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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 11/18/2025.
Claims 1, 8-12, and 19-25 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2-6 and 13-17 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 7-12, and 18-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 9-11, 14-17, and 20-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has reintroduced first user information and second user information into the independent claims, restoring proper antecedent basis in claims 9-11 and 20-22. Claims 14-17 have been canceled, rendering the rejections of these claims moot. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 9-11, 14-17, and 20-22 have been withdrawn. However, Examiner notes that Applicant’s amendments to claim 24 have necessitated a new ground of 112(b) rejection as will be discussed in greater detail below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-15, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections of claims 1-25 have been fully considered. In response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-13 that the Herriger reference fails to disclose the limitations amending subject matter from claims 2-6 comprising “determining an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value, and determining the second enhancement value to be equal to the intermediate value based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement range, and determining the second enhancement value to be a value in the enhancement value range based on the second enhancement demand based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range” (Page 13 Remarks), Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Herriger does not explicitly teach these limitations, and, therefore, does not teach all of the limitations of amended claim 1. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 using Herriger has been withdrawn.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument at the bottom of page 13 of Remarks that the DeLuca reference allegedly does not teach “based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determining a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand”. Particularly, DeLuca teaches in Col. 12 lines 22-37 "dynamic pricing tool 147 determines whether the adjustment value exceeds a threshold (decision step 255). In other words, responsive to determining a price adjustment, dynamic pricing tool 147 determines whether the determined price adjustment value exceeds a minimum or a maximum price adjustment threshold previously received...In the embodiment (decision step 255, YES branch), dynamic pricing tool 147 determines that one of a minimum or a maximum price adjustment threshold was exceeded; therefore, dynamic pricing tool 147 proceeds to step 265 to transmit a prompt to the owner of the DT resource(s)" and see Col. 13 line 47 thru Col. 14 line 10 "dynamic pricing tool sets price (step 275). In other words, responsive to determining that the determined price adjustment, transmitted in a prompt to the DT resource owner, was not approved by said owner, dynamic pricing tool sets the price of the DT resource based on an input from said owner...the input of the owner may indicate a new price equivalent to one of the minimum or the maximum price threshold (e.g., a new price of either ‘$90’ or ‘$110)". DeLuca further teaches in Col. 13 line 65 thru Col. 14 line 4 “the input of the owner may indicate a new price that is below the maximum price threshold but above the baseline price (e.g., a new price of ‘$105’). According to a fourth embodiment, the input of the owner may indicate a new price that is below the baseline price but above the minimum price threshold (e.g., a new price of ‘$95’)”. Accordingly, DeLuca teaches determining that an intermediate price value exceeds a minimum or maximum threshold (is outside the enhancement value range) and determines a second enhancement value based on the second the enhancement demand and that lies within the enhancement value range. Specifically, based on the demand driving the intermediate value outside of the range, DeLuca teaches that a second enhancement value is determined based on owner feedback that lies within the enhancement range. Particularly, DeLuca teaches that this second value can be the corresponding minimum or maximum, which Examiner is also interpreting as lying within the value range, or another price that is within the range but above or below the baseline first enhancement price. Accordingly, DeLuca teaches the features argued by Applicant in the last paragraph of page 13 of Remarks, and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at the top of Page 14 of Remarks that Herriger allegedly teaches personalized demand instead of group demand of users and that Herriger allegedly teaches prices for items instead of enhancements. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Herriger teaches in at least [0054], [0073], and [0075] that the purchases being made are for both items as well as upgrades (in the example of [0073] and [0075], upgrades to the suspension and engine of a player’s car in a racing game). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that Herriger does not teach item upgrades is not persuasive. Herriger further teaches in [0035] that the dynamic pricing model is used to output pricing alteration to groups of users based on historical data from groups of users, and is not restricted to personalized pricing as Applicant alleges. Further see at least [0048]-[0050], [0057] for detailed explanation of data collection and price setting for different user groups. Applicant’s argument that Herriger and DeLuca are focused on strictly a per-user basis is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the drawbacks of item-only price adjustments vs. enhancement price adjustments as far as game balance are not persuasive, as Herriger teaches item enhancement dynamic pricing in response to item enhancement demand for a plurality of item enhancements in a game (as discussed above). Examiner also notes that Applicant appears to be referring to the amended limitation “wherein the method modifies enhancement values to maintain gameplay balance among a plurality of items in a game” of claim 1 (and the corresponding limitations in the other independent claims) in the argument. Examiner notes that this limitation is part of the preamble to the claims. Per MPEP 2111.02 II. “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)”. In the case of the present invention, the body of the method sets forth all of the limitations of the claim, and this limitation of the preamble is merely reciting the intended use of the pricing method. In other words, the pricing method claimed is performed to items in a game with the intention of maintaining game balance. Therefore, this limitation of the preamble is not being given patentable weight in the claims below. Accordingly, the combination of Herriger and DeLuca teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments that claims 12 and 23 are distinguished over the prior art for similar reasoning as argued for claim 1 are not persuasive for the reasoning discussed above. Applicant’s argument on page 15 of Remarks that the dependent claims 7-11 and 18-22 are distinguished over the art by virtue of their dependence on claims 1 and 12, respectively, are not persuasive because claims 1 and 12 are not distinguished over the prior art for the reasoning discussed above. Accordingly, claims 1, 7-12, and 18-23 still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15 of the Remarks with respect to the art rejections of claims 24 and 25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. For the reasoning discussed in greater detail in the “Novel/Non-Obvious” section below, the prior art of record fails to teach the limitations of a first enhancement demand “calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the first period, from users who have a level within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item based on the enhancement information” and a second enhancement demand “calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the second period, from users who have the level within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item based on the enhancement information”. Accordingly, prior art rejections have been withdrawn for claims 24 and 25.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-20, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 7-12, and 18-25 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 7-12, and 18-25 have been maintained.
