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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4-5, 7-8, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 5 recites the limitation "a parameter" multiple times. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claims 5 recites the limitation "a reduction amount" multiple times. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the new divisor" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend and are similarly rejected for the same reason.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-15 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:A non-transitory recording medium storing a game program that is executable by a computer to perform a process, the process comprising
in a computer game in which it is possible that a user ascertains a result of a fight:
performing the fight in a first manner in a case in which the user is unable to ascertain a course of the fight; and
performing the fight in a second manner and with all or part of the first manner, in a case in which the user is able to ascertain the course of the fight.
Claim 14 recites:A game processing method, comprising
in a computer game in which it is possible that a user ascertains a result of a fight, by a processor:
performing the fight in a first manner in a case in which the user is unable to ascertain a course of the fight; and
performing the fight in a second manner and with all or part of the first manner in a case in which the user is able to ascertain the course of the fight.
Claim 15 recites:A game device, comprising:
A memory, and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to:
in a computer game in which it is possible that a user ascertains a result of a fight:
perform the fight in a first manner in a case in which the user is unable to ascertain a course of the fight; and
perform the fight in a second manner and with all or part of the first manner in a case in which the user is able to ascertain the course of the fight.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: in a computer game in which it is possible that a user ascertains a result of a fight; perform the fight in a first manner in a case in which the user is unable to ascertain a course of the fight; and perform the fight in a second manner and with all or part of the first manner in a case in which the user is able to ascertain the course of the fight.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 1, 14-15 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: memory and processor.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Ouchi et al., US 20230233939, discloses that it is well known that players can participate in battles against enemy characters (paragraph 2);
Konishi et al., US 20220314127, discloses that games implementing a competition function that allows players to fight a battle against each other is well known and conventional (paragraph 3);
Takahashi et al., US 20160124518 discloses that games in which characters displayed on the screen are manipulated to conduct a battle between two characters are well-known (paragraph 5).
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (ie: at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity because each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, the dependent claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okada et al., US 20250232634 (Okada).Regarding Claim 1.
Okada discloses a non-transitory recording medium storing a game program that is executable by a computer to perform a process, the process comprising
in a computer game in which it is possible that a user ascertains a result of a fight (para 84-87, 132, 136-139. Players create a party in which the party can battle against enemy characters and defeating them. The player can ascertain the result, such whether the player succeeded or failed, of the fight when the fight has concluded.):
performing the fight in a first manner in a case in which the user is unable to ascertain a course of the fight (Fig 6A, elem 82; para 135, 140-141. Players can engage in battle in which the battle plays out automatically which means the player has no control and therefore unable to ascertain the course of the fight.); and
performing the fight in a second manner and with all or part of the first manner, in a case in which the user is able to ascertain the course of the fight (para 93-94, 135, 140-141. Players can engage manual play of the battle, which means the player has control of the character and therefore able to ascertain the course of the fight.)
Regarding Claim 14.
Okada discloses a game processing method, comprising in a computer game in which it is possible that a user ascertains a result of a fight (para 84-87, 132, 136-139), by a processor:
performing the fight in a first manner in a case in which the user is unable to ascertain a course of the fight (Fig 6A, elem 82; para 135, 140-141; and
performing the fight in a second manner and with all or part of the first manner in a case in which the user is able to ascertain the course of the fight (para 93-94, 135, 140-141).
Regarding Claim 15.
Okada discloses a game device, comprising: a memory, and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to: in a computer game in which it is possible that a user ascertains a result of a fight (para 84-87, 132, 136-139):
perform the fight in a first manner in a case in which the user is unable to ascertain a course of the fight(Fig 6A, elem 82; para 135, 140-141); andperform the fight in a second manner and with all or part of the first manner in a case in which the user is able to ascertain the course of the fight (para 93-94, 135, 140-141).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights