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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a bonus target determiner, a display determiner, a participation determiner, and a bonus granter in claims 1, 11, and 13
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11, 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.
Claim limitations a bonus target determiner, a display determiner, a participation determiner, and a bonus granter in claims 1, 11, and 13 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The instant Applications Specification is devoid of a structural definition of these elements. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations: a bonus target determiner, a display determiner, a participation determiner, and a bonus granter. It is unclear what the structure of the determiner/granter is in within the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will apply the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim and anything that can grant the step of “determining” or “granting” for each of the specific elements will read on the claim. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same grounds. Independent claims 11 and 13 recite similar elements are also rejected to on the same grounds.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 is directed to “a non-transitory computer readable medium” (i.e. a machine) claim 11 is directed to “an information processing device” (i.e. a machine), claim 12 is directed to “a method” (i.e., a process) and claim 13 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “a bonus target determiner for determining, a display determiner for determining, a participation determiner for determining, and a bonus granter for granting” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
The claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental process.” Independent claim 1, analyzed as the representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are in italics. The additional elements recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
Independent Claim 1: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for a game including a multiplayer game in which a plurality of players participate, the program causing a computer to function as:
a multiplayer game executor for executing the multiplayer game on the basis of an operation of a first player;
a bonus target determiner for determining that the multiplayer game of the first player is the bonus target when a predetermined parameter of a second player different from the first player is greater than the predetermined parameter of the first player and a difference between the predetermined parameter of the second player and the predetermined parameter of the first player is equal to or greater than a predetermined value;
a display determiner for determining to display a first multiplayer game participation button associated with the multiplayer game, being the bonus target, of the first player in a manner indicating that the multiplayer game of the first player is the bonus target in a display region of a multiplayer game participation button associated with the second player;
a participation determiner for determining to allow the second player to participate in the multiplayer game of the first player on the basis of an input with the first multiplayer game participation button performed by the second player; and
a bonus granter for granting a bonus to the second player on the basis of a predetermined condition being satisfied.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a non-transitory computer readable medium” is claimed, as this is merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “a bonus target determiner for determining, a display determiner for determining, a participation determiner for determining, and a bonus granter for granting” is not providing a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a non-transitory computer readable medium” is claimed, as this is merely claimed is a generic, well-known, and conventional computing element. As evidence that this is a generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them 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), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a non-transitory computer readable medium” is described in the following paragraphs:
“[0059] The server 10A can be constituted of one or more computers that provide a game that can be reproduced on the terminal devices 10B. The terminal device 10B may be a computer such as a smartphone, a tablet computer, a notebook computer, or a desktop computer.”
This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “a non-transitory computer readable medium” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more.
Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2-10 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-5, and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokemon Go published by Niantic, Inc as evidenced by YouTube Video by Trainer Tips (“REMOTE RAID FRIEND INVITES ARE LIVE! How to Invite Friends to Remote Raids in Pokémon GO!” found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0N6KdfwPhw published on 07/15/2020; hereinafter Pokemon Go) in view of Super Mario 3D World published by Nintendo as evidenced by YouTube Video by WiiLikeToPlay (“Super Mario 3D World - World 1 (4-Player)” found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3AmK77pvtM published on 11/22/2013; hereinafter Super Mario 3D World).
Regarding claim 1, Pokemon Go discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for a game including a multiplayer game in which a plurality of players participate (as shown in NPL FIGs 1-2 of the attached NPL, multiplayer mode is available for users to participate), the program causing a computer to function as: a multiplayer game executor for executing the multiplayer game on the basis of an operation of a first player (as shown in FIGs 3-4 of the attached NPL, the first player invited friends to play a remote battle (as shown in FIGs 1, and 6 of the attached NPL) to play in the battle together); a bonus target determiner for determining that the multiplayer game of the first player is the bonus target when a predetermined parameter of a second player different from the first player is greater than the predetermined parameter of the first player and a difference between the predetermined parameter of the second player and the predetermined parameter of the first player is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (as shown in FIGs 3-4 of the attached NPL, the predetermined parameters of the characters are all displayed as their level under the username of each player); a participation determiner for determining to allow the second player to participate in the multiplayer game of the first player on the basis of an input with the first multiplayer game participation button performed by the second player (as shown in FIGs 2-4 of the attached NPL, the user is able to invite players and players are joining after the input of the first player); and a bonus granter for granting a bonus to the second player on the basis of a predetermined condition being satisfied (as shown in FIG 5, a bonus was granted to the players of the yellow team for meeting a predetermined condition). However, Pokemon Go does not explicitly disclose a display determiner for determining to display a first multiplayer game participation button associated with the multiplayer game, being the bonus target, of the first player in a manner indicating that the multiplayer game of the first player is the bonus target in a display region of a multiplayer game participation button associated with the second player.
Super Mario 3D World teaches a display determiner for determining to display a first multiplayer game participation button associated with the multiplayer game, being the bonus target, of the first player in a manner indicating that the multiplayer game of the first player is the bonus target in a display region of a multiplayer game participation button associated with the second player (as shown in FIGs 1-4 of the attached NPL, players are playing through the multiplayer game and the character with the highest participation gets a crown at the end and it is displayed within the region on the first player that they are the highest participant).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a bonus target in a display region of the players as taught by Super Mario 3D World into the system of Pokemon Go for the added benefit of allowing users to see which player they need to battle more with and for inspiration to do more work to claim more participation points.
Regarding claim 2, Pokemon Go in view of Super Mario 3D World teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Pokemon Go further discloses wherein the predetermined condition of the bonus granter includes at least the input with the first multiplayer game participation button performed by the second player (as shown in FIG 5 of the attached NPL, participants in the raid got a bonus depending on the participation level of each character and the participation buttons are the input buttons within the raid that a player selects while playing the game as shown in FIGs 7-8).
Regarding claim 3, Pokemon Go in view of Super Mario 3D World teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Pokemon Go further discloses wherein the predetermined condition of the bonus granter includes the number of times the bonus has been granted to the second player per a predetermined amount of time being less than a predetermined number of times (as shown in FIG 5 of the attached NPL, the bonus granter was given +3 times).
Regarding claim 4, Pokemon Go in view of Super Mario 3D World teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Pokemon Go further discloses wherein the predetermined condition of the bonus granter includes a degree of contribution of the second player in the multiplayer game, being a bonus target, of the first player exceeding a predetermined value (as shown in FIG 5 of the attached NPL, the shows the amount of contribution of the players in the game and who was given the bonus).
Regarding claim 5, Pokemon Go in view of Super Mario 3D World teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Super Mario 3D World further teaches wherein the multiplayer game executor determines, on the basis of the multiplayer game of the first player, an acquired amount of a parameter for increasing the predetermined parameter acquired by the second player, the acquired amount being displayed on a terminal device of the second player (as shown in FIGs 5-6 of the attached NPL, the points acquired are shown on the screen from the game started by the other player as it is increasing).
Regarding claim 7, Pokemon Go in view of Super Mario 3D World teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Pokemon Go further discloses a participation request receiver for receiving a participation request for the second player different from the first player to participate in the multiplayer game of the first player (as shown in FIGs 2-4, the players who are online are able to leave the game battle and resend invitations to up to five people to join the group battle).
Regarding claim 8, Pokemon Go in view of Super Mario 3D World teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Pokemon Go further discloses a second player determiner for determining steps similar in scope to claim 1 from the player 2 perspective. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that no matter which user starts the multiplayer battle to have the same determining steps and participation requests in the perspective of whichever player is playing.
Regarding claim 9, Pokemon Go in view of Super Mario 3D World teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Pokemon Go further discloses wherein the multiplayer game is a multi-battle game in which a plurality of players battle against a common enemy character (as shown in FIGs 1-8 of the attached NPL, the plurality of players are battling against a common enemy character in a raid).
Regarding claim 10, Pokemon Go in view of Super Mario 3D World teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Pokemon Go further discloses the multiplayer game is a multi-battle game in which a plurality of players battle against a common enemy character (as shown in FIGs 1-8 of the attached NPL, the plurality of players are battling against a common enemy character in a raid)
Regarding claim 11, Pokemon Go discloses an information processing device (mobile game as shown in the FIGs) for executing a game including a multiplayer game in which a plurality of players participate, the information processing device comprising: claimed matter similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Pokemon Go discloses a method for a game including a multiplayer game in which a plurality of players participate, the method comprising: claimed matter similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Pokemon Go discloses a system (mobile game as shown in the FIGs) for executing a game including a multiplayer game in which a plurality of players participate, the system comprising: claimed matter similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokemon Go in view of Super Mario 3D World as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Borderlands 3, by Gearbox Software published by 2K as evidenced by Josh Hawkins (“How Loot Instancing works in Borderlands 3” published on May 1, 2019; hereinafter Hawkins).
Regarding claim 6, Pokemon Go in view of Super Mario 3D World teach the claimed matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly teach wherein the multiplayer game executor determines the bonus in accordance with the predetermined parameter of the second player.
Hawkins teaches wherein the multiplayer game executor determines the bonus in accordance with the predetermined parameter of the second player (“In Borderlands 3, though, Gearbox wants to make sure Loot Instancing doesn’t just allow you to get more loot, but that it also provides some balance to the game as well. That’s why Loot Instancing in Borderlands 3 provides players with their own pool of items, all of which are scaled up to their current level” (recited in at least: Hawkings pg. 3 of the attached NPL)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included level-based rewards in a multiplayer game as taught by Borderlands 3 into the system of Pokemon Go for the added benefit of allowing users who are higher level the ability to get more rewards and to allow them to play with other users without lowering their gameplay experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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, 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 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights