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 1-10 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.
The claims are directed to targeting objects in an selected order (mental processes and organizing methods of human activity) involving:
setting a first targeting area surrounded by a closed curve around a first position based on a first input from a user at the first position (mental process – person selects an area), and displaying the first targeting area (¶ mental process – e.g., a map or real live area);
determining a sequence among two or more objects located within the first targeting area based on preset priority information when the first input ends (mental process – person selects or marks desired order of items); and
causing the user's character to perform an attack on the objects based on the sequence (mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity, CMOHA, a person following instructions of the selected order).
Claims 1 and 6 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of setting target object parameters.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claim 6 recite “memory”, “program”; and “processor”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (screen, memory, program, processor) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (memory, program, processor) performing data receiving and sending are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic memory, program, processor, and data receiving/sending as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-10 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mental process and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of selecting and determining target area parameters, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20060252540 to Kando et al (Kando) in view of US Pub. 20160129345 to Seok et al (Seok).
Claims 1 and 6. Kando discloses an apparatus executing a game, the apparatus comprising:
a memory in which at least one program is stored; and
at least one processor operated by executing the at least one program, wherein the at least one processor (¶70) is configured to
setting a first targeting area surrounded by a closed curve around a first position on a screen based on a first input from a user at the first position, and displaying the first targeting area on the screen (Fig. 5, ¶74);
determining a sequence among two or more objects located within the first targeting area based on preset priority information when the first input ends (¶110).
However, Kando fails to explicitly disclose causing the user's character to perform an attack on the objects based on the sequence.
Seok teaches causing the user's character to perform an attack on the objects based on the sequence (¶99). The gaming system of Kando would have motivation to use the teachings of Seok in order to encourage game players to defeat the enemies posing the highest imminent threat in doing so would assist game players in prioritizing attacks on opposing characters.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Kando with the teachings of Seok in order to encourage game players to defeat the enemies posing the highest imminent threat in doing so would assist game players in prioritizing attacks on opposing characters.
Claims 3 and 8. Kando discloses further comprising:
making the first targeting area disappear from the screen based on the termination of the first input (¶75 “input track indication 51 is displayed in a certain time period and automatically erased”).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20060252540 to Kando et al (Kando) in view of US Pub. 20160129345 to Seok et al (Seok) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20040176163 to Ishihata et al (Ishihata).
Claims 2 and 7. Kando fails to disclose claims 2 and 7 limitations.
Ishihata in view of teaches displaying a list of the objects on the screen based on the sequence (see Ishihata Figs. 2A-C, 7, ¶¶5, 44, 53); and changing the sequence of the objects based on receiving a selection (see Seok ¶100) of any one of the objects from the list (see Ishihata Fig. 7, ¶¶57, 90, “renumbered for priority”). The gaming system of Kando in view of Seok would have motivation to use the teachings of Ishihata in order to provide game players additional assistance of the best order to defeat enemy characters in doing so would improve game players’ performance at gameplay because the assistance would make it easier for game players to identify and choose the best sequence in which to attack and destroy enemies to successfully advance in the game.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Kando in view of Seok with the teachings of Ishihata in order to provide game players additional assistance of the best defeat enemy characters in doing so would improve game players’ performance during gameplay.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights