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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements entered on June 18th, 2024 and September 13th, 2024 have been considered. A copy of the cited statement(s) including the notation indicating its respective consideration is attached for the Applicant's records.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. a manufacture) in claim 1-6, a game system (i.e., a machine) in claims 7, and a game processing method (i.e., a process) in claims 8.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program executed by a processor of a game apparatus for executing a process of generating a game stage including a player object controllable to move on the basis of an operation by a player and another player object controlled to move on the basis of information received from another game apparatus connected via a network, the game program causing the processor to:
determine whether or not play in a predetermined game stage has reached a certain degree of progress; and
if it is determined that the certain degree of progress has been reached, place a replay object controlled to move on the basis of an operation history, of a player different from a player of the other game apparatus, acquired from a predetermined server, in the game stage, and control movement of the replay object.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for observing, evaluating and judging the state of a game and modifying game play based thereon as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a game interface.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on storage medium, processor, game apparatus, network, and a server it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other network connected computer devices such as generic computers, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including storage medium, processor, game apparatus, network, and a server amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0019]-[0022]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0019]-[0022]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-8 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of storage medium, processor, game apparatus, network, and a server as respectively presented in certain claims that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of each of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B because they each present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and accordingly for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yabuki et al (US 2009/0093313)
Claim 1: Yabuki teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program executed by a processor of a game apparatus for executing a process of generating a game stage including a player object controllable to move on the basis of an operation by a player and another player object controlled to move on the basis of information received from another game apparatus connected via a network (Yabuki Figures 2, 8-10: Paragraphs [0083]-[0087]), the game program causing the processor to:
determine whether or not play in a predetermined game stage has reached a certain degree of progress (-Describing the degree of progress as a comparative ranking and selecting the ghost data based thereon- Yabuki Paragraphs [0005], [0123]); and
if it is determined that the certain degree of progress has been reached, place a replay object controlled to move on the basis of an operation history, of a player different from a player of the other game apparatus, acquired from a predetermined server, in the game stage, and control movement of the replay object (Yabuki Figures 10, 12; Paragraphs [0091]-[0098]).
Claim 2: Yabuki teaches the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein, if it is determined that the play in the predetermined game stage has reached the certain degree of progress and the total number of the player object and the other player objects in the game stage is equal to or less than a predetermined number, the replay object is placed in the game stage and the movement of the replay object is controlled (-Encompassing the addition of one ghost object if one has not already been added- Yabuki Figure 10; Paragraphs [0084]-[0085], [0103], [0123]).
Claim 3: Yabuki teaches the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the game program further causes the processor to
if it is determined that the certain degree of progress has been reached, transmit an operation history based on operations of the player until the game stage is cleared after the certain degree of progress has been reached, to the predetermined server (Yabuki Figure 17).
Claim 4: Yabuki teaches the storage medium according to claim 2, wherein a plurality of the replay objects are placed in the game stage such that the total number of the number of the other player objects and the number of the replay objects is the predetermined number, and movement of the replay objects is controlled (-Wherein the replay objects are selected and updated based on player ranking across multiple games- Yabuki Paragraphs [0022], [0123]).
Claim 5: Yabuki teaches the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the other player object and the replay object are rendered in a semi-transparent manner (-as shown- Yabuki Figure 10).
Claim 6: Yabuki teaches the storage medium according to claim 4, wherein, when a plurality of the replay objects are placed, the replay objects are placed sequentially at a predetermined time interval (-Understood as encompassing the changing replay objects when the players rank increases for subsequent races- Yabuki Paragraphs [0022], [0123]).
Claim 7: Yabuki teaches a game system for executing a process of generating a game stage including a player object controllable to move on the basis of an operation by a player and another player object controlled to move on the basis of information received from another game apparatus connected via a network, the game system comprising a processor and a memory coupled thereto (Yabuki Figures 2, 8-10: Paragraphs [0083]-[0087]), the processor being configured to control a processing system to at least:
determine whether or not play in a predetermined game stage has reached a certain degree of progress (-Describing the degree of progress as a comparative ranking and selecting the ghost data based thereon- Yabuki Paragraphs [0005], [0123]); and
if it is determined that the certain degree of progress has been reached, place a replay object controlled to move on the basis of an operation history, of a player different from a player of the other game apparatus, acquired from a predetermined server, in the game stage, and control movement of the replay object (Yabuki Figures 10, 12; Paragraphs [0091]-[0098]).
Claim 8: Yabuki teaches a game processing method causing a processor of a game apparatus, for executing a process of generating a game stage including a player object controllable to move on the basis of an operation by a player and another player object controlled to move on the basis of information received from another game apparatus connected via a network (Yabuki Figures 2, 8-10: Paragraphs [0083]-[0087]), to:
determine whether or not play in a predetermined game stage has reached a certain degree of progress (-Describing the degree of progress as a comparative ranking and selecting the ghost data based thereon- Yabuki Paragraphs [0005], [0123]); and
if it is determined that the certain degree of progress has been reached, place a replay object controlled to move on the basis of an operation history, of a player different from a player of the other game apparatus, acquired from a predetermined server, in the game stage, and control movement of the replay object (Yabuki Figures 10, 12; Paragraphs [0091]-[0098]).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Motokura et al (US 2014/0292640) teaches a computer readable medium having program recorded therein, information processing apparatus, information processing method, and information processing system;
Yang (US 2014/0066191) teaches a method and system for activating non-core features by external users in an asynchronous game; and
Matsumoto (US 2003/0190951) teaches a game machine, method and program
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights