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 1-22 are pending.
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 1-22 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; -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
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, 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;” recites result-oriented functional language that do not provide a technical solution but amounts to 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,” “wherein the game server is configured” and “at the one or more client computer systems” are found to recite computer components that are invoked 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 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 2-10 and 12-22, 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 1-22 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights