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 § 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, the claims recite, in part, modifying a display screen to display, during a game: a merchandise advertisement screen including an advertisement content for a merchandise that is unrelated to the game; and an end button that ends displaying the merchandise advertisement screen; detecting a timing of a start to display the end button; detecting a timing of a touch operation on the end button; calculating a time period from the timing of the start to display the end button to the timing of the touch operation on the end button; calculating, based on the time period, a degree of scrutinization that indicates a degree to which a player has scrutinized the advertisement content; modifying an information of the player to include a rewarded game content, to be used in the game; and modifying the display screen to incorporate the rewarded game content into functionality of the game, wherein an amount or quality of the rewarded game content is proportional to the degree of scrutinization.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites providing a reward for a calculated amount of advertisement scrutinization, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of touch panel (claims 1, 5, 6), touch sensor (claims 1, 5, 6), information processing device (claim 5), controller (claim 5), non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 6), and a computer (claim 6). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of modifying, detecting, and calculating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using touch panel (claims 1, 5, 6), touch sensor (claims 1, 5, 6), information processing device (claim 5), controller (claim 5), non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 6) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the 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 the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Paragraph 0021); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 2-4 appear to merely limit specifics of the timing of the display button, specifics of the degree of scrutinization, and display of a content provision screen, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The touch panel (claims 1, 5, 6), touch sensor (claims 1, 5, 6), information processing device (claim 5), controller (claim 5), non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 6) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of modifying, detecting, and calculating, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the touch panel (claims 1, 5, 6), touch sensor (claims 1, 5, 6), information processing device (claim 5), controller (claim 5), non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 6) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-6 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (U.S. Pub No. 2008/0189175) in view of Eich (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0378164).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, Chan teaches modifying a display screen of a touch panel to display, during a game: a merchandise advertisement screen including an advertisement content for a merchandise that is unrelated to the game (Paragraphs 0020, touchpad, 0023, 0024, advertisement within the game is not an advertisement for the game); calculating a degree of scrutinization that indicates a degree to which a player has scrutinized the advertisement content (Paragraphs 0010-0013, 0028, answering a question about an advertisement correctly indicates a high degree of scrutinization, “A correct answer to a product-related question signifies that the player not only has received, but indeed comprehends the message integrated into the question”); modifying an information of the player to include a rewarded game content, to be used in the game (Paragraphs 0011, 0028, gadgets are given to the player, such as swords, fuel, or strength); and modifying the display screen to incorporate the rewarded game content into functionality of the game, wherein an amount or quality of the rewarded game content is proportional to the degree of scrutinization (Paragraphs 0011, 0028-0029, gadgets are given to the player, such as swords, fuel, or strength, additional questions answered correctly result in additional rewards which reads on “an amount or quality of the rewarded game content is proportional to the degree of scrutinization”).
Chan does not appear to specify modifying a display screen of a touch panel to display a merchandise advertisement screen including an advertisement content and an end button that ends displaying the merchandise advertisement screen; detecting a timing of a start to display the end button; detecting a timing of a touch operation, on a touch sensor of the touch panel, on the end button; calculating a time period from the timing of the start to display the end button to the timing of the touch operation on the end button; calculating, based on the time period, a degree of scrutinization that indicates a degree to which a player has scrutinized the advertisement content. However, Eich teaches modifying a display screen of a touch panel to display a merchandise advertisement screen including an advertisement content and an end button that ends displaying the merchandise advertisement screen (Paragraphs 0030, touchscreen, 0035, merchandise advertisement screen, 0075, closing of a browser tab means that there is an end button); detecting a timing of a start to display the end button (Paragraphs 0031, 0075, time period of an attention session is “the amount of time a user interacts with media content…until the user closes a browser tab” which includes when the window first appears, a close button will be displayed when the window appears); detecting a timing of a touch operation, on a touch sensor of the touch panel, on the end button (Paragraphs 0031, 0075, time period of an attention session is “the amount of time a user interacts with media content…until the user closes a browser tab” which would indicate a touch operation on a close button); calculating a time period from the timing of the start to display the end button to the timing of the touch operation on the end button (Paragraphs 0031, 0075, time period of an attention session is “the amount of time a user interacts with media content…until the user closes a browser tab”); calculating, based on the time period, a degree of scrutinization that indicates a degree to which a player has scrutinized the advertisement content (Paragraph 0076, “A determining operation 1408 determines, based at least in part on the indicia of user attention to the media content, a user attention metric, the user attention metric reflecting attention devoted by the user to the media content during the attention session”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to calculate a degree of scrutinization based on timing of a close button since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Chan and Eich do not appear to specify the degree of scrutinization increases as the time period decreases. Eich does teach timing of content with regard to a degree of scrutinization (Paragraph 0032). With regard to measuring of time and counters, there are 2 old and well known methods: an incremental counter and a decremental countdown timer. That is, one may count up or count down, there is no other option. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to either count up or to count down, since there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Chan teaches displaying a content provision screen that provides a game content (Paragraphs 0011, 0028-0029, any screen that shows the earned gadget in the game would represent a “content provision screen that provides a game content)).
Chan does not appear to specify a reward in response to the touch operation on the end button. However, Eich teaches a reward in response to the touch operation on the end button (Paragraphs 0031, 0075, time period of an attention session is “the amount of time a user interacts with media content…until the user closes a browser tab” which would indicate a touch operation on a close button). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to calculate a degree of scrutinization based on timing of a close button since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (U.S. Pub No. 2008/0189175) in view of Eich (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0378164), and further in view of Zalewski (U.S. Pub No. 2014/0156364).
Regarding claim 2, Chan and Eich do not appear to specify the timing of the start to display the end button is a timing at which reproduction of a moving image of the advertisement content ends. However, Zalewski teaches the timing of the start to display the end button is a timing at which reproduction of a moving image of the advertisement content ends (Paragraphs 0122-0123, delay being able to skip the commercial, the delay can be set to the end of the commercial which would signify “a timing at which reproduction of a moving image of the advertisement content ends”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to time the start of the end button to a timing of an end of the video since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references have been cited to further show the state of the art with respect to rewards for attention towards advertising:
U.S. Pub No. 2015/0032519 to Brooks
U.S. Pub No. 2014/0163706 to Wilen
U.S. Pub No. 2019/0034975 to Rizk
U.S. Pub No. 2014/0259043 to Hunter
U.S. Pub No. 2008/0281704 to Shuhy
U.S. Pub No. 2018/0211285 to Todasco
U.S. Pub No. 2016/0225016 to Patel
U.S. Pub No. 2016/0063318 to Cheatham
EP 2,833,308 to Millar
WO 2020/075084 to Yellapragada
WO 2013/119649 to Ramaswamy
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621