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 .
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims (filed 09/17/2026).
The previous rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims (filed 09/17/2026).
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Remarks, filed 09/17/2026, pp. 11-13) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that “acquiring a sleep time from the output of a physical sensor and performing a number of appearance determinations that varies with the measured sleep time are not acts that can be practically performed in the human mind” (Id. at 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that a human is capable of observing another human to determine whether they are asleep, measuring the length of time they are asleep, and performing a variable number of mental determinations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), which states, inter alia, “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Examiner further notes the recitation of a “sensor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing device, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Applicant next argues that “[t]he amended claims provide a specific technical solution to this problem by acquiring the user’s sleep time from a sensor that detects motion of the user and, after the user wakes up, generating and outputting a display image in which the character determined through a sleep-time-dependent number of appearance determinations is shown in the field together with the object the user placed before sleep. The determination of the display character is thus tied to a particular data-acquisition technology and to a particular use of the acquired sleep-time data… This is a particular technological implementation and not merely an abstract idea applied on a generic computer” (Id. at 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees that this constitutes a technological solution to a technological problem. Furthermore, Examiner reiterates that the additional elements of “processing circuitry” and “a sensor” are each recited at a high level of generality and appear to merely automate the receiving, determining, and generating steps rather than imposing any meaningful limitation upon the recited abstract idea(s).
The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have therefore been maintained. See rejection of claims, as presented in detail below.
The previous rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims (filed 09/17/2026).
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 an abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, analyzed as the representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 1 recites “A game system…” which falls within the “machine” statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] Claim 1 recites “A game system in which a character is able to appear in a field inside of a game, the game system comprising: processing circuitry configured to receive sleep information of a user, the sleep information including a sleep time calculated from a bed timing and a wake-up timing detected by a sensor that detects motion of the user, receive a setting of an object that is able to be placed in the field and is associated with a parameter in response to an operation of the user before sleep, determine a display character that is a character to be displayed in the field on the basis of at least the sleep information of the user and the parameter of the object, wherein determining the display character includes increasing a number of determinations of whether a character appears in the field in accordance with a length of the sleep time, generate a display image indicating a situation of the field including the object placed in the field and the display character, and output the display image after the user wakes up.” The bolded limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). That is, other than reciting that the method is performed by “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human and/or in the human mind. Specifically, the claim encompasses a user receiving information about sleep and an object, choosing a display character based on some pre-existing criteria, and picturing an image of that character and object. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s).
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claim recites the additional elements of processing circuitry and a sensor, which are each recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the receiving, determining, and generating steps. Therefore, this additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing device, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Additionally and/or alternatively, the limitations of generating a display image and outputting that display image are drawn to insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering and data display). See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea(s).
[Step 2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the additional elements of processing circuitry, a sensor, and generating/displaying an image amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing device and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, representative claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8 and 19-20 are dependent on representative claim 1 and include all of the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea(s) as those recited in the independent claim or contain limitations drawn to generic computer components and/or reciting extra solution activities. While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the representative claim, no claim contains an additional element to integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application or to render an inventive concept that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Thereby, claims 2-8 and 19-20 are also patent ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As presented, the combination of all the elements of the independent claims do not appear in a single reference of prior art. Additionally, based on the art of record, it does not appear that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine various pieces of the cited prior art to obtain each and every limitation as currently required by the independent claims.
Specifically, the previously cited prior art Shindo fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least “determining the display character includes increasing a number of determinations of whether a character appears in the field in accordance with a length of the sleep time.” Additional relevant art fails to cure this deficiency, such as the previously cited prior art Hattori, which teaches a display field of fish in which a number of identical fish objects is increased in accordance with the user’s sleep time being closer to an ideal value; however, the determination of Hattori correlates instead to a single determination of a number of pre-determined identical display characters appearing rather than there being an increased number of determinations of whether or not a character will appear.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JULIE DOSHER whose telephone number is (571) 272-4842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/J.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
