1Notice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination Transmittal received on 5/4/2026. Claims 1, 18 and 20 have been amended Claim 10 was previously cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added. Consequently, claims 1-9 and 11- 21 are 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 1-9 and 11- 21 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 20-21). These fall within the statutory categories of
35 USC § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 recites, in part: causing display of a message control configured for editing a message, transmitting an edited message to a second terminal device; causing display of the edited message; triggering a quick reply control; generating a reply message; receiving the reply message. These limitations recite managing communications and interactions between users within a virtual environment. Such activities constitute certain methods of organizing human activity, including interpersonal interactions and combinations between individuals. These limitations are directed to selecting presentations manners, selecting reply options, determining reply content, determining whether a player object is in an active or inactive state, and determining whether transmission criteria are satisfied describe observations, evaluations, judgments, and decision-making processes that can be practically performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. Therefore, the claims additionally recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in the claims include: a first terminal device, a second terminal device, a sever, a virtual scene, a player objects, message controls, quick reply controls, display regions. These additional elements merely use generic computing components as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claims do not recite an improvement tot eh functioning of a computer, network, processor, memory system, graphical rendering engine, or game engine. Rather, the claims merely apply tot eh abstract idea in the environment of a virtual scene or game.
Although the claims recite displaying messages in different manners, including bullet comments and bubble messages, the limitations merely concern the presentation of information to users. The manner in which information is displayed does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of the computer itself. Similarly, the recited quick reply control merely facilitates communication between users by reducing the amount of user input required to provide a response. Improving the convenience of efficiency of user communications does not constitute an improvement in computer technology. The claims therefore merely use generic computer computing devices to implement rules governing communications between users practicing in a virtual environment. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, the claims further elements recited int eh claims perform their ordinary and conventional functions, including: displaying information, receiving user input, transmitting information, receiving information, presenting graphical user interface elements, displaying messages, displaying controls. The claims do not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional network architecture, or technological solution that improves computer functionality. The recited message controls, quick reply controls, presentation options, reply message options, history message region bubble styles, display regions, and player states merely represent additional rules governing how users communicate and how information is presented to users. When considered individually and as ordered combination, the additional elements amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components performing well understood, routine, and conventional activities. Accordingly, the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant contends that the claimed invention provides a game-state dependent communication mechanism that permits communication with active players while minimizing disruption of gameplay and reducing user interaction requirements, and therefore constitutes an improvement to computer technology.
The examiner disagrees. The claims recite displaying a message control, editing a message, transmitting the message to another player, displaying a quick reply control, generating a reply message in response to activation of the quick reply control and receiving the reply message. These limitations describe the exchange of information between users and the management of user communications within a virtual environment. The additional limitations directed to player states (e.g., waiting state versus interactive state), message presentation style (e.g., bullet comments, or bubble messages), quick reply controls, reply options, and display regions merely determine how information is presorted to users and how users interact with the presented information. These limitations do not improve the functioning of the computer, terminal device, network game engine or any other technology. The claimed invention uses generic computing devices as tools to implement rules governing communication between user participating in a game. Even though the specification states that communication efficiency maybe improved and gameplay disruption may be reduced, an improvement in user communication or user convenience does not necessarily constitute an improvement in computer functionality. The claims do not recite any specific technological mechanism by which computer performance, network operation, memory utilization, processor utilization, graphical rendering, or game engine operation is improved. Furthermore, the claims quick reply functionality merely reduces the number of user inputs required to generate a response. Reducing the amount of user interaction required to perform an abstract communication activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims remain directed to organizing and facilitation communications among users within a virtual environment, which is a method of organizing human activity and/or mental process implemented using generic computer components. Accordingly, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements recited in the claims including terminal devices, message controls, display regions, virtual scenes, player objects and servers, are recited at high level of generality and perform their ordinary and conventional functions of displaying information, receiving input, transmitting data, and presenting content. The claims do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained, because the invention improves communication between players, not the
operation of the computer itself.
Response to recitation of BASCOM.
The applicant argues that the claims are analogous to DBASCOM because they allegedly recite non-conventional arrangements that improves efficiency. However, unlike BASCOM, the claims do not recite any particular network architecture, non-conventional arrangement of computing components, or a technological solution that changes the operation of a computer network, Instead the claims merely employ generic terminal devices, servers, and user interface elements performing their ordinary functions to facilitate communication between users. The alleged improvement resides in the comminution rules and information presentation rather than an improvement to computer technology itself.
The applicant further argues that paragraph 0108 of the specification describes a technical improvement because a quick control permits generation of a reply message without requiring manual editing, thereby improving reply efficiency and hardware utilization.
This argument is no persuasive. The claimed feature merely reduces the amount of user input required to perform a communication activity and therefore improves user convenience rather than computer functionality. The claims do not recite any specific technological mechanism that improves processor operation, memory utilization, network performance, rendering efficiency, or any other aspect of computer technology. Moreover, the assertion of improved hardware utilization is not supported by corresponding claim limitation that achieve such as result. Accordingly, the alleged improvement are directed to facilitating user communications rather than improving the functioning of a computer, and therefore, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more, than the judicial exception.
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