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 08/17/2026.
Claims 1, 8-12, and 19-23 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1, 8-12, and 19-23 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 08/17/2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because amendments have been made to claims 12 and 23 that have not been properly marked. Specifically, the verb tenses of the paragraphs following “automatically modify enhancement values in real time, the automatically modifying enhancement values further including” in claim 12 have been changed without the corresponding mark up to show the change in verb tense (for example, claim 12 now recites “determine a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item” when the previous 04/08/2026 claim set recited “determining a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item”). Similar markings have been omitted in claim 23. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Since the reply filed on 08/17/2026 appears to be bona fide, and the amendments to claims are readily apparent, Examiner will be proceeding with examination on the merits. However, Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant to ensure any future claim amendments have been properly marked.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 08/17/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of “game-providing device” in claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of “game-providing device” in claim 1 has been maintained.
While Applicant argues that the claim has been amended to not include means-plus-function limitations, amended claim 1 still recites “a gam-providing device” that is claimed as performing the function of the method of claim 1. Neither “game-providing” nor any other limitation of claim 1 provides sufficient structure for a device performing the claimed method functions. Accordingly, “game-providing device” still meets the Three Prong test and invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-14, filed 08/17/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 8-12, and 19-23 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 8-12, and 19-23 have been maintained.
After quoting the entirety of amended claim 1 across pages 10-11, Applicant argues on page 11 that the claims allegedly do not recite a judicial exception at Step 2 A Prong One. Applicant particularly argues that the steps of claim 1 cannot fall under the category of Mental Processes because the “lengthy combination of steps to determine and display item enhancement information in real time in a video game context” cannot practicably be performed in the human mind. Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.C. “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process”. In the present claims, the mental process of obtaining information regarding enhancement conditions of an item, counting the number of attempted enhancements performed by a subset of users in a first period, determining an enhancement value based on the number of attempted enhancements in the first period, communicating the enhancement value to a user, determining a number of attempted enhancements by a subset of users in a second period, comparing the first and second enhancement-attempt counts, determining an intermediate value based on the comparing, determining an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value, determining and setting a second enhancement value based on whether the intermediate value falls within or outside the enhancement value range, and finally communicating the second enhancement value to a user is a mental process being performed on a generic computer, in a computer environment, and using the computer as a tool to perform the mental process. In other words, the steps recited above can be performed in the human mind (i.e. counting numbers of attempted enhancements, comparing two numbers of attempted enhancements to determine an intermediate value, comparing the intermediate value to a range of values to determine a second value), but in the claimed invention are being performed using a computer as tool to perform the mental process in “real time”. Paragraph [0030] of the specification makes clear that the “game-providing device” is a generic computer that is performing the process. Finally, the game-providing device and user terminals form a computing environment in which the information required for the mental process is exchanged in the form of attempted enhancements being sent to the game-providing device and the first and second enhancement prices being sent to the user terminals. While the claim recites “in-game telemetry”, the actual claimed obtaining and sending of information is recited at a high level without any particular telemetry requirements. Thus, the communication of enhancement attempt count and value information is analogous to a merchant and customer exchanging requests to purchase and price information. In sum, while the claimed invention requires computing components, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.C. makes clear that the mere presence of computing components does not preclude the claim from reciting a mental process. In the present claims, the computing components are being used as a tool to perform a process that could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claims recite a mental process.
Applicant further argues that the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity. Applicant argues that the claims are similar to the claims found eligible in McRo, and that the claims are directed to data collection and telemetry. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner notes that the claimed method is determining a price for an item enhancement based on demand for the enhancement in a segment of a population over the course of multiple time periods and presenting the determined price. Paragraphs [0003] and [0004] of the specification as filed similarly point to the dynamic pricing and pricing strategy as the motivation for the claimed invention. This type of pricing and presentation of prices is at least a business relationship between the operator of a game and the players of the game. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II.B., business relations fall under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. As far as the claims allegedly being directed to data collection and telemetry, the determination as to whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea or not is performed in Prong Two, not Prong One. The recitations of telemetry and data collection from user terminals do not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Regarding McRo, improving computer animation is not analogous to the pricing strategies recited in the instant claims. Applicant’s arguments at Prong One are not persuasive. Analysis moves to Prong Two.
Across Pages 12-14, Applicant argues that the amended claims are patent eligible at Prong Two. Applicant particularly argues that the claims “recite an improvement to the manner in which a video game system collects and processes data” by allegedly reciting “how telemetry data is collected, compared, and used to automatically update and enhancement value. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes in particular that the enhancement-attempt count information is merely recited in the claims as being “obtained” from user terminals during a time period. The claims do not recite any particular way as to how this information is obtained as part of the claimed method, just that the information is obtained. The specification also states in [0032] that information about the users is transmitted and received to/from a user terminal, without indicating particular data collection or telemetry techniques. Paragraph [0040] “a network refers to a connection established (or formed) using all communication methods, and may refer to a communication network connected through all communication methods of transmitting and receiving data between terminals and between a terminal and a server” and [0042] “Receiving online activities by using a network may include a meaning that communication between a server and a terminal can be performed through any communication method” indicate that any communication method can be used between the user terminal and the device executing the claimed method. “Telemetry” is not present at all in the specification. Accordingly, the claims and specification do not reflect an improvement to technology as required by MPEP 2106.05(a) through an improvement being recognizable to one of ordinary skill in the art in the specification and reflected in the claims themselves. Accordingly, the claims recite a pricing strategy for an item enhancement based on information obtained from generic computing devices through generic communication methods. The claims do not recite an improvement to game telemetry/data collection. The pricing process being allegedly “lengthy” and “holistic” does not reflect an improvement to technology. At most, the judicial exception of how the pricing strategy is performed may be narrow, but per MPEP 2106.05(f) “Requiring more than mere instructions to apply an exception does not mean that the claim must be narrow in order to be eligible”.
Next Applicant argues on page 13 that the claimed invention also provides a technical improvement in the form of increased processing efficiency. Applicant particularly argues that the aggregation of enhancement data by period and by level range reduces the computing power required over a method in which each and every item enhancement was recorded and considered. Applicant argues that this improvement is inherently a part of the disclosure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner notes that the benefits of limiting the data being processed when determining the price of the item enhancement is not an improvement to technology or the functioning of a computer. The processing capability of the computer/device itself is unchanged. While the computer/device may be able to perform the process more quickly while only considering a slice of the population enhancement data, the speed/efficiency comes from the computer/device only being fed more pertinent information. There is no change in how the computer/device processes the data, just that there is less data to process. Only obtaining and processing relevant information would also be a benefit that would be recognized in an offline system of price setting, as humans could also work faster and set prices more efficiently by only considering data from a slice of the population. Additionally, the setting of prices based on a slice of the population (the “actual demanders” of the enhancement per specification [0056]), represents an improvement to the abstract idea of price setting and dynamic pricing. Per MPEP 2106.05(a) II., “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”. Accordingly, while only obtaining processing a portion of the enhancements may represent an improvement, the improvement would be to the judicial exception itself and not to technology. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that the claims provide an improvement to technology are not persuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that the alleged technical problem of managing a game service via efficient data collection and usage does not arise except in and inherently in computing environments. As discussed above, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assessment that a technical improvement is being made to the data collection and usage in a game system. In sum, the mentions of obtaining and transmitting data are recited at a high level in the claims without mentioning any technical detail about how such transmission or reception takes place. The claims merely recite what information is received/transmitted and where the information is coming from/being sent to. The specification further makes clear that the data transmission in the invention can occur via any method, which is not indicative of a technical improvement in the collection and usage of data in a gaming system. As discussed in [0003]-[0004] of the disclosure as filed, the issue at hand in the specification is the pricing of item enhancements “at reasonable prices”. The problem of setting reasonable prices for items for sale arises throughout the economy in digital and “real world” areas alike. Therefore, the problem being solved by the claimed invention is not a technical problem of data communication and usage necessarily within a computing environment, and the pricing problem being solved is a problem in the commercial interaction judicial exception. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 23 are still ineligible. Dependent claims 8-11 and 19-22 depend from respective ineligible independent claims, and these dependent claims do not add limitations that, when considered as a whole with the claimed invention, serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 8-12, and 19-23 have been maintained.
Claim Interpretation
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 claim 1
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 8-12, and 19-23 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 and 8-11 fall into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Claims 12 and 19-22, as well as independent claim 23, 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 of in-game telemetry, performed by a game-providing device, the method comprising: obtaining enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among a plurality of items in a 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 “of in-game telemetry, 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 “determining, based on information obtained during a first period from a first plurality of remote user terminals associated with users who use the game and have respective levels within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item, a first enhancement-attempt count indicating a number of attempts made during the first period to enhance the first item by the users associated with the first plurality of remote user terminals, wherein the selected range is determined based on the enhancement information; automatically modifying enhancement values in real time, the automatically modifying comprising: determining a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item based on the first enhancement-attempt count; transmitting the first enhancement value to a user terminal to cause the first enhancement value to be displayed on an interface for enhancing the first item; determining, based on information obtained during a second period from a second plurality of remote user terminals associated with users who use the game and have respective levels within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item, a second enhancement-attempt count indicating a number of attempts made during the second period to enhance the first item by the users associated with the second plurality of remote user terminals; comparing the first enhancement-attempt count with the second enhancement-attempt count; determining an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on a result of the comparing; determining an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determining and setting a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determining and setting a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the result of the comparing; and transmitting the second enhancement value to the user terminal to cause the second enhancement value to be displayed on the interface for enhancing the first item”, 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, the method comprising: obtaining enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among a plurality of items in a game; determining, based on information obtained during a first period from a first plurality of users who use the game and have respective levels within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item a first enhancement-attempt count indicating a number of attempts made during the first period to enhance the first item by the users, wherein the selected range is determined based on the enhancement information; modifying enhancement values, the modifying comprising: determining a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item based on the first enhancement-attempt count; the first enhancement value to a user to cause the first enhancement value to be displayed for enhancing the first item; determining, based on information obtained during a second period from a second plurality of users who use the game and have respective levels within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item, a second enhancement-attempt count indicating a number of attempts made during the second period to enhance the first item by the second plurality of users; comparing the first enhancement-attempt count with the second enhancement-attempt count; determining an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on the a result of the comparing; determining an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determining and setting a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determining and setting a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the result of the comparing; and the second enhancement value to the user to cause the second enhancement value to be displayed for enhancing the first item 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 in-game telemetry, a game-providing device, a first plurality of remote user terminals, “automatically” modifying enhancement values “in real time”, transmitting first and second enhancement values, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of remote 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 in-game telemetry, a game-providing device, a first plurality of remote user terminals, “automatically” modifying enhancement values “in real time”, transmitting first and second enhancement values, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of remote 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 8-11 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 a plurality of items in a 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 of in-game telemetry that modifies enhancement values, 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 “determine, based on information obtained during a first period from a first plurality of remote user terminals associated with users who use the game and have respective levels within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item, a first enhancement-attempt count indicating a number of attempts made during the first period to enhance the first item by the users associated with the first plurality of remote user terminals, wherein the selected range is determined based on the enhancement information; automatically modify enhancement values in real time, the automatically modifying enhancement values further including: determine a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item, based on the first enhancement-attempt count; transmit the first enhancement value to a user terminal to cause the first enhancement value to be displayed on an interface for enhancing the first item; determine, based on information obtained during a second period from a second plurality of remote user terminals associated with users who use the game and have respective levels within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item, a second enhancement-attempt count indicating a number of attempts made during the second period to enhance the first item by the users associated with the second plurality of remote user terminals; compare the first enhancement-attempt count with the second enhancement-attempt count; determine an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on a result of the comparing; determine an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determine and set a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determine and set a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the result of the comparing; and transmit the second enhancement value to the user terminal to cause the second enhancement value to be displayed on the interface for enhancing the first item”, 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, comprising: execute the instructions to: obtain enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among a plurality of items in a game; determine, based on information obtained during a first period from a first plurality of users who use the game and have respective levels within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item, a first enhancement-attempt count indicating a number of attempts made during the first period to enhance the first item by the users associated with the first plurality of remote user terminals, wherein the selected range is determined based on the enhancement information; modify enhancement values, the modifying enhancement values further including: determine a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item, based on the first enhancement-attempt count; the first enhancement value to a user to cause the first enhancement value to be displayed for enhancing the first item; determine, based on information obtained during a second period from a second plurality of users who use the game and have respective levels within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item, a second enhancement-attempt count indicating a number of attempts made during the second period to enhance the first item by the second plurality of users; compare the first enhancement-attempt count with the second enhancement-attempt count; determine an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on a result of the comparing; determine an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determine and set a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determine and set a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the result of the comparing; and the second enhancement value to the user to cause the second enhancement value to be displayed for enhancing the first item 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, in-game telemetry, 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, a first plurality of remote user terminals, “automatically” modifying enhancement values “in real time”, transmitting first and second enhancement values, a user terminal, a user interface, and a second plurality of remote 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, in-game telemetry, 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, a first plurality of remote user terminals, “automatically” modifying enhancement values “in real time”, transmitting first and second enhancement values, a user terminal, a user interface, and a second plurality of remote 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 19-22 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 a plurality of items in a 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 of in-game telemetry that modifies enhancement values, 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 “determine, based on information obtained during a first period from a first plurality of remote user terminals associated with users who use the game and have respective levels within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item, a first enhancement-attempt count indicating a number of attempts made during the first period to enhance the first item by the users associated with the first plurality of remote user terminals, wherein the selected range is determined based on the enhancement information; automatically modify enhancement values in real time, the automatically modifying enhancement values further including: determine a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item, based on the first enhancement-attempt count; transmit the first enhancement value to a user terminal to cause the first enhancement value to be displayed on an interface for enhancing the first item; determine, based on information obtained during a second period from a second plurality of remote user terminals associated with users who use the game and have respective levels within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item, a second enhancement-attempt count indicating a number of attempts made during the second period to enhance the first item by the users associated with the second plurality of remote user terminals; compare the first enhancement-attempt count with the second enhancement-attempt count; determine an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on a result of the comparing; and determine an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determine and set a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determine and set a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the result of the comparing; and transmit the second enhancement value to the user terminal to cause the second enhancement value to be displayed on the interface for enhancing the first item”, 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, comprising: execute the instructions to: obtain enhancement information regarding enhancement conditions of a first item among a plurality of items in a game; determine, based on information obtained during a first period from a first plurality of users who use the game and have respective levels within a selected range from a wearable level of the first item, a first enhancement-attempt count indicating a number of attempts made during the first period to enhance the first item by the users associated with the first plurality of remote user terminals, wherein the selected range is determined based on the enhancement information; modify enhancement values, the modifying enhancement values further including: determine a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item, based on the first enhancement-attempt count; the first enhancement value to a user to cause the first enhancement value to be displayed for enhancing the first item; determine, based on information obtained during a second period from a second plurality of users who use the game and have respective levels within the selected range from the wearable level of the first item, a second enhancement-attempt count indicating a number of attempts made during the second period to enhance the first item by the second plurality of users; compare the first enhancement-attempt count with the second enhancement-attempt count; determine an intermediate value for enhancing the first item by adjusting the first enhancement value based on a result of the comparing; and determine an enhancement value range based on the first enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being inside the enhancement value range, determine and set a value equal to the intermediate value as a second enhancement value; based on the intermediate value being outside the enhancement value range, determine and set a value in the enhancement value range as the second enhancement value based on the result of the comparing; and the second enhancement value to the user to cause the second enhancement value to be displayed for enhancing the first item 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, in-game telemetry, 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 remote user terminals, “automatically” modifying enhancement values “in real time”, transmitting first and second enhancement values, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of remote 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, in-game telemetry, 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 remote user terminals, “automatically” modifying enhancement values “in real time”, transmitting first and second enhancement values, a user terminal, an interface, and a second plurality of remote 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.
Novel/Non-Obvious
Regarding independent claims 1, 12, and 23, the amended claims are distinguished over the prior art for similar reasoning as that discussed in the “Novel/Non-Obvious” section on pages 22-23 of the 05/18/2026 Final Rejection.
Accordingly, claims 1, 12, and 23 are distinguished over the prior art of record. Regarding the dependent claims, claims 8-11 and 19-22 are distinguished over the prior art of record by virtue of their dependence on the respective distinguished independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0172373) teaches dynamic pricing for an electronic transaction in which the price can float within a set price range
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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 3626
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights