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 amendment filed on 04/08/2026.
Claims 1, 12, and 23 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 7, 18, and 24-25 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 8-12, and 19-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the objections of claims 1 and 25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 address the objection, and the cancelation of claim 25 renders the objection to claim 25 moot. The claim objections to claims 1 and 25 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 24 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 24 has been canceled, rendering the rejection moot. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 24 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-14, filed 04/08/2026, 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.
First, Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that the claimed invention is patent eligible for similar reasoning as Claim 1 from Example 42. Applicant argues that claim 1 is similar to Example 42 in that claim 1 collects telemetry data from remote user terminals and determines and sets enhancement values in real-time. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 42 Claim 1’s analysis recites “Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.” In other words, claim 1 of example 42 is patent eligible because the claim presents a particular technical improvement over prior art systems. While paragraphs [0003] and [0004] of the specification as filed recite that the dynamic pricing of the claimed invention is fulfilling need in the prior art, Examiner notes that this improvement by incorporating dynamic pricing to “generate optimal profits” and “increase customer demand” is an improvement in the commercial interaction itself (i.e. charging prices more reflective of the actual market demand for an item enhancement) and not a technical improvement. 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”. Therefore, the improvement provided by claim 1 of Example 42 integrates its judicial exception into a practical application while the improvement to the commercial interaction of claim 1 of the claimed invention does not integrate its judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments that claim 1 of the present invention is analogous for similar reasoning as claim 1 of Example 42 is not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that the instant claims do not recite a judicial exception. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a Mental Process nor a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues on page 10 that the claimed invention has been amended in such a way that is no longer capable of being processed in the human mind. Applicant argues that “the human mind is not equipped to amass remote information for real time analysis to calculate a value and for such automatic and real-time collection, processing, and transmitting of enhancement values.” Examiner notes the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II.C. recites “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer…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 claimed invention, the obtaining of enhancement demand of users within particular level ranges in different time periods is a Mental Process being conducted in a computer environment. Specifically, tracking an enhancement demand over a period covers logging enhancement sales and abstract user information of users who purchased the enhancement. This logging of information is bookkeeping of a merchant’s sales (something able to be performed with pen and paper) being conducted in a computing environment (i.e. via “telemetry” from remote terminals). The real-time processing and transmitting of enhancement values/prices to users is an example of a computer being used as a tool to perform a mental process. Specifically, a human could compare demand (i.e. number of purchases) between two periods and determine a value/price adjustment based on the comparison/difference. The claimed invention is using a computer as a tool to make the comparison, determine a value/price adjustment, and communicate the new value/price to users. Accordingly, the claimed invention recites a Mental Process being performed in a computer environment and using a computer as a tool to perform the Mental Process.
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. While the “in-game telemetry” is not part of the abstract idea and is a part of the additional elements to be analyzed later, the claims still recite the determination of a demands and values/prices for an enhancement across multiple time periods and checking to ensure that prices are changed within a particular value/price range from the starting/first value/price. The mere recitation of “in-game telemetry” does not preclude the claim from reciting a commercial interaction. Furthermore, while “in-game telemetry” is recited in the preamble of the claim, the actual method steps recite what information is being obtained and sent from/to the users (i.e. the commercial interaction information of demand and values/prices) without reciting the particular technical approaches of how such “in-game telemetry” is being performed. For at least these reasons, the instant claim 1 recites a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. Applicant’s arguments that the claims do not recite an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One are not persuasive.
Applicant then argues across pages 11-14 that the claims allegedly integrate their judicial exceptions into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two and amount to significantly more at Step 2B. On pages 11-13, Applicant argues that the claimed invention is an improvement to “the technical field of telemetry, specifically involving collecting user behavior telemetry to automatically modify an enhancement value…” Applicant quotes the entirety of amended claim 1 with language added by amendment emphasized across pages 11-12 and argues that the claim recites “a specific technical arrangement” to further emphasize the alleged improvement to the field of telemetry. Applicant also argues that the consideration of a number of enhancements performed from users whose levels are within a selected range from the wearable level “is a more specific technical implementation and a more limited data-processing structure”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, regarding the alleged improvement in the field of telemetry, Examiner notes that telemetry is only mentioned in the preamble of claim 1. Furthermore, the steps of the method of claim 1 merely recite the information that is being obtained from the remote user terminals; the steps do not recite any technical telemetry method of a particular improvement as to how this information is collected/disseminated to the remote user terminals. Instead of an improvement to the field of telemetry, the claimed steps fall more in line with MPEP 2106.05(f) (1) “Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’.” In the case of the claimed invention, the steps recite the goal of obtaining user information comprising enhancement demands from remote user terminals and the goal of transmitting enhancement values back to the remote user terminals, which the preamble recites is a method of “in-game telemetry”. However, rather than reciting particular telemetry techniques that may have been considered technical improvements, the claim amounts to applying “telemetry” to the obtaining of user information and enhancement demand. Applicant’s specification and claims do not make it clear that a technical problem is being overcome in “in-game telemetry” that prevents prior art systems from collecting such information (see MPEP 2106.05(a) for the need for the specification and claims to reflect the technical problem/solution for an improvement to computers or other technical field). Accordingly, the “in-game telemetry” argued by Applicant is not a technical improvement at Step 2A Prong Two.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the enhancement demand considering the number of enhancements by users whose level is within a wearable level being a more specific technical implementation and limited data-processing structure, Examiner notes that the type of data being considered is not limiting the “structure” of the data-processing of the game-providing device or a technical implementation. Instead, the consideration of enhancement purchases based on player level range amounts to a market segmentation of users in the game. Determining a demand of a good for a segment of the market is not a technical implementation but a refinement of the marketing/sales behavior/commercial interaction abstract idea discussed above. MPEP 2106.05(a) II. states “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 considering the number of enhancements made by a segment of the market may assist in arriving at a more optimal enhancement price, this improvement to the pricing of an item enhancement does not amount to an improvement in a technical field.