First, Applicant argues on pages 15-16 that the instant claims do not recite a judicial exception. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a Mental Process because the human mind allegedly cannot determine user enhancement demands related to the enhancement of an item form user terminals of users who use a game or provide an interface to enhance the item based on a second enhancement value. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity because the claims are allegedly “dissimilar” to the various examples of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the Mental Process arguments, Examiner notes that determine a demand of an item covers logging the purchases made of the item over a period of time, which can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.B. for features that can be performed using pen and paper still falling under Mental Process). Regarding the presentation of an interface and the gathering of the purchase data using user terminals, Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.C.2. states that a claim performing a Mental Process in a computer environment still recites a Mental Process. With regards to the gather of demand/purchase information, claim 1 is performing the mental process of tracking sales/purchases (such as in a written ledger) in a computing environment in which the user terminals provide the information which can be tracked by a human using pen and paper. With regards to the interface, claim 1 is performing the Mental Process of offering an item for sale to a person in a computer environment via the interface.
Regarding the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity arguments, the determining and presentation of a price for an item before later updating the price based on demand in a subsequent time period is at least a commercial interaction in the form of marketing or sales activities and behaviors and business relations. Specifically, by determining and adjusting a price for an item to sell to a user in-game, the claim is marketing the item for sale to the users. The setting and updating of the sale price of the in game item enhancement is also part of the business relationship of users of the game purchasing in-game items from the game owner/operator. For at least these reasons, the instant claim 1 recites a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity.
Applicant then argues on pages 16-18 that the claims integrate any abstract ideas into a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2. Particularly, Applicant argues that the claim 1 improves the functioning of computers by reducing the amount of computing resources dedicated to providing interfaces for manual price entry. Applicant also argues that the claims are allegedly analogous to the claims in McRO and claim 1 of Example 37. Finally, Applicant argues that the claimed invention improves the technical field of game service management. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the alleged improvements in the functioning of a computer, Examiner notes that the claims are taking the commercial interaction of setting prices of items for sale and using a game-providing device as a tool to perform those calculations on behalf of a human user. While bringing the price calculation functions into the system would potentially obviate the need for an interface that allows a backend user to manually set enhancement prices. However, the removal of a manual price input user interface because the system is now calculating the enhancement prices is not an improvement to the functioning of the computer. Instead, it is part of the application of the price calculation to the system. Applicant’s specification does not present a manual price input interface as a technical hurdle of conventional system that is being overcome by the invention, or that a technical hurdle is being overcome to calculate the enhancement prices on a device (see MPEP 2106.05(a) for a technical explanation such that an improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art being part of the “improvements” consideration). Instead, Applicant’s specification [0003]-[0004] highlight the need an improvement to the pricing process itself, taking into account the abstract market forces to more appropriately set prices. MPEP 2106.05(f) states that the invocation of a computer as a tool to perform an existing process does not integrate a claim into a practical application at Step 2A Prong 2 (“Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”). As the claims are taking on the price setting process from a user to manually entering prices and instead using the game-providing device to perform the calculations, the analysis of MPEP 2106.05(f) aligns with the instant claims. Therefore, instead of an improvement to the functioning of a computer, the claims are merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Regarding the alleged analogousness to McRO with the instant claims allegedly providing an improvement over existing manual processes, Examiner notes that the claims’ recitation of determining an enhancement demand within a time period, determining an enhancement price based on the enhancement demand, and repeating the process over further time periods to update the enhancement price are is not a set of “limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result” (emphasis added) as in McRO. MPEP 2106.05(a) states “For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea” (emphasis added). In the instant application, the improvement achieved by the claimed invention is an improvement in the setting of prices to take into account the market forces of a game, which is an abstract idea including commercial interactions as discussed above. In contrast, the improvement of McRO is to computer animation, a field that is necessarily rooted in technology. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(a)II. recites regarding McRO, “The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated”. In the instant application, it is not apparent that the calculation of prices could not previously be automated. Therefore, instead of an improvement to a technical field by automating a process that was not previously able to be automated, the instant claims apply an abstract idea of setting a price using generic computing components.
The improvements to the manual process of setting prices that Applicant points to (saving time, reducing error, more effective prices) are improvements that stem from the automation of the price setting process, as human error would be reduced. However, per MPEP 2106.05(a) I. “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:…iii. Mere automation of manual processes”. The alleged improvement of including updating price based on enhancement information and enhancement demand may be an improvement to the abstract idea of price setting because more abstract information is considered when setting the price, but pe MPEP 2106.04 I., “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions” and MPEP 2106.05(a)II., “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” (emphasis added). Accordingly, for the reasons above, the instant claims are not analogous to McRO and do not improve computer functionality.
Regarding the alleged improvement to technical field of game service management, while the beneficial effects of properly set prices are improvements to the abstract idea (setting pricing/market conditions in a way to encourage user activity), MPEP 2106.05(a) again states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Therefore, while the beneficial effects of accurate/appropriate price level setting may improve the game experience, per the MPEP an improvement to the judicial exception is not an improvement to technology/a technical field. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A Prong 2 are not persuasive, and the claimed invention does not integrate its judicial exceptions into a practical application. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Applicant argues on pages 18-19 that the claimed invention amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea at Step 2B. Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the price being determined is an enhancement to a game item, the allegedly non-routine application of dynamically varying the enhancement cost based on demand, and that “as a matter of industry practice” (Remarks Page 19) this method and this target are allegedly not ordinary. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the previous arguments made at Step 2A Prong 2, Examiner notes that at Step 2A Prong 2 it was determined that the claims amount to no more than merely applying a judicial exception using generic computing components for the reasoning discussed above. Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (emphasis added).
Regarding the allegedly non-routine target and demand-responsive nature of the claimed price calculating, Examiner notes that these improvements are improvements to the abstract idea itself and not significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically, the improvements in price setting an item enhancement and setting the price responsive to demand would be realized in a non-technical (e.g. board game) setting. A demand-responsive price would balance the market in such an “offline” game. Furthermore, while choosing to set a price for an item enhancement may improve the game experience, choosing what object to decide to set a price for is still part of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more than an abstract idea even if the target of the price setting is not “industry practice”. Therefore, while the abstract idea is improved by setting prices based on item enhancement demand, the improved abstract idea cannot be significantly more than itself at Step 2B because no additional elements are responsible for providing these improvements (instead the price is set based on an algorithm using an intermediate price and price range). Therefore, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B.
Applicant next argues on pages 19-20 that the instant claims are “more likely than not” (Remarks Page 19) to be eligible in light of the August 4th memo (hereafter “Memo”). Applicant cites several portions of the Memo, including that claims are to be considered as a whole, a warning against oversimplifying the “apply it” consideration, and a reminder that an eligibility rejection should be made only if it is more likely than not that the claim is ineligible. Applicant argues that the instant claims are eligible for the reasons discussed in the Memo. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above and in the rejection below, the claims are being evaluated as a whole. Furthermore, as discussed above, the instant claims do not meet the “improvement” considerations discussed regarding MPEP 2106.05(a) and more closely align with the “apply it” consideration of MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the “apply it” consideration is not being oversimplified in the present claims, and the instant claims are more likely than not to be ineligible because of the alignment between the claims and the “apply it” consideration of MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Claim 1 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Other independent claims 12, and 23-25 are not patent eligible for similar reasoning to that discussed above regarding claim 1. Regarding Applicant’s argument about the additional consideration recited in claims 24 and 25 (“additional detail regarding calculating the first and second enhancement demands using a number of enhancements performed from users who have a level within a selected level range from a wearable level of the first item based on the enhancement information” in Remarks Page 20), Examiner notes that the limitation narrows what is considered to be demand information in claims 24-25 compared to claim 1. However, the narrowing of the demand information used to set an item enhancement price is not a technical improvement, and is instead a narrowing of the abstract idea of the claims. Per MPEP 2106.04 I. “The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula such as the Arrhenius equation)”. Accordingly, the further narrowing of the abstract idea in claims 24 and 25 does not render claims 24 and 25 eligible.
Dependent claims 7-11 and 18-22 are not patent eligible by virtue of their dependence on independent claims 1 and 12 as Applicant argues on page 20. For the reasoning discussed in the rejections below, these claims are also not patent eligible. Claims 1, 7-12, and 18-25 therefore still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “obtaining, based on information obtained from a first plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand relating to enhancement of the first item on the enhancement information” in lines 6-9 of the claim. It appears Applicant has inadvertently deleted “based” in line 9. Accordingly, claim 1 appears as if it should recite “obtaining, based on information obtained from a first plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand relating to enhancement of the first item based on the enhancement information”
Claim 25 recites “obtaining, based on information obtained from a second plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand, calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the second period, from the users who have the level within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item from users who use the game within a second period based on the enhancement information; determining an intermediate value a second enhancement price for enhancing the first item…” (emphasis added) in lines 18-25 of the claim. It appears that Applicant has inadvertently left the underlined portions as part of the claim text, as the underlined portions repeat or rephrase limitations Applicant is adding into claim 25 and the corresponding limitations have been removed in the other independent claims of the claim set. Accordingly, it appears as if this section of claim 25 should recite “obtaining, based on information obtained from a second plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand, calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the second period, from the users who have the level within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
As discussed in the Response to Arguments section above, the limitation of “wherein the method modifies enhancement values to maintain gameplay balance among a plurality of items in a game” in the preamble of claim 1, and the corresponding limitations in the remainder of the independent claims, are not being given patentable weight per MPEP 2111.02 II. In the interest of avoiding repetition, see paragraph 11 of this Action above for more detail.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a game providing device” in claims 1 and 25
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Physical structure of the game providing device can be found in at least paragraphs [0030] and [0131]-[0147]. An algorithm, required by MPEP 2181 II.B., can be found in at least Figures 4-8 and paragraphs [0069]-[0130].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "and at least one processor functionally connected to the user interface and the memory and configured to execute the instructions” (emphasis added) in lines 6-7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the user interface” in the claim. Specifically, Applicant’s amendments to claim 24 have removed mention of “a user interface” that had previously provided antecedent basis. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations, and the scope is indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting “the user interface” as “a user interface”.
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, 7-12, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining a price at which to sell an item based on item and customer information.
As an initial matter, claims 1, 7-11, and 25 fall into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Claims 12 and 18-22, 23, and 24 all fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 1, the limitation of “A method, performed by a game-providing device, of providing a game service, wherein the method modifies enhancement values to maintain gameplay balance among a plurality of items in a game, the method comprising: obtaining enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among the plurality of items in the game”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by a game-providing device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “obtaining based on information obtained from a first plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand relating to enhancement of the first item on the enhancement information; determining a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item based on the first enhancement demand; causing a user terminal to display an interface to enhance the first item based on the first enhancement value; obtaining, based on information obtained from a second plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand related to enhancement of the first item based on the enhancement information; determining an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; determining an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determining a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determining a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand: and causing the user terminal to display the interface to enhance the first item based on the second enhancement value”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of determining a price at which to sell an item based on item and customer information which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. A method of providing a game service, wherein the method modifies enhancement values to maintain gameplay balance among a plurality of items in a game, the method comprising: obtaining enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among the plurality of items in the game; obtaining, based on information obtained from a first plurality of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand relating to enhancement of the first item on the enhancement information; determining a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item based on the first enhancement demand; causing to display to enhance the first item based on the first enhancement value; obtaining, based on information obtained from a second plurality of users who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand related to enhancement of the first item based on the enhancement information; determining an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; determining an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determining a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determining a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand: and causing to display to enhance the first item based on the second enhancement value all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a game-providing device, a first plurality of user terminals, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of user terminals. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these 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. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a game-providing device, a first plurality of user terminals, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of user terminals amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 7-11 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
In claim 12, the limitation of “obtain enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among the plurality of items in the game”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A game-providing device, performing a method that modifies enhancement values to maintain gameplay balance among a plurality of items in a game, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “obtain, based on information obtained from a first plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand related to enhancement of the first item based on the enhancement information; determine a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item based on the first enhancement demand; cause a user terminal to display an interface to enhance the first item based on the first enhancement value; obtain, based on information obtained from a second plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand related to enhancement of the first item based on the enhancement information; determine an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; determine an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determine a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determine a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and cause the user terminal to display the interface to enhance the first item based on the second enhancement value”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 12 recites the concept of determining a price at which to sell an item based on item and customer information which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Performing a method that modifies enhancement values to maintain gameplay balance among a plurality of items in a game, comprising: execute the instructions to: obtain enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among the plurality of items in the game; obtain, based on information obtained from a first plurality of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand related to enhancement of the first item based on the enhancement information; determine a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item based on the first enhancement demand; cause to display to enhance the first item based on the first enhancement value; obtain, based on information obtained from a second plurality of users who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand related to enhancement of the first item based on the enhancement information; determine an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; determine an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determine a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determine a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and cause to display to enhance the first item based on the second enhancement value all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a game-providing device, a memory storing instructions, and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions, a first plurality of user terminals, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of user terminals. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these 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. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a game-providing device, a memory storing instructions, and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions, a first plurality of user terminals, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of user terminals amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 18-22 further limit the abstract idea of claim 12 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 12 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
In claim 23, the limitation of “obtain enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among the plurality of items in the game”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A server, performing a method that modifies enhancement values to maintain gameplay balance among a plurality of items in a game, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “obtain, based on information obtained from a first plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand relating to enhancement of the first item based on the enhancement information; determine a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item, based on and the first enhancement demand; cause to display to enhance the first item based on the first enhancement value; obtain, based on information obtained from a second plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand related to enhancement of the first item based on the enhancement information; determine an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and determine an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determine a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determine a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and cause the user terminal to display the provide an interface to enhance the first item based on the second enhancement price value”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 23 recites the concept of determining a price at which to sell an item based on item and customer information which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Performing a method that modifies enhancement values to maintain gameplay balance among a plurality of items in a game, comprising: execute the instructions to: obtain enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among the plurality of items in the game; obtain, based on information obtained from a first plurality of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand relating to enhancement of the first item based on the enhancement information; determine a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item, based on and the first enhancement demand; cause to display to enhance the first item based on the first enhancement value; obtain, based on information obtained from a second plurality of users who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand related to enhancement of the first item based on the enhancement information; determine an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and determine an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determine a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determine a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and cause to display to enhance the first item based on the second enhancement value all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a server, a memory storing instructions, at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions, a first plurality of user terminals, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of user terminals. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these 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. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a server, a memory storing instructions, at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions, a first plurality of user terminals, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of user terminals amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 24, the limitation of “obtain enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among the plurality of items in the game”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A game providing device, performing a method that modifies enhancement values to maintain gameplay balance among a plurality of items in a game comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the user interface and the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “obtain, based on information obtained from a first plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand, calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the first period, from users who have a level within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item based on the enhancement information; determine a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item, based on the first enhancement demand; cause a user terminal to display an interface to enhance the first item based on the first enhancement value; obtain, based on information obtained from a second plurality of user terminals who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand, calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the second period, from users who have the level within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item based on the enhancement information; determine an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and determine an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determine a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determine a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and cause the user terminal to display the provide an interface to enhance the first item based on the second enhancement price value”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 24 recites the concept of determining a price at which to sell an item based on item and customer information which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Performing a method that modifies enhancement values to maintain gameplay balance among a plurality of items in a game comprising: execute the instructions to: obtain enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among the plurality of items in the game; obtain, based on information obtained from a first plurality of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand, calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the first period, from users who have a level within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item based on the enhancement information; determine a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item, based on the first enhancement demand; cause to display to enhance the first item based on the first enhancement value; obtain, based on information obtained from a second plurality of user who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand, calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the second period, from users who have the level within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item based on the enhancement information; determine an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and determine an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determine a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determine a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and cause to display to enhance the first item based on the second enhancement price value all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a game providing device, a memory storing instructions, a user interface, at least one processor functionally connected to the user interface and the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions, a first plurality of user terminals, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of user terminals. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these 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. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a game providing device, a memory storing instructions, a user interface, at least one processor functionally connected to the user interface and the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions, a first plurality of user terminals, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of user terminals amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 25, the limitation of “A method, performed by a game-providing device, of providing a game service, wherein the method modifies enhancement values to maintain gameplay balance among a plurality of items in a game, the method comprising: obtaining enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among the plurality of items in the game”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a game-providing device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “obtaining, based on information obtained from a first plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand, calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the first period, from users who have a level within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item based on the enhancement information; determining a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item based on the first enhancement demand; causing a user terminal to display an interface to enhance the first item based on the first enhancement value; obtaining, based on information obtained from a second plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand, calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the second period, from the users who have the level within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item from users who use the game within a second period based on the enhancement information; determining an intermediate value a second enhancement price for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and determining an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determining a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determining a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and causing the user terminal to display the interface to enhance the first item based on the second enhancement value”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 25 recites the concept of determining a price at which to sell an item based on item and customer information which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. A method, performed, of providing a game service, wherein the method modifies enhancement values to maintain gameplay balance among a plurality of items in a game, the method comprising: obtaining enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among the plurality of items in the game; obtaining, based on information obtained from a first plurality of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand, calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the first period, from users who have a level within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item based on the enhancement information; determining a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item based on the first enhancement demand; causing to display to enhance the first item based on the first enhancement value; obtaining, based on information obtained from a second plurality of users who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand, calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the second period, from the users who have the level within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item from users who use the game within a second period based on the enhancement information; determining an intermediate value a second enhancement price for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and determining an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determining a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determining a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand; and causing to display to enhance the first item based on the second enhancement value all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a game-providing device, a first plurality of user terminals, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of user terminals. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these 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. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a game-providing device, a first plurality of user terminals, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of user terminals amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8-12, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herriger et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0286113, hereafter known as Herriger) in view of DeLuca et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,210,739; hereafter known as DeLuca).
Regarding claim 1, Herriger teaches:
A method, performed by a game-providing device, of providing a game service, the method comprising: (see Fig. 4 and [0072]-[0077] for the overall method. See [0019] for gameplay and [0031] for a game providing device and Fig. 5 for device architecture. See [0028] “the SDK may be responsible for updating the availability of in-app purchases or virtual goods such as… improved turbochargers, bigger wheels, better brakes, more fuel, higher top speeds, faster or easier cornering, and other non-consumables or consumables, as well as the prices of such items at any given time” [0050] for the dynamic pricing of a plurality of item enhancements in a game to balance item pricing with market demands to prevent player churn)
obtaining enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among the plurality of items in the game (see [0073] "In block 402, in an example, pricing and combination/sequence data may be loaded onto a processor. The pricing data may include pricing for items, as discussed above, and combination/sequence data, which may include data related to item combinations or sequences available at any given point during application usage or gameplay. For example, combination/sequence data may indicate that a racing game can offer a combination of engine, suspension, and tire upgrades, and in various sequences, such as an engine turbocharger followed by a new engine exhaust system" for obtaining enhancement information for vehicle upgrades available based on a given point in gameplay. See [0033] for pricing and other information related to items)
obtaining, based on information obtained from a first plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand relating to enhancement of the first item on the enhancement information (see [0074] "In block 404, current and/or historical profile data for users may be loaded. The data may include game state, levels played, location in a decision tree, time, and other factors relating to user behavior. The data may also include data related to combinations and sequences downloaded or purchased by past users" for obtaining historical purchase data from past users. See [0038] "user profile server 116 may also store event data related to counts of the number of players that have generated an event of a specific name. For example, the numbers of players that have purchased a specific in-app purchase at a specific time or game state, or the numbers of players that have purchased a specific virtual good in a specific place, may be counted. In-app purchases and virtual goods purchased within a time period of a week, a month, or a year, for example, may also be averaged" for historical data comprising number of purchases for a particular virtual good for a particular time period. See [0040] “Data stored on user profile database 118 may be received from, e.g., devices 102-108” for the first user profile information being obtained from user terminals/devices. See [0026] for various user terminals/devices)
determining a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item based on the first enhancement demand (see [0076] "In block 408, an item price or prices may be calculated based on the current and/or historical profile data. For example, a determination may be made that a particular user is not likely to churn, and that users in a particular game state are likely to purchase a particular combination of upgrades at that time. In such an example, the combination may be offered to the user at a higher than normal price")
causing a user terminal to display an interface to enhance the first item based on the first enhancement value (see [0028] “the SDK may make prices and content accessible to an app, notify the app of changes in prices and content, and communicate price and content changes to the user via a user interface element such as pop-up alerts, message boxes, on-screen buttons, or push notifications. In an example of a racing game, the SDK may be responsible for updating the availability of in-app purchases or virtual goods… as well as the prices of such items at any given time” and [0033] for presenting an interface to purchase the item enhancement at a first enhancement value)
obtaining, based on information obtained from a second plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand related to enhancement of the first item based on the enhancement information (see [0064] "The flow of FIG. 2 (and FIGS. 3 and 4 as discussed below) may loop or repeat as a user continues to use an app to ensure that content and pricing at any given time are always optimized. Moreover, the flow of FIG. 3 may be set to loop or repeat after a given time period following a previous change to content or pricing offered to a user, in the event that the content or pricing change did not have a desired effect in a given time period" for the method repeating after a given time period. See citations of [0074], [0038] above for the obtaining of enhancement demand in this repeated time period. See [0040] “Data stored on user profile database 118 may be received from, e.g., devices 102-108” for the first user profile information being obtained from user terminals/devices. See [0026] for various user terminals/devices)
determining a second enhancement value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand (see [0064] "The flow of FIG. 2 (and FIGS. 3 and 4 as discussed below) may loop or repeat as a user continues to use an app to ensure that content and pricing at any given time are always optimized. Moreover, the flow of FIG. 3 may be set to loop or repeat after a given time period following a previous change to content or pricing offered to a user, in the event that the content or pricing change did not have a desired effect in a given time period" for the method repeating after a given time period. See citations of [0076] above for the obtaining of enhancement price based on enhancement demand in this repeated time period. See in particular the offering of a combination at a higher price in [0076] and revising pricing described in [0064] for the second enhancement price being based on adjusting the first enhancement price)
determining an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value (see [0062] “the app developer may place constraints on pricing changes. For example, the constraints may be upper and lower bounds for values… or distances from an original or default price value”)
and causing the user terminal to display the interface to enhance the first item based on the second enhancement value (see [0028] "the SDK may make prices and content accessible to an app, notify the app of changes in prices and content, and communicate price and content changes to the user via a user interface element such as pop-up alerts, message boxes, on-screen buttons, or push notifications. In an example of a racing game, the SDK may be responsible for updating the availability of in-app purchases or virtual goods such as additional cars, additional race tracks, additional drivers, different tires, different suspensions, improved turbochargers, bigger wheels, better brakes, more fuel, higher top speeds, faster or easier cornering, and other non-consumables or consumables, as well as the prices of such items at any given time" and [0077] "In block 410, the item identifier, or identifiers for a combination or sequence of items, and an item price or prices may be output to a memory and/or transmitted to, e.g., application store server 124 or other server responsible for communicating prices to a user or virtual economy")
As discussed above, Herriger teaches in [0062] that constraints are placed on price changes including the use of upper and lower bound values for the changed price and distance from an original or default price value. However, Herriger does not explicitly teach determining an intermediate value for enhancing the item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand and further does not explicitly teach the following limitations: “based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determining a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determining a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand”. DeLuca teaches:
determining an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand (see Col. 11 line 60 thru Col. 12 line 5 "dynamic pricing tool 147 determines a price adjustment (step 250). In other words, responsive to identifying a change in the market which affects one or more DT resources, dynamic pricing tool 147 determines (i.e., calculates) an appropriate price adjustment (i.e., an adjustment value) based on the market. In an embodiment, the price adjustment determined by dynamic pricing tool 147 may be an increase in price when dynamic pricing tool 147 determines a possible increase in demand for DT resources. In another embodiment, the price adjustment determined by dynamic pricing tool 147 may be a decrease in price when dynamic pricing tool 147 determines a possible decrease in demand for a DT resource" for determining an intermediate price based on the user conditions at the second time point. The price determined in step 250 is an intermediate price because the 250 price still needs to be evaluated at step 255 before becoming the adjusted price at step 260 and Col. 12 lines 39-43 "dynamic pricing tool 147 adjusts the price (step 260). In other words, responsive to determining that the determined price adjustment does not exceed a threshold, dynamic pricing tool 147 updates the current price of the one or more DT resources")
determining an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value (see Col. 7 lines 54-58 and Col. 10 lines 1-36 for retrieving baseline pricing and minimum and maximum price thresholds based on the baseline pricing)
based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determining a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value (see Col. 12 lines 22-28 "dynamic pricing tool 147 determines whether the adjustment value exceeds a threshold (decision step 255). In other words, responsive to determining a price adjustment, dynamic pricing tool 147 determines whether the determined price adjustment value exceeds a minimum or a maximum price adjustment threshold previously received" and Col. 12 lines 39-43 "dynamic pricing tool 147 adjusts the price (step 260). In other words, responsive to determining that the determined price adjustment does not exceed a threshold, dynamic pricing tool 147 updates the current price of the one or more DT resources" for checking that the intermediate price is within a price range set by a min and max price before determining the actual price adjustment/second price. See Col. 1 lines 60-65 "dynamic pricing tool 147 determines a price adjustment (step 250). In other words, responsive to identifying a change in the market which affects one or more DT resources, dynamic pricing tool 147 determines (i.e., calculates) an appropriate price adjustment (i.e., an adjustment value) based on the market" and Col. 12 lines 39-60 "dynamic pricing tool 147 adjusts the price (step 260). In other words, responsive to determining that the determined price adjustment does not exceed a threshold, dynamic pricing tool 147 updates the current price of the one or more DT resources...the new price associated with the determined price adjustment value is in-between the baseline price and one of the minimum price threshold (e.g., for a baseline price of ‘$400’ for the BOM and a minimum threshold of minus ‘10%’, the new price for the BOM is between ‘$360’ and ‘$400’), or the maximum price threshold (e.g., for a baseline price of ‘$400’ for the bill of material and a maximum threshold of plus ‘25%’, the new price for the BOM is between ‘$400’ and ‘$500’)" for the intermediate price is within the range at 255 and accordingly the price is updated to the determined intermediate price)
based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determining a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the second enhancement demand (see Col. 12 lines 22-37 "dynamic pricing tool 147 determines whether the adjustment value exceeds a threshold (decision step 255). In other words, responsive to determining a price adjustment, dynamic pricing tool 147 determines whether the determined price adjustment value exceeds a minimum or a maximum price adjustment threshold previously received...In the embodiment (decision step 255, YES branch), dynamic pricing tool 147 determines that one of a minimum or a maximum price adjustment threshold was exceeded; therefore, dynamic pricing tool 147 proceeds to step 265 to transmit a prompt to the owner of the DT resource(s)" for prompting that the price adjustment falls outside the predetermined max an min, and see Col. 13 line 47 thru Col. 14 line 10 "dynamic pricing tool sets price (step 275). In other words, responsive to determining that the determined price adjustment, transmitted in a prompt to the DT resource owner, was not approved by said owner, dynamic pricing tool sets the price of the DT resource based on an input from said owner... the input of the owner may indicate a new price that is below the maximum price threshold but above the baseline price… the input of the owner may indicate a new price that is below the baseline price but above the minimum price threshold…the input of the owner may indicate a new price equivalent to one of the minimum or the maximum price threshold (e.g., a new price of either ‘$90’ or ‘$110)")
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of selecting an updated price for an item based on whether an initially calculated price for the item falls within a threshold range of DeLuca to Herriger would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of DeLuca to the teaching of Herriger would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such selecting an updated price for an item based on whether an initially calculated price for the item falls within a threshold range. Further, applying selecting an updated price for an item based on whether an initially calculated price for the item falls within a threshold range to Herriger would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more price stability for item enhancement. Specifically, by limiting pricing changes to a threshold amount at one time, the combined system would be insulated from price volatility and swings of enhancements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this protection from price volatility would allow players to make medium to long term plans for their characters because they would have a greater ability to anticipate what the future expenditures on skill increases, etc. will be, which would increase player retention of the game.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining an intermediate price and determining the second enhancement price based on whether the intermediate price is outside a selected price range as in DeLuca into the system executing the method of Herriger. As in DeLuca, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate determining an intermediate price and determining the second enhancement price based on whether the intermediate price is outside a selected price range to Herriger's invention with the predictable result of ensuring price changes stay within a desired price range as needed in Herriger. Particularly, confirming an intermediate calculated price falls within a price range before setting the intermediate price as the second price would ensure the second price satisfies the user-specified price ranges specified in Herriger [0062].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Herriger and DeLuca teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Herriger further teaches:
wherein the enhancement information comprises at least one of an enhancement type of the first item, an enhancement section of the first item, a number of consecutive enhancements of the first item, a wearable level of the first item, or an ability value of the first item (see [0033] "pricing server 112 may comprise detailed data on an entire virtual economy of an app. Data may comprise an identifier, a textual description, whether a virtual good or in-app purchase is consumable, an initial price or value, and/or other information related to an item" and [0073] "combination/sequence data may indicate that a racing game can offer a combination of engine, suspension, and tire upgrades, and in various sequences, such as an engine turbocharger followed by a new engine exhaust system" for an enhancement type of the first item. Examiner notes that only one of the listed examples in the claim is sufficient to read on the claim)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Herriger and DeLuca teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Herriger further teaches:
wherein the first user information and the second user information include at least one of an amount of goods distributed to users of the game service, a number of the users, an average profit of the users, an enhancement demand for the first item, a number of users for each level section, an average profit of the users for each level section, an enhancement demand of the users for each level section for the first item, or an increase/decrease rate of the enhancement demand (see [0074] "In block 404, current and/or historical profile data for users may be loaded. The data may include game state, levels played, location in a decision tree, time, and other factors relating to user behavior. The data may also include data related to combinations and sequences downloaded or purchased by past users" for the first demand being a number of items distributed/purchased by the users. See claim 1 and [0064] for this collection of information being repeated for the second demand)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Herriger and DeLuca teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As discussed above with regards to claim 1, Herriger teaches determining a second enhancement value based on conditions at a second time point, but does not explicitly teach determining an intermediate value. Herriger also does not explicitly teach comparing first and second enhancement demands and determining the intermediate value by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the comparison of enhancement demands. DeLuca further teaches:
wherein the determining of the intermediate value comprises: comparing a first enhancement demand with a second enhancement demand (see Col. 11 line 60 thru Col. 12 line 5 "dynamic pricing tool 147 determines a price adjustment (step 250). In other words, responsive to identifying a change in the market which affects one or more DT resources, dynamic pricing tool 147 determines (i.e., calculates) an appropriate price adjustment (i.e., an adjustment value) based on the market. In an embodiment, the price adjustment determined by dynamic pricing tool 147 may be an increase in price when dynamic pricing tool 147 determines a possible increase in demand for DT resources. In another embodiment, the price adjustment determined by dynamic pricing tool 147 may be a decrease in price when dynamic pricing tool 147 determines a possible decrease in demand for a DT resource" for comparing a first and second demand for the enchantment between two periods and determining a price adjustment (the intermediate price that still needs to be checked against the price thresholds) based on the comparing)
and determining the intermediate value by adjusting the first enhancement value, based on a result of the comparing (see Col. 11 line 60 thru Col. 12 line 5 "dynamic pricing tool 147 determines a price adjustment (step 250). In other words, responsive to identifying a change in the market which affects one or more DT resources, dynamic pricing tool 147 determines (i.e., calculates) an appropriate price adjustment (i.e., an adjustment value) based on the market. In an embodiment, the price adjustment determined by dynamic pricing tool 147 may be an increase in price when dynamic pricing tool 147 determines a possible increase in demand for DT resources. In another embodiment, the price adjustment determined by dynamic pricing tool 147 may be a decrease in price when dynamic pricing tool 147 determines a possible decrease in demand for a DT resource" for comparing a first and second demand for the enchantment between two periods and determining a price adjustment to an initial price based on the comparison of user demands at different time points)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the change in demand for the enhancement item as user information on which to base a price change of DeLuca into the system of Herriger. As DeLuca states in Col. 1 line 67 thru Col. 2 line 8 “A change in the market…may drive the need for a rapid price adjustment of a resource. Monitoring the market for changes is labor intensive and time consuming. Further, a human is tasked with determining an appropriate price adjustment based on the market change…A tool is needed that can monitor the market and suggest price changes dynamically based on any observed change in the market”. By incorporating the demand for the enhancement across the first and second time points of DeLuca into the system of Herriger, the resulting combination can be more responsive to market forces in the game. Furthermore, this responsiveness to enhancement demand can further assist in the achievement of the profit/revenue targets of the game developer as discussed in Herriger [0010] by reacting to increased/decreased demand and raising/lowering prices as appropriate to better align with the current market in the game.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Herriger and DeLuca teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. As discussed above with regards to claim 10, Herriger also does not explicitly teach comparing first and second enhancement demands based on first and second user information and determining the intermediate value by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the comparison of enhancement demands. Consequently, Herriger does not explicitly teach obtaining an intermediate value that is equal to or higher than the first value based on the second demand being higher or equal to the first demand or obtaining an intermediate value that is lower than the first value based on the second demand being lower than the first demand. DeLuca further teaches:
wherein the determining of the intermediate value by adjusting the first enhancement value comprises: obtaining an intermediate value that is higher than or equal to the first enhancement value, based on the second enhancement demand being higher than or equal to the first enhancement demand; or obtaining an intermediate value that is lower than the first enhancement value, based on the second enhancement demand being lower than the first enhancement demand (see Col. 11 line 60 thru Col. 12 line 5 "dynamic pricing tool 147 determines a price adjustment (step 250). In other words, responsive to identifying a change in the market which affects one or more DT resources, dynamic pricing tool 147 determines (i.e., calculates) an appropriate price adjustment (i.e., an adjustment value) based on the market. In an embodiment, the price adjustment determined by dynamic pricing tool 147 may be an increase in price when dynamic pricing tool 147 determines a possible increase in demand for DT resources. In another embodiment, the price adjustment determined by dynamic pricing tool 147 may be a decrease in price when dynamic pricing tool 147 determines a possible decrease in demand for a DT resource" for comparing a first and second demand for the enchantment between two periods and determining a value adjustment (the intermediate value that still needs to be checked against the value thresholds) based on the comparing. The second value increase upon detection of increased demand and decreases upon detection of weaker demand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the change in demand for the enhancement item as user information on which to base a value change of DeLuca into the system of Herriger. As DeLuca states in Col. 1 line 67 thru Col. 2 line 8 “A change in the market…may drive the need for a rapid price adjustment of a resource. Monitoring the market for changes is labor intensive and time consuming. Further, a human is tasked with determining an appropriate price adjustment based on the market change…A tool is needed that can monitor the market and suggest price changes dynamically based on any observed change in the market”. By incorporating the demand for the enhancement across the first and second time points of DeLuca into the system of Herriger, the resulting combination can be more responsive to market forces in the game. Furthermore, this responsiveness to enhancement demand can further assist in the achievement of the profit/revenue targets of the game developer as discussed in Herriger [0010] by reacting to increased/decreased demand and raising/lowering prices as appropriate to better align with the current market in the game.
Regarding claim 12, Herriger teaches:
A game-providing device comprising: a memory storing instructions (see Fig. 5 and [0078] “FIG. 5 illustrates a schematic representation of a computing device that may be used as a platform for implementing or executing at least one of the processes depicted in FIGS. 2-4 according to an example of the present disclosure” and [0080] “device 500 may also comprise a non-transitory computer readable storage medium 520. More specifically, some or all of the operations set forth in the figures may be contained as a utility, program, or subprogram in any desired computer readable storage medium, or embedded on hardware. In addition, the operations may be embodied by machine-readable instructions… computer readable storage medium 520 may store instructions for carrying out the steps of FIGS. 2-4”)
and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to (see Fig. 5 and [0079] “device 500 comprises a processor or CPU 502, bus or other interconnect 504” for a processor being connected to the computer-readable storage medium and [0078] and [0080] for the execution of the instructions performing the methods of Figs. 2-4)
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 12, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Herriger and DeLuca teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 19, see the rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Herriger and DeLuca teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 20, see the rejection of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Herriger and DeLuca teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 21, see the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Herriger and DeLuca teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 22, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 23, Herriger teaches:
A server comprising: a memory storing instructions (see Fig. 5 and [0078] “FIG. 5 illustrates a schematic representation of a computing device that may be used as a platform for implementing or executing at least one of the processes depicted in FIGS. 2-4 according to an example of the present disclosure” and [0080] “device 500 may also comprise a non-transitory computer readable storage medium 520. More specifically, some or all of the operations set forth in the figures may be contained as a utility, program, or subprogram in any desired computer readable storage medium, or embedded on hardware. In addition, the operations may be embodied by machine-readable instructions… computer readable storage medium 520 may store instructions for carrying out the steps of FIGS. 2-4”. See Fig. 1 and [0045] “It will be appreciated that the servers of FIG. 1 may be the same server” for the computing device being a server)
and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to (see Fig. 5 and [0079] “device 500 comprises a processor or CPU 502, bus or other interconnect 504” for a processor being connected to the computer-readable storage medium and [0078] and [0080] for the execution of the instructions performing the methods of Figs. 2-4)
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 23, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herriger in view of DeLuca and Kim et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0162763, hereafter known as Kim).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Herriger and DeLuca teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Herriger further teaches player levels in [0036] and [0040]. While Herriger teaches the enhancing of items as discussed above in claim 1, the combination of Herriger and DeLuca does not explicitly teach the user who uses the game having a level within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item. However, Kim teaches:
wherein the user who uses the game has a level within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item (see [0036] “item recommendation unit 140 may compare the required level of each of the game items and a level at the end of at least one of the one or more auctions for the corresponding game item predicted by character level prediction unit 130, and recommend to the player one or more of the game items for each of which the required level is less than or equal to the predicted level” and [0039] “although the required level for game item 450 (i.e., level 43) is currently higher than the required level specified by search condition 410 (i.e., the current level of the player), the game character may use or wear game item 450 when the auction for game item 450 ends, since the time remaining for the auction for game item 450 is 12 hours 30 minutes while the level of the game character is expected to be level 43 in 12-13 hours” for items having wearable ranges of the item’s required level and above. Users that have a level at least that of the required level of the item can wear the item, so the selected range from the wearable level of the item stretches from the wearable level itself on the low end to the maximum level of the game on the high end)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include required levels for wearing items in a game as taught by Kim in the combination of Herriger and DeLuca, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, adding minimum level requirements for equipping enhanced items would have predictable results of restricting certain items to only be available to players that have progressed a certain amount in the game. The minimum required levels for items and the item enhancement process of the system of Herriger would also still function as they did separately, with the only effect being that lower level/less experienced users will not be in possession of higher level items when they perform the item enhancement process.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Herriger and DeLuca teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 18, see the rejection of claim 7 above.
Novel/Non-Obvious
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Herriger and DeLuca teaches the majority of the claim as shown in the rejection of claim 24 in the 08/18/2025 Final Rejection and the rejection of claim 1 above. However, in contrast to independent claims 1, 12, and 23, claim 24 recites the additional limitations of “obtain, based on information obtained from a first plurality of user terminals of users who use the game within a first period, first user information comprising a first enhancement demand, calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the first period, from users who have a level within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item” and “obtain, based on information obtained from a second plurality of user terminals who use the game within a second period, second user information comprising a second enhancement demand, calculated by considering a number of enhancements performed during the second period, from users who have the level within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item” (emphasis added). The combination of Herriger and DeLuca does not explicitly teach calculating enhancement demands by considering the number of enhancements performed during a time period by users within a selected level range from a wearable level of the first item. While Kim teaches that the user within the game a level within a selected level range from the wearable level of the item as discussed above regarding claim 7, the combination of Herriger, DeLuca, and Kim still does not explicitly teach a count of enhancements performed in a period by users with levels within the selected level range of the wearable level of the item being used to calculate enhancement demands.
Other prior art of record similarly fails to teach this limitation. Curtis et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,920,243; hereafter known as Curtis) teaches segmenting players of a game by player level and offering bonuses to the segment of players. However, Curtis does not explicitly teach the users being segmented by levels relative to a wearable level of an item nor calculating a demand for an enhancement based on the number of purchases/enhancements made by players within the appropriate segment for an item. Grosso (“8 Questions About Dynamic Pricing”, published 08/29/2017, accessed as of 08/27/2021) teaches various methods for dynamically pricing digital goods in videogames, but does not explicitly teach calculating demand for a digital item by the number of items purchased by a segment of users within a certain level of a wearable level of an item. “Upgrading & Enhancing Equipment” (accessed as of 01/26/2022) teaches a system for enhancing in-game items, but again does not explicitly teach calculating demand for a digital item by the number of items purchased by a segment of users within a certain level of a wearable level of an item. Finally, Van Luchene (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0289346, hereafter known as Van Luchene) teaches determining a market price for a virtual item based on the price that a particular percentage of users were willing to pay for the items. However, the calculation of demand based on player level being within a range of a wearable level of an item is not taught in Van Luchene.
Accordingly, claim 24 is distinguished over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is distinguished over the prior art of record for similar reasoning as discussed above regarding claim 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached on (571) 270-7792. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628