading by one or more client computer systems; -certain method of organizing human activity, mental process and/or mathematical relationships;
publishing, by the game server, game state data at a first time for use by the one or more client computer systems to render a virtual scene within an online game, wherein the game state data includes at least coordinate data for the object at the first time and velocity data for the object at the first time, and wherein the game state data is published by the game server in response to input received and without waiting for a subsequent network tick; and -certain method of organizing human activity;
determining, by the game server, that movement of the object has not changed at a second time corresponding to a scheduled publication of updated game state data, - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
publishing, by the game server, updated game state data at the second time for use by the one or more client computer systems,
wherein the game server is configured to not include coordinate data for the object at the second time or velocity data for the object at the second time in the updated game state data responsive to the determination that the movement of the object has not changed since the first time, wherein coordinates and a velocity of the object at the second time are instead determined at the one or more client computer systems based on the one or more velocity profiles, the coordinate data for the object at the first time, and the velocity data for the object at the first time. -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining limitations such as: “publishing, by the game server, game state data at a first time for use by the one or more client computer systems to render a virtual scene within an online game, wherein the game state data includes at least coordinate data for the object at the first time and velocity data for the object at the first time, and wherein the game state data is published by the game server in response to input received and without waiting for a subsequent network tick;” and publishing, by the game server, updated game state data at the second time for use by the one or more client computer systems, “ recites result-oriented functional language of a computer functionality that invokes general purpose functions of a networked environment such as receiving, transmitting, downloading information over a network which is not found to amount to a technical solution but mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). The remaining limitations such as: “A computer-implemented method of communicating game state data used to render three-dimensional objects within a virtual scene, the method comprising:” “by a game server,” “for downloading”, “by the game server”, “for use by the one or more client computer systems to render”, “without waiting for a subsequent network tick”, and “by the game server”, and “wherein the game server is configured”, and “at the one or more client computing system” are found to recite computer components that are invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). For instance, these additional elements when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application but amount to a collecting, analyzing, and displaying information in networked environment by downloading and publishing information associated with managing the game to manage in a technological environment which is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as “a game server” and “one or more client computing system” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements amount to invoking highly-generalized computer components as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For instance, both the “game server” and the “one or more client devices” are disclosed as common and commercially available components of a networked computing systems additional elements are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see Specification, 0062, - a remote server, client computing system, server blades, processors, etc; 0077 – a computing device, 0082-0083 – communication of radio, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, cellular, infrared;). It follows that the additional elements are similar to the case in Alice v. CLS, in which they are computing devices invoked merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the additional elements are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claim 11, the subject matter recites substantially the same as independent Claim 1 which has reviewed above and the analysis is incorporated herein. For at least these reasons, independent Claim 1 is found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding dependent Claims 2-8, 11-19, 22, and 63-64, the dependent claims have been reviewed and were found to each recite at least one of: i) limitations directed to grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., mathematical relationships – claims 2-4; 13-15), additional limitations that amount to mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity; and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-8, 11-19, 22, and 63-64 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
