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 filed on June 18, 2024 and September 23, 2024 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a game system” (i.e. “a machine”); claim 11 is directed to “a game processing method” (i.e. “a process”); claim 12 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (i.e. “a machine”), and claim 13 is directed to “a matching method” (i.e. “a process”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “game system matching,” in the form of “mental processes” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion), which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“in response to a first matching request transmitted from a first game apparatus, the server associating the first game apparatus with a first communication group,
in a state where the first game apparatus is associated with the first communication group, the first game apparatus starting first game processing of moving a first character on the basis of an operation by a player of the first game apparatus in a first game stage,
the server accepting a second matching request transmitted from a second game apparatus different from the first game apparatus, and
preferentially associating the second game apparatus with the first communication group if a difference between date and time when the second matching request is made and date and time when the first matching request is made is within a first predetermined time, and
if the second game apparatus is associated with the first communication group,
in a state where the second game apparatus is associated with the first communication group, the second game apparatus placing a third character to be operated on the basis of information received from the first game apparatus, at a position, corresponding to a position of the first character in the first game stage, in a second game stage having the same configuration as the first game stage, and starting second game processing of moving a second character in the second game stage on the basis of an operation by a player of the second game apparatus, and
the first game apparatus placing a fourth character to be operated on the basis of information received from the second game apparatus, at a position, corresponding to a position of the second character in the second game stage, in the first game stage, without changing a progress status of the first game processing.”
Per claim 11:
“in response to a first matching request transmitted from a first game apparatus, associate the first game apparatus with a first communication group;
in the first game apparatus, in a state where the first game apparatus is associated with the first communication group, start first game processing of moving a first character on the basis of an operation by a player of the first game apparatus in a first game stage;
accept a second matching request transmitted from a second game apparatus different from the first game apparatus;
preferentially associate the second game apparatus with the first communication group if a difference between date and time when the second matching request is made and date and time when the first matching request is made is within a first predetermined time; and
if the second game apparatus is associated with the first communication group,
in the second game apparatus, in a state where the second game apparatus is associated with the first communication group, place a third character to be operated on the basis of information received from the first game apparatus, at a position, corresponding to a position of the first character in the first game stage, in a second game stage having the same configuration as the first game stage, and start second game processing of moving a second character in the second game stage on the basis of an operation by a player of the second game apparatus, and
in the first game apparatus, place a fourth character to be operated on the basis of information received from the second game apparatus, at a position, corresponding to a position of the second character in the second game stage, in the first game stage, without changing a progress status of the first game processing.”
Per claim 12:
“in response to a first matching request transmitted from a first game apparatus, associate the first game apparatus with a first communication group;
in the first game apparatus, in a state where the first game apparatus is associated with the first communication group, start first game processing of moving a first character on the basis of an operation by a player of the first game apparatus in a first game stage;
accept a second matching request transmitted from a second game apparatus different from the first game apparatus;
preferentially associate the second game apparatus with the first communication group if a difference between date and time when the second matching request is made and date and time when the first matching request is made is within a first predetermined time; and
if the second game apparatus is associated with the first communication group,
in the second game apparatus, in a state where the second game apparatus is associated with the first communication group, place a third character to be operated on the basis of information received from the first game apparatus, at a position, corresponding to a position of the first character in the first game stage, in a second game stage having the same configuration as the first game stage, and start second game processing of moving a second character in the second game stage on the basis of an operation by a player of the second game apparatus, and
in the first game apparatus, place a fourth character to be operated on the basis of information received from the second game apparatus, at a position, corresponding to a position of the second character in the second game stage, in the first game stage, without changing a progress status of the first game processing.”
Per claim 13:
“on the basis of a first matching request from a first game apparatus belonging to a first communication group, associate the first game apparatus with a second communication group; and
when a second matching request is made from a second game apparatus, execute a matching process of preferentially associating the second game apparatus with the second communication group, if a difference between date and time when the second matching request is made and date and time when the first matching request is made is within a predetermined time and the second game apparatus belongs to the first communication group.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “rules are abstract ideas” (i.e. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and “a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, [without] any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.” (i.e. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a plurality of game apparatuses,” “a server,” “a computer,” and “a network,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “game system matching,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a plurality of game apparatuses,” “a server,” “a computer,” and “a network,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “game apparatus,” is described the written description of the specification as originally filed in paras. [0031] and [0057] as follows:
“[0031] FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing a non-limiting example of the hardware configuration of a game apparatus 3.”
“[0057] Next, the information processing terminal 3 will be described. The information processing terminal 3 is, for example, a smartphone, a stationary or hand-held game apparatus, a tablet terminal, a mobile phone, a personal computer, a wearable terminal, or the like.”
As such, this element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a server,” is described the written description of the specification as originally filed in para. [0056] as follows:
“[0056] Each server includes at least a processor 11 (21), a storage section 12 (22), and a communication section 13 (23). The processor section executes various programs for controlling each server. In the storage section, various programs to be executed by the processor section and various kinds of data to be used by the processor section are stored.”
As such, this element is also reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Further, the Applicant’s claimed “a network,” is described the written description of the specification as originally filed in para. [0056] as follows:
“[0056] The communication section connects to a network by means of wired or wireless communication and transmits/receives predetermined data to/from each information processing terminal 3 or another server.”
As such, this element is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data communications element.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a computer,” is not described with any detail in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Regardless, “a computer,” is reasonably interpreted as any commercially available device with a processor which is reasonably interpreted to be a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification is disclosing ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-10 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 contain allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record is U.S. PG Pub. 20240416230 to Nakao, et al. (hereinafter referred as “Nakao”). However, Nakao does not explicitly teach: “if the second game apparatus is associated with the first communication group, in a state where the second game apparatus is associated with the first communication group, the second game apparatus placing a third character to be operated on the basis of information received from the first game apparatus, at a position, corresponding to a position of the first character in the first game stage, in a second game stage having the same configuration as the first game stage, and starting second game processing of moving a second character in the second game stage on the basis of an operation by a player of the second game apparatus, and the first game apparatus placing a fourth character to be operated on the basis of information received from the second game apparatus, at a position, corresponding to a position of the second character in the second game stage, in the first game stage, without changing a progress status of the first game processing,” per claim 1, or substantially similar limitations in claims 11 and 12.
Further, Nakao does not explicitly teach: “when a second matching request is made from a second game apparatus, execute a matching process of preferentially associating the second game apparatus with the second communication group, if a difference between date and time when the second matching request is made and date and time when the first matching request is made is within a predetermined time and the second game apparatus belongs to the first communication group,” per claim 13.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are allowable subject matter, if no other statutory rejections remain. In the present case, claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715