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.
Claims 4-10, 13-14 and 17 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a terminal" in line 3. However, there was disclosure of that limitation previously before in line 11 of Claim 1. 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 5 recites the limitation “the number" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner is confused is to if this “number” represents a quantity amount of “one or more terminals” (eg: there could only be three registered terminals) or if this “number” represents a registration number (ie: the registration number for a registered terminal is: 456158)
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the plurality of accounts" in Line 2-4 and. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a game content" in line 3. However, there was disclosure of that limitation previously before in line 2 of Claim 1. 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 17 recites the limitation “the number" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner is confused is to if this “number” represents a quantity amount of “one or more terminals” (eg: there could only be three registered terminals) or if this “number” represents a registration number (ie: the registration number for a registered terminal is: #456158)
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the number" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner is confused is to if this “number” represents a quantity amount of “one or more terminals” (eg: there could only be three registered terminals) or if this “number” represents a registration number (ie: the registration number for a registered terminal is: #456158)
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 1-20 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 1-20 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 method performed by one or more processors, the method comprising:
associating a first account with a game content obtained by the first account through a network;
associating the first account with each of a plurality of terminals being configured to be associated with one or more accounts;
changeably associating each game content obtained by the first account with one terminal selected from the plurality of terminals with which the first account is associated; and permitting play of the game content, with the one terminal with which the game content is associated, by one or more accounts not limited to the first account, and restricting play of the game content with a terminal other than the one terminal of the plurality of terminals with which the first account is associated.
Claim 15 recites:
A system comprising:
a server that manages a first account; and
a plurality of terminals, each of the plurality of terminals being configured to be associated with one or more accounts, wherein the server comprises one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of the server to perform operations comprising
associating the first account with a game content obtained by the first account through a network,
associating the first account with each of the plurality of terminals,
changeably associating each game content obtained by the first account with one terminal selected from the plurality of terminals with which the first account is associated, and
permitting play of the game content, with the one terminal with which the game content is associated, by one or more accounts not limited to the first account, and restricting play of the game content with a terminal other than the one terminal of the plurality of terminals with which the first account is associated.
Claim 18 recites:
1A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed, cause one or more processors that communicate with a plurality of terminals, each of the plurality of terminals being configured to be
associated with one or more accounts, to perform operations comprising:
associating a first account with a game content obtained by the first account through a network;
associating the first account with each of the plurality of terminals;
changeably associating each game content obtained by the first account with one terminal selected from the plurality of terminals with which the first account is associated; and
permitting play of the game content, with the one terminal with which the game content is associated, by one or more accounts not limited to the first account, and
restricting play of the game content with a terminal other than the one terminal of the plurality of terminals with which the first account is associated.
[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 terminal) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: associating an account and a game content with each other, associating the first account with each of a plurality of terminals, changeably associating one terminal selected from the plurality of terminals with which, for each game content obtained by the account, the game content and the account are associated, and permitting play of the game content with the one terminal with which the game content is associated, by one or more accounts not limited to the first account, and restricting play of the game content with a terminal other than the one terminal of the plurality of terminals..)
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, 15, and 18 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: server, network, and terminal.
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:
Sheppard et al., US 20130024545 discloses that multimedia content pertaining to gaming can be delivered from a server over a network and is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 5-6);
Sherinian, US 20080098064 discloses that content servers being used for implementing virtual worlds as well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 29).
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 2-14, 16-17, 19-20 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.
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