DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted April 24, 2026, 2026 has been considered by examiner. Claims 1, 4-6, 10 and 12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-6, 10 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As to arguments towards a 35 USC 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims sending three different types of queries, an insert, a select and a delete query. The queries are then executed, and when necessary, stored in a cache. As described in the below 101 rejection, such concepts are either mental processes and/or extra solution activities.
The purported improvements seem to just restate the abstract idea above.
As such, the Claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as detailed below.
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, 4-6, 10 and 12 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.
Independent Claims 1 and 10 recite a limitation “converting, by the cache server and in response to obtaining the first query execution result as a result of executing the first predefined query including the insert command, the first query execution result into the cache object in the prescribed memory in association with the cache object identification information.”
The above limitation describes converting a result of a first predefined query into a cache object. However, the first predefined query “compris[es] an insert command.” (It is not clear what other, it any, functionality the query is performing.) That would mean that the results of the above converting limitation would convert the result of the insert command into the cache object. But, an insert command, unless performing some other functionality as well, does not provide a result. Rather, the insert command strictly inserts data. As such, it is unclear how such a conversion operation is executed.
Furthermore, the only mention of a related operation in the instant specification is at paragraph [0039]. But it does not describe the same functionality as claimed, and is just as unclear what result is being generated from an insert command.
Independent Claims 1 and 10 recite “obtaining, by the game server, a third query execution result from the cache server; wherein, in response to obtaining the third query execution result as a result of executing the third predefined query by the cache server, the cache object associated with the cache object identification information is deleted from the prescribed memory in the cache server.”
However, the third query as claimed is a delete operation. As such, it is unclear what result is obtained in response to the deleting operation.
Also, based on an explanation to this rejection, 112(a) issues may be brought up.
Dependent Claims 4-6 and 12 do not remedy the above issues.
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, 4-6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Specifically, Independent Claims 1 and 10 recite:
generating, by a game server comprising a first hardware processor and while performing a game service for a computer game, a first predefined query comprising an insert command – Writing a query is something that can be performed in the mind or with aid of pen and paper, and is thus an abstract.
wherein the game server is connected to a plurality of player terminals, a cache server, and a database server over a computer network, wherein the cache server comprises a second hardware processor and a prescribed memory – This limitation discusses generic hardware.
wherein the database server comprises a third hardware processor and a prescribed relational database that stores game information relating to the computer game that is provided to the plurality of player terminals - This limitation discusses generic hardware.
transmitting, by the game server, the first predefined query to the database server – Transmitting data is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
managing, by the game server, a cache object based on a first query execution result that is obtained from the database server in response to the database server executing the first predefined query – Managing seems to be something that is stored in a database, which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(d).
wherein the first predefined query comprises cache object identification information for identifying a cache object – Identifying where data should be retrieved from is something that can be performed in the mind or with aid of pen and paper, and is thus an abstract.
wherein executing the first predefined query causes the first predefined query to act on only a single row in a single table of the prescribed relational database – Inserting data into a row is something that can be performed in the mind or with aid of pen and paper, and is thus an abstract.
converting, by the cache server and in response to obtaining the first query execution result as a result of executing the first predefined query including the insert command, the first query execution result into the cache object in the prescribed memory in association with the cache object identification information – Converting retrieved data is something that can be performed in the mind or with aid of pen and paper, and is thus an abstract.
generating, by the game server, a second predefined query comprising a select command and the cache object identification information - Writing a query is something that can be performed in the mind or with aid of pen and paper, and is thus an abstract.
transmitting, by the game server, the second predefined query to the cache server - Transmitting data is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
obtaining, by the game server, a second query execution result from the cache server - Retrieving information is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
obtaining, by the game server and in response to executing the second predefined query including the select command and the cache object identification information, the cache object from the prescribed memory without executing any query on the prescribed relational database in the database server - Retrieving information is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
generating, by the game server, a third predefined query comprising a delete command and the cache object identification information - Writing a query is something that can be performed in the mind or with aid of pen and paper, and is thus an abstract.
transmitting, by the game server, the third predefined query to the cache server - Transmitting data is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g)
obtaining, by the game server, a third query execution result from the cache server - Retrieving information is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
wherein, in response to obtaining the third query execution result as a result of executing the third predefined query by the cache server, the cache object associated with the cache object identification information is deleted from the prescribed memory in the cache server – Deleting data, is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(d). Also, a person can delete information based at least on a desire to remove something from a drawn table.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other, the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements of hardware executing the abstract idea. The additional elements such an electronic device, a processor, memory, etc are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information processing. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The rest of the Dependent Claims, 4-6 and 12, further describe more details of the above identified mental processes and thus do not provide additional elements that would make them statutory under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Novotny et al (20220075761) discloses at least saving result in a cache.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights