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 .
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 1/6/2024. Claims 1, 18 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 1-20 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.
The claims are directed to a method (claims 1-17), a computer readable medium (claims 18-19) and a system (claims 20). These fall within the statutory f categories of
35 USC § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of organizing and transmitting messages between participants in a virtual environment including the steps of, displaying message editing controls, allowing selection of a quick reply option, formatting messages in different presentation such as bubble, bullet, history; transmitting the message to other users, and displaying or replying to messages through quick reply controls. These steps are similar to Methods or organizing human activity (fundamental communication practices, interpersonal interactions); Mental processes (editing, confirming, selecting replies); and Presentation of information (displaying messages as bubbles, bullet comments or history logs). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite generic computing devices (a first terminal device, a second terminal device, processors, displays, and servers) executing the abstract idea. The recited user interface elements (message control, confirm control, quick reply buttons, bubble and bullet comment styles) are conventional graphical user interface used to organize information to users. There is not technological improvement to the functioning of the computer, network or display technology. Therefore, the claims do not amount to practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claims do not add anything beyond the abstract idea because they only use generic computer parts such as devices, processors, servers, displays and well-known interface features such as quick replies, editing screens, bullets and bullet comments, chat history, auto reply suggestions. All of these are routine in messaging systems and online games. The claims just use standard hardware and common user interface technique, nothing inventive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the following:
The steps of the calm cannot be performed in the human mind.
Even though the claim is implemented on electronic devices and may not be practical for human to carry out manually during gameplay, the eligibility inquiry focusses on the nature of the recited concept. The steps of composing a message, presenting selectable reply options, selecting a reply, and transmitting that reply generally correspond to arranged communication between users. Although the computer implementation improves speed and suability, the concept of offering preset reply options and selecting one remains an information exchange mechanism. For this reason, the claim is viewed as reciting a form or organizing and transmitting information.
The amended claim integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claim is directed to communication within multiplayer virtual environment and includes display elements and terminal devices. However, the recited components such as terminal devices, screens, and user interface controls appear to perform their conventional roles of displaying, transmitting and receiving messages. The claim does not appear to recite specific improvement to computer functionality. It only applies arranged communication in a particular setting such as virtual game scene. For this reason, it is clear that the claim is implementing the concept in a particular r environment, rather than integrating it into a technological improvement.
The quick reply control improves hardware resource utilization.
The current claim language does not expressly recite how hardware resources are improved for example, reduced bandwidth, memory utilization, processing efficiency or a specific technical mechanism achieving any improvement. Even though preset replies may in practice reduce user input or message size, the claim does not specify a technical implementation that produces hardware improvement. The quick reply control appears to function as conventional user interface feature for selecting predefined responses.
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 SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights