Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to Applicant’s communication filed on 08/12/2026.
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 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
The claim(s) recite(s), inter alia,
during a turn-based chess game, displaying, in response to a purchase operation on a virtual chess piece, a quantity of consumed resources based on the virtual chess piece being purchased
purchasing the virtual chess piece during the turn-based chess game
determining the quantity of discount resources corresponding to the quantity of consumed resources of the virtual chess piece
the quantity of consumed resources corresponding to a quantity of discount resources
determining, based on the virtual chess piece being successfully sold, the quantity of new resources based on the virtual chess piece being successfully sold
displaying, in response to a selling operation on the virtual chess piece, selling information of the virtual chess piece
the selling information indicating a quantity of new resources based on the virtual chess piece being successfully sold and a quantity of discount resources corresponding to the quantity of new resources being the same as the quantity of discount resources corresponding to the quantity of consumed resources
displaying that the virtual chess piece is successfully sold based on the virtual chess piece being in a non-battle state
displaying a level of the virtual chess piece and a quantity of new resources corresponding to the virtual chess piece at the level
wherein the level is determined based on at least one of attribute information of a star level and a grade of the virtual chess piece
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1-9 and 11-20 relate to buying and selling virtual goods. Buying and selling is a form of settling financial obligations, which has been held to be an abstract fundamental economic practice. See Alice, Id. at 220; In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The recited act of “displaying” is practicably performable by a human mind working with pen and paper and thus is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea. Additionally, claims 1-9 and 11-20 recite the elements of “one or more processors,” a “computing device,” a “memory” a “computer-readable medium,” and a “game store.” Specifically, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not serve to integrate the idea into a practical application because:
One or more processors — In the published specification, it states:
[0271] The processor 1001 may include one or more processing cores, for example, a 4-core processor or an 8-core processor. The processor 1001 may be implemented in at least one hardware form of a digital signal processor (DSP), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), and a programmable logic array (PLA). The processor 1001 may also include a main processor and a coprocessor. The main processor is a processor configured to process data in an awake state, and is also referred to as a central processing unit (CPU). The coprocessor is a low power processor configured to process data in a standby state. In some examples, the processor 1001 may be integrated with a graphics processing unit (GPU). The GPU is configured to render and draw content that needs to be displayed on a display screen. In some examples, the processor 1001 may further include an artificial intelligence (AI) processor. The AI processor is configured to process computing operations related to machine learning.
Accordingly, it would be reasonable to interpret the processor as a generic computing component.
Computing device — In the published specification, it states:
[0269] The computer device 1000 may be a portable mobile terminal, for example, a smartphone, a tablet computer, a moving picture experts group audio layer III (MP3) player, or a moving picture experts group audio layer IV (MP4) player. The computer device 1000 may also be referred to as another name such as a user equipment or a portable terminal
Accordingly, it would again be reasonable to interpret the computing device as a generic computing component.
Memory and computer-readable medium — In the published specification, it states:
[0272] The memory 1002 may include one or more computer- readable storage media. The computer-readable storage medium may be tangible and non-transitory. The memory 1002 may further include a high-speed random access memory and a nonvolatile memory, for example, one or more disk storage devices or flash storage devices. In some examples, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in the memory 1002 is configured to store at least one instruction, and the at least one instruction is configured to be executed by the processor 1001 to implement the virtual chess piece selling method provided in the examples of this application.
Accordingly, it would again be reasonable to interpret the memory as a generic computing component.
Game store — is not described in the specification as inherently comprising any visual or structural elements that would qualify as non-abstract. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the feature, it is construed as a mere recordkeeping feature that maintains a list of purchasable items and associated prices. Since such a function is practicably human-performable, the “game store” is not considered to be “significantly more” under the requirements of Alice.
The additional elements that were interpreted under step 2A prong 2 as conventional computing components are re-evaluated in step 2B, and evidence is known that they were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing.
Processor and computing device —
Limiting an invention to run on a computer does not transform an abstract idea into a non-abstract one. Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Memory —
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Thus, since the invention essentially amounts to the well-known activity of satisfying financial obligations using only conventional computing components, it is therefore adjudged as ineligible subject matter under the requirements of this section as interpreted by Alice.
—
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
The Claims Do Not Recite a Mental Process, The Examiner's characterization of the claims as merely "buying and selling virtual goods" oversimplifies the claimed invention. The amended claims do not recite generic commercial transactions. Rather, the claims require interactive display within a computer-implemented game environment, responding to user operations during active gameplay.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims were found as ineligible based on being a mental process. On the contrary, the claims are adjudged ineligible for constituting, without more, a method of resolving financial obligations. Such inventions are expressly held as ineligible subject matter by Alice, as noted supra.
Applicant argues:
These features cannot be practically performed in a human mind working with pen
and paper because they are specific game mechanics within a fast-pace turn-based virtual chess game and it would not be practical for a human to calculate and determine the resources in real time within the time allowed in a virtual chess game.
.
Again, respectfully, the claims were found ineligible as abstract methods for resolving financial obligations. Assuming, arguendo, such features as game mechanics and pacing were actually present in the claims, they might count as “significantly more” and thus render the claims eligible. However, presently, the features are neither explicitly nor implicitly claimed, so they can have no effect on the eligibility analysis.
Applicant argues:
The claims address a technical problem specific to computer-implemented games: the need to store corresponding relationships between large numbers of virtual chess pieces and quantities of resources at the time of purchase and selling, which occupies large storage space. As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0005] ("a device in the related art needs to store a corresponding relationship between a large number of virtual chess pieces and quantities of gold coins at the time of purchase and selling, which occupies large storage space"). The specification explains that the claimed correlation between purchase and selling discount resources provides a concrete technical solution: "the quantities of virtual resources between purchase and selling of the virtual chess pieces are correlated. When a quantity of discount resources when a virtual chess piece is purchased is determined, a quantity of discount resources when the virtual chess piece is sold may be determined, without occupying excessive storage space of the computer device."
.
Although doubtlessly beneficial to Applicant’s uses, the instant claims cannot be found as a technical improvement. The canonical example of a technological improvement is noted in Example 37 of the 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.1 There, the recited method of icon rearrangement was found to be a non-abstract improvement because it was applicable to a large number of user interface applications and thus constituted a general-purpose improvement in computer functionality. Here, only a small number of users would benefit from the stated memory savings of the invention; thus it cannot be considered as an improvement to the general-purpose functionality of a computer.
In order to address the 101 rejection, Examiner recommends incorporating the user interface subject matter of Drawing Figures 2-5 into the claims. Assuming such features are detailed enough to belie their performance by a human using only pen and paper, they could serve to constitute significantly more and thus overcome the finding of ineligibility.
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 extension fee 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 STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. 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 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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf
Prosecution Insights