Regarding Applicant’s next argument on page 13 that any improvements in the price calculation in the claim a “a byproduct” of the claims’ improvements to telemetry. Examiner again notes that technical detail reciting an improvement to the technical process of in-game telemetry is not found in the claims as discussed above. Furthermore, the specification as filed recites the need for an improvement to the pricing process of item enhancements by “comprehensively considering all market conditions” in [0003]-[0004]. Improvements to “in-game telemetry” are not recited in the specification as filed. Applicant’s apparent argument that improvements to pricing processes are secondary to technical improvements is not persuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that the independent claims being amended to include limitations from previous claims 24 and 25 that distinguish the claims over the prior art make the claims patent eligible because there are “non-obvious ways to practice the alleged abstract idea” and therefore do not monopolize the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05 I. recites “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination…As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.") (emphasis in original). While the amended independent claims may be distinguished over the prior art because of the commercial interaction abstract idea now requiring the consideration of a number of enhancements performed by users with levels within a range of a wearable level, this non-obvious abstract idea is nevertheless still an abstract idea. As the MPEP indicates the eligibility analysis and prior art analysis are separate, and in the case of the present claims the additional elements, as an ordered combination, still amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions of the claims using generic computing components. 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). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that the non-obviousness of the amended independent claims renders the claims patent-eligible is 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.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 7-12, and 18-25 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 1, 8-12, and 19-23, with claims 7, 18, and 24-25 being canceled.
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 “obtaining, based on information obtained from a first plurality of remote 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; 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 demand; transmitting the first enhancement value to a user terminal to display on an interface to enhance the first item; obtaining, based on information obtained from a second plurality of remote user terminals of users who use the game within a second period, second user information including 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 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 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 second enhancement demand; and transmitting the second enhancement value to the user terminal to display on the interface to enhance 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; 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; modifying enhancement values, the modifying comprising: determining a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item based on the first enhancement demand; the first enhancement value to a user to display to enhance the first item; obtaining, based on information obtained from a second plurality of users who use the game within a second period, second user information including 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 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 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 second enhancement demand; and the second enhancement value to the user to display to enhance 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 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 of in-game telemetry that modifies enhancement values, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to a 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 remote 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; automatically modify enhancement values in real time, the automatically modifying enhancement values further including: determining a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item, based on the first enhancement demand; transmitting the first enhancement value to a user terminal to display on the interface to enhance the first item; obtaining, based on information obtained from a second plurality of remote 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; determining an intermediate value 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 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 second enhancement demand; and transmitting the second enhancement value to the user terminal to display on the interface to enhance 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 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; modify enhancement values, the modifying enhancement values further including: determining a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item, based on the first enhancement demand; the first enhancement value to a user to display to enhance the first item; obtaining, 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; determining an intermediate value 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 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 second enhancement demand; and the second enhancement value to the user to display to enhance 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 a 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 “obtain, based on information obtained from a first plurality of remote 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; automatically modify enhancement values in real time, the automatically modifying enhancement values further including: determining a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item, based on the first enhancement demand; transmitting the first enhancement value to a user terminal to display on an interface to enhance the first item; obtaining, based on information obtained from a second plurality of remote 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 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; and 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 second enhancement demand; and transmitting the second enhancement value to the user terminal to display on the interface to enhance 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 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; modify enhancement values, the modifying enhancement values further including: determining a first enhancement value for enhancing the first item, based on the first enhancement demand; the first enhancement value to a user to display to enhance the first item; 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 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; and 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 second enhancement demand; and the second enhancement value to the user to display to enhance 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 have been amended by Applicant to include the subject matter that was previously deemed to distinguish now canceled claims 24 and 25 over the prior art of record. Namely, the independent claims have been amended to recite that the enhancement demands of both the first and second periods are calculated based on a number of enhancements made during the respective period by users whose levels are within a selected range of a wearable level for a first item.
As discussed in greater detail on pages 49-51 of the 01/09/2026 Office Action, while 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) teaches the majority of the independent claims, the combination still does not teach the above limitations.
Other prior art of record still fails to remedy these deficiencies. Muller (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0011595, hereafter known as Muller) teaches determining whether a player’s level in a game falls within an ideal level range for an area of the game, but Muller does not explicitly teach considering selected level ranges when determining demand for an item enhancement. Wei et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,610,493; hereafter known as Wei) teaches determining a cost to play a mini-game that rewards an item buff, but Wei similarly does not explicitly teach determining the price for such a mini-game by considering demand for the item buff based on players’ levels relative to a wearable level for the item. Finally, Kim (Korean Publication No. 101288476, hereafter known as Kim) teaches dividing players of a game into level sets and giving an item to a player based on the level sets. However, Kim does not explicitly teach calculating an item enhancement demand based on a count of enhancements performed by players within a level set of a wearable level of an item in the game.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on (571) 270-3445. 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
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights