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 .
Claim Eligibility - 35 USC § 101
The claims recite abstract rules of a game which is a certain method of organizing human activity (See Savvy Dog Sys. v. Pa. Coin, LLC, 2023-1073 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2024) which describes an electronic gaming method and system with a preview screen, specifically for a game called "Tic-Tac-Fruit". The Federal Circuit held that the claims directed to a skill-based element by allowing players to preview game setups before playing, was directed to an abstract idea). However, Applicant’s claims also recite a practical application of a different mode reducing a user’s burden where “change object information indicating the change object to be displayed in a different mode from the candidate object information with reference to the change information.” According to Applicant’s specification [0088]:
By differing the display mode, the user can easily recognize the object that has become the target of the change processing, for example, the card added to the deck or excluded from the deck. Thus, if the user reconsiders that the card added to the deck is unnecessary during one composition operation, the card can be easily specified and excluded from the deck. Further, if the user reconsiders that the card deleted from the deck is necessary during one composition operation, the card can be easily specified and added to the deck. This can reduce the burden on the user when the object group is created.
Thus, the specification discloses, and the claims recite, the different display mode, and as such, are eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1, a2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 2020/0360811 to Yamazaki.
In Reference to Claims 1, 13, and 14
Yamazaki discloses a game system (Fig. 1 10), method, and medium (storage unit 12 [0037, 0043] that creates an object group (deck [0042]) with which a plurality of objects is associated (card of the deck [0042]), the game system comprising:
a computer that causes candidate object information which indicates candidate objects to be associated with the object group to be displayed on a screen (Fig. 4 displays information of the deck in areas A300 to A304 [0056, 0059]);
the computer that performs change processing including at least one of a selection change of associating a selected object selected from the candidate objects with the object group, or a cancellation change of cancelling association between the selected object and the object group (Fig. 7 editing of the deck includes card a1 is added to the deck, card c1 is removed [0082]);
the computer that saves change information indicating that the change processing has been performed in association with object identification information for identifying a change object that has become a target of the change processing (Fig. 7 card history A421, [0084]); and
the computer that causes change object information indicating the change object to be displayed in a different mode from the candidate object information with reference to the change information (Figs. 5 and 7, card colors are grayed out [0071].
In Reference to Claim 2
Yamazaki discloses a second display control unit ([0145]) wherein the computer saves a change timing at which the change processing is performed as the change information where “For example, when a card is selected, the second display control unit 104 displays on the display unit 15 the second card information for identifying the card. The expression “when a card is selected” refers to, for example, the timing at which the card is added to the deck.” ([0152]).
In Reference to Claim 4
Yamazaki discloses wherein the computer causes the candidate object information to be displayed in a candidate display area of the screen A300 to A304), and the computer causes the change object information to be displayed in the candidate display area in the different mode (Figs 5 and 7 cards are grayed out, [0071, 0072]).
In Reference to Claim 5
Yamazaki discloses wherein the computer performs the change processing on each of
the plurality of object groups (Figs 4, 5 and 7 editing the deck, see also Fig. 3 plurality of decks
in A20A which ae plurality of object groups, [0050-0051]).
In Reference to Claim 6
Examiner construes wherein the computer saves the change information so that the change information of the change processing previously performed on at least one change object is replaced with the change information of the change processing later performed on the at least one change object as simply that the storage updates the information. According to Yamakazi information is updated in storage Fig. 18 data table, [0142, 0175]).
In Reference to Claim 10
Yamazaki discloses wherein the selection change is processing of adding the selected object to the object group, and the cancellation change is processing of excluding the selected object included in the object group from the object group (Figs 4, 5 and 7 editing includes adding cards to the group and removing (cancelling) cards), [0084]).
In Reference to Claim 12
Yamakazi discloses the change object to be displayed by arranging according to the change timing (Figs. 8 A421A – 421D wherein the cards in card history are arranged in order of when actions were placed on them for addition or removal in line with the change timing of the game being played.
Double Patenting - Inapplicable
5. Examiner has considered the claims in granted claims in U.S. Pat. No. 11,266,908 to not be equivalent to the instant recited claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 3, 7-9, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Yamazaki does not disclose wherein the computer saves the number of changes for which the change processing has been performed as the change information; predetermined time periods for displaying in a different mode; differentiates main objects and associated sub-objects to be displayed in a different mode from the candidate object information; or displaying change object information at a position above the candidate object information. Further, according to PCT Witten Opinion filed 10/21/2024, it was determined that one or more of these limitations pertaining to Claims 7-9 were matters of design choice. Examiner disagrees. Applicant has provided a specific purpose served by the element of a predetermined time (Spec. [0102]), as well as main and sub-objects, the latter displayed for the user to recognize the sub-objects when displayed (Spec. [0104]) and may add or delete main objects and sub-objects at the same time (Spec. [0105]) so it is important for the player to be able to ascertain upon observation the relationship between the main and the sub-objects. Examiner also notes the prior art JP 2016-77435, JP 4975880, and JP 2021-29978 are made of record by Applicant but not relied upon as they merely contribute cumulative rejections of the rejected claims.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
10. 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.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights