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 .
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 15 and 16 are 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.
Concerning claim 15 and 16,
The term “binding relationship” is considered to be indefinite. Different people with ordinary skill in the art could reasonably conflict in what they would consider to be a binding relationship. For example, a friendship between two people could or could not be considered a binding relationship to two different reasonable people. As such, the claims do not establish clear metes and bounds.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim(s) 1-20 are drawn to statutory categories of invention of machine or method.
[Step 2A — Prong 1] Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans through certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III). See underlined portions below.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for processing requests to join an interactive group, the method comprising:
displaying, by processing circuitry, a first virtual character and a first virtual object in a virtual environment, the first virtual object representing the interactive group, and a first user account managing the interactive group;
displaying a first request to join the interactive group, the first request to join the interactive group being initiated by the first virtual character; and
displaying, when the first request to join the interactive group is accepted, the first virtual object being entered by the first virtual character.
As indicated above, the limitations encompass, under broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can practically be certain methods of organizing human activity. An owner of a property managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, could allow and reject people attempting to enter based on their discretion and their rules. In other words, the underlined portions could have been done by a casino employee utilizing certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of organizing human activity through the management of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim encompasses an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, processing circuitry and a display are a generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). The additional claim limitations are NOT indicative of integration into a practical application as they add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer/implement the abstract idea in a computer environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. The Specification demonstrates that the processing circuitry and a display are recited for its well- understood, routine, and conventional functionality (i.e., software/application), referring to the additional element in a manner that indicates that it is sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy enablement (See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A)). Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. 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 and/or implements the use of a particular machine. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 17 and 19 are rejected for similar reasoning. The additional limitations of “an information processing apparatus” and ”a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing instructions” recite generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. Claims 17 and 19 fail to include additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Accordingly, claims 17 and 19 are also not patent eligible.
Claims 2-16, 18, and 20 are dependent on claims 1, 17, and 19 respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Particularly, the additional limitations further define the insignificant extra-solution of evaluation of the certain methods of organizing human activity and additional iterations on the existing abstract concepts. Furthermore, these additional limitations encompass the use of generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The dependent claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1, 10, 12, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2017/0220314 A1 to Kaneko et al. (hereinafter Kaneko).
Concerning claim 1,
Kaneko a method for processing requests to join an interactive group, the method comprising:
displaying, by processing circuitry, a first virtual character and a first virtual object in a virtual environment, the first virtual object representing the interactive group, and a first user account managing the interactive group (0184, 0192-0193, Figure 12, wherein Ms. A is considered first user account, avatar of Mr. B considered first virtual character, and the house hosting the viewing party is considered first virtual object in a virtual environment representing the interactive group);
displaying a first request to join the interactive group, the first request to join the interactive group being initiated by the first virtual character (0184, 0192-0193, Figure 12); and
displaying, when the first request to join the interactive group is accepted, the first virtual object being entered by the first virtual character (0184, 0192-0193, Figure 12).
Concerning claim 10,
Kaneko discloses after the first virtual character enters the first virtual object, the method further comprises: displaying information of the first virtual character on the first virtual object (0183-0184, Figure 13, Figure 13(c) shows avatar inside the virtual house after entering).
Concerning claim 12,
Kaneko discloses displaying identity information of the first virtual character when a processing operation for viewing the identity information is performed on the displayed first request to join the interactive group, the identity information of the first virtual character including a second user account corresponding to the first virtual character (0183-0184, Figure 13).
Concerning claim 15,
Kaneko discloses the first virtual object corresponds to an interest tag, and the interest tag is configured to indicate at least one of a social preference of the interactive group and a behavior preference of a member in the interactive group (0071, 0129, 0226-0227, Figure 4, Figure 6, wherein community is considered to be an interest tag and the user who set up the community is considered to be a third user); and
the method further comprises: displaying interest information of the first virtual character, the interest information being obtained based on a third user account in an interest platform indicated by the interest tag, and the third user account having a binding relationship with a second user account corresponding to the first virtual character (0071, 0129, 0226-0227, Figure 4, Figure 6, wherein the group-viewing assistance server is considered to be an interest platform).
Concerning claim 16,
Kaneko discloses the first request to join the interactive group includes a message of the first virtual character (0183-0184, Figure 13, as broadly claimed, the request to join initiated by Mr. B includes text asking to join, meeting the limitation as claimed); and
the method further comprises: displaying association information of the first virtual character, the association information being obtained based on a third user account in an association platform indicated by application information, and the third user account having a binding relationship with a second user account corresponding to the first virtual character. (0070, 0105, Figure 4, Figure 6, wherein a friend status is considered to be association information).
Concerning claims 17 and 19, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2017/0220314 A1 to Kaneko et al. in view of US Publication 2010/0229235 A1 to Dawson et al. (hereinafter Dawson).
Concerning claim 2,
Kaneko does not clearly disclose the first request to join the interactive group is initiated when the first virtual character is reaches a request initiation region of the first virtual object.
Dawson teaches the first request to join the interactive group is initiated when the first virtual character is reaches a request initiation region of the first virtual object (0008, 0035, 0039, Figure 1, wherein the border is considered a request initiation region).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invitation apparatus of Kaneko with the region denial apparatus of Dawson as both concern the allowance and denial of an entity to a region. Having the approval process done at a virtual border as taught in Dawson would make the invitation apparatus of Kaneko more intuitive to use and more realistic.
Concerning claims 18 and 20, see the rejection of claim 2.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2017/0220314 A1 to Kaneko et al. in view of US Publication 2010/0229235 A1 to Dawson et al. and further in view of US Publication 2009/0138807 A1 to Fuhrmann et al. (hereinafter Fuhrmann).
Concerning claim 3,
Kaneko discloses where the second virtual character initiates a second request to join the interactive group after the first virtual character initiates the first request to join the interactive group (0031-0033, 0184, Figure 1, Figure 12), but does not explicitly disclose displaying a second virtual character, the second virtual character and the first virtual character being displayed in a waiting queue, the second virtual character being located behind the first virtual character in the waiting queue.
Fuhrmann teaches displaying a second virtual character, the second virtual character and the first virtual character being displayed in a waiting queue, the second virtual character being located behind the first virtual character in the waiting queue (0024, Figure 2-4).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invitation apparatus of Kaneko with the virtual queue of Fuhrmann as both concern the one entity’s solicitation to another. Having the avatars queue up as taught in Fuhrmann when going through the approval process to join the virtual house of Kaneko would make the invitation apparatus more realistic and interactive to the end users.
Concerning claim 4,
Kaneko discloses entering the virtual object after the first request to join the interactive group is accepted (0184, 0192-0193, Figure 12)
Dawson teaches the first request to join the interactive group is initiated when the first virtual character is reaches a request initiation region of the first virtual object (0008, 0035, 0039, Figure 1, wherein the border is considered a request initiation region).
Fuhrmann teaches displaying the second virtual character moving to a previous location of the first virtual character after the first character completes the solicitation (0026, Fig. 2-4).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2017/0220314 A1 to Kaneko et al. in view of US Publication 2010/0229235 A1 to Dawson et al. and further in view of US Publication 2008/0215995 A1 to Wolf (hereinafter Wolf).
Concerning claim 5,
Kaneko discloses displaying the first request to join the interactive group in a form of a bubble (0183-0184, Figure 13), but does not disclose a bubble above the first virtual character.
Wolf teaches a bubble above the first virtual character (0152-0155, Figure 13-14).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invitation apparatus of Kaneko with the chat bubbles of Wolfe as both concern the bubble based communication between two entities. Having the request to join shown in Kaneko positioned in a chat bubble above a virtual character as shown in Wolfe would make the joining experience more personal and interactive for the end users.
Concerning claim 6,
Kaneko discloses a bubble including the first request to join the interactive group (0183-0184, Figure 13).
Wolf teaches a bubble including a comment from a second user account corresponding to the first virtual character (0152-0155, Figure 13-14).
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2017/0220314 A1 to Kaneko et al. in view of US Patent 9062583 B1 to Harp et al. (hereinafter Harp).
Concerning claim 7,
Harp teaches displaying the first virtual character carrying an item corresponding to the interactive group (Col. 6; ln 4-16, Col. 8; ln 21-48, wherein the emblems are considered to be an item and an entity is considered to be an interactive group); or displaying the first virtual character with a group identifier of the interactive group.
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invitation apparatus of Kaneko with the entity related emblems of Harp as both concern membership in a group/community. Supplying emblems related to entities as taught in Harp would make the members invited into the virtual house of Kaneko feel a sense of accomplishment and a tighter sense of community.
Concerning claim 11,
Harp teaches displaying a virtual identifier of the first virtual character on the first virtual object, wherein a display style of the virtual identifier is related to a quantity of members in the interactive group (Col. 12; ln 48-62, a relation between two entities is considered broad. As broadly claimed, a hierarchy requires at least two members. As such, an emblem which indicated hierarchy in a virtual organization is related to the quantity of members in an interactive group).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2017/0220314 A1 to Kaneko et al. in view of Adventure (Atari 2600) Level 1 play through by OldClassicGames (hereinafter OldClassicGames).
Concerning claim 8,
Kaneko discloses a first request to join the interactive group and a virtual object representing the interactive group (0183-0184, Figure 13).
OldClassicGames teaches the first virtual character carries an item, and the item is provided to a first virtual object when the first virtual character initiates the first request to enter the first virtual object (0:00-0:10);
the method further comprises: displaying the first virtual character putting the item around the first virtual object (0:00-0:10).
PNG
media_image1.png
1013
1344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Entering a room with a key
PNG
media_image2.png
1031
1345
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Leaving the key in the room
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invitation apparatus of Kaneko with the key based entry shown by OldClassicGames as both concern entering a virtual room. Providing someone who wants to enter with a digital key as taught by OldClassicGames to enter a virtual room which represents an interactive group as shown in Kaneko would make the entry process more intuitive.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2017/0220314 A1 to Kaneko et al. in view of US Publication 2009/0144638 A1 to Haggar et al. (hereinafter Haggar).
Concerning claim 9,
Haggar teaches updating the display of the first virtual object, wherein a size of the first virtual object is correlated with a quantity of members in the interactive group (0025, 0033-0034, Figure 4-5).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invitation apparatus of Kaneko with the dynamic room size of a virtual room as shown by Haggar as both concern entering a virtual room. Having the virtual house of Kaneko dynamically change in size as taught in Haggar would accommodate larger group-viewing sessions.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2017/0220314 A1 to Kaneko et al. in view of GET IN LINE! | Papers, Please #1 by jacksepticeye (hereinafter jacksepticeye).
Concerning claim 13,
Kaneko discloses displaying a second virtual character that initiates a second request to join the interactive group (0183-0184, 0246-0247, Figure 13), but does not disclose displaying the second virtual character moving away from the first virtual object when the second request to join the interactive group is rejected. displaying the second virtual character moving away from the first virtual object when the second request to join the interactive group is rejected.
jacksepticeye teaches displaying the second virtual character moving away from the first virtual object when the second request to join the interactive group is rejected (3:50-4:10).
PNG
media_image3.png
1063
1343
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sven Rellik is rejected from entry
PNG
media_image4.png
1064
1353
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sven Rellik is shown moving away from the interactive group/Arstotzka
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invitation apparatus of Kaneko with the inspection on a virtual border shown jacksepticeye as both concern the allowance and denial of an entity to a region. Having a virtual character move away once rejected as shown in jacksepticeye would make the invitation apparatus of Kaneko more realistic and interactive to the end users.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2017/0220314 A1 to Kaneko et al. in view of US Publication 2009/0138807 A1 to Fuhrmann et al. and further in view of US Publication 2003/0035531 A1 to Brown et al. (hereinafter Brown).
Concerning claim 14,
Kaneko discloses displaying a second virtual character that initiates a second request to join the interactive group (0183-0184, 0246-0247, Figure 13), but does not disclose displaying the second virtual character moving aside to allow a next virtual character to initiate a next request to join the interactive group when the second request to join the interactive group is on hold.
Fuhrmann teaches displaying the virtual characters in a queue (0024, 0026, Fig. 2-4).
Brown teaches that it is well known in the art that a person in a queue may need to step away from a queue if additional time is needed (0005, 0014-0015).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invitation apparatus of Kaneko with the virtual queue of Fuhrmann as both concern the one entity’s solicitation to another. Having the avatars queue up as taught in Fuhrmann when going through the approval process to join the virtual house of Kaneko would make the invitation apparatus more realistic and interactive to the end users. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the queue of the virtual characters shown in Fuhrmann to incorporate the queue holding/pausing dynamics taught by Brown as both concern people in queues. Adding the queue holding/pausing dynamics taught by Brown would make the queue of the virtual characters shown in Fuhrmann more realistic and flexible to the end users.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights