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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 2/14/25 are hereby entered.
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 1-10 and 12-21 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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being, a method of organizing human activity, and/or the rules of a game.
In regard to Claims 1, 10, and 20, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); claim a method of conducting a wagering game which has been as identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) as a method of organizing human activity; and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., In re Smith, In re Marco Guldenaar, and Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] game play control method, comprising:
executing a game according to a user's an operation input of a user;
determining that a time limit for restricting the game has been satisfied;
after the determining that the time limit has been satisfied, refraining from restricting a game play of the user in a case that an activity of the game for which a termination condition has been defined is under execution at a timing for being executed; and
restricting the game play of the user.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being, a method of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, the rules of a game, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., processing circuitry, and/or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer executable instructions, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to execute a process embodying Applicant’s abstract idea, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., processing circuitry, and/or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer executable instructions, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to execute a process embodying Applicant’s abstract idea, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1-2 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same.
Claims 10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to software per se. See MPEP 2106.03.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-4, 6, 9-10, 12-14, 16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PGPUB US 20090048010 A1 by Kroeckel et al (“Kroeckel”).
In regard to Claim 1, Kroeckel teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry configured to
(see, e.g., F2A);
execute a game according to operation input of a user;
(see, e.g., p420);
determine that a time limit for restricting the game has been satisfied;
(see, e.g., p421);
after determination that the time limit has been satisfied, refrain from restricting a game play of the user in a case that an activity of the game is being executed; and
restrict the game play of the user
(see, e.g., p423).
In regard to Claims 2-4, 6, and 9, Kroeckel teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p423.
In regard to Claims 10, 12-14, 16, and 19, see rejections of Claims 1-4, 6, and 9.
In regard to Claims 20-21, see rejections of Claims 1-2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights