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 1-23 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.
Claims 1-23 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or the rules of a game.
In regard to Claims 1 and 21-23 the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[an] information processing method […] the information processing method comprising:
placing a player object and a non-player object in a [visual] space;
moving the player object in the [visual] space, based on a user input; and
deforming the non-player object from a first shape to a second shape that imitates a letter or a mark, according to a first condition including that the player object is located within a first range in the vicinity of the non-player object, and/or that the player object faces the non- player object.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or the rules of a game.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of an information processing apparatus to execute information processing comprising Applicant’s abstract idea embodied as computer code, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of an information processing apparatus to execute information processing comprising Applicant’s abstract idea embodied as computer code, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements 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). See, e.g., F6 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-9, 14-16, and 19-23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PGPUB US 20100285873 A1 by Tawara et al (“Tawara”).
In regard to Claim 1, Tawara teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of an information processing apparatus to execute information processing comprising:
placing a player object and a non-player object in a virtual space;
(see, e.g., F17, S9);
moving the player object in the virtual space, based on a user input; and
(see, e.g., F18, S29 and S31);
deforming the non-player object from a first shape to a second shape […], according to a first condition including that the player object is located within a first range in the vicinity of the non-player object, and/or that the player object faces the non- player object
(see, e.g., p177);
Furthermore, to the extent that the cited prior art may not specifically teach the claimed visual appearance of the non-player object, however, such a visual appearance has no functional relationship to the computer display upon which it appears and, therefore, does not distinguish over the cited prior art. See MPEP 2111.05.
In regard to Claims 2-4, to the extent that the cited prior art may not specifically teach the claimed visual appearance of the non-player object, however, such a visual appearance has no functional relationship to the computer display upon which it appears and, therefore, does not distinguish over the cited prior art. See MPEP 2111.05.
In regard to Claims 5-8, Tawara teaches the appearance of the “partner character B” to be transformed to, e.g., a different shape. To the extent that said shape may not also include the visual appearance of the claimed “message”, however, such a visual appearance has no functional relationship to the computer display upon which it appears and, therefore, does not distinguish over the cited prior art. See MPEP 2111.05.
In regard to Claim 9, see rejection of Claim 1.
In regard to Claims 14-16, to the extent that the cited prior art may not specifically teach the claimed visual appearance of the non-player object, however, such a visual appearance has no functional relationship to the computer display upon which it appears and, therefore, does not distinguish over the cited prior art. See MPEP 2111.05.
In regard to Claims 19-23, see rejection of Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights