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 § 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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “requires setting of the formation information including a predetermined parameter that is calculated based on the one or more game media and that satisfies a minimum condition” in lines 5-8 of the claim. It is unclear if the setting of the formation information is done by the player input or during the processing of setting step that is recited in line 3 of the claim. For the purpose of examination, the formation information that is required to be set will be done automatically by the processing of the setting of the game. Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds. Independent claim 5 recites a similar limitation in lines 5-8 of the claim and independent claim 6 recites a similar limitation in lines 6-9 of the claim and therefore claims 5-6 are also rejected to based on the same grounds as independent claim 1.
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 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 5 is directed to “An information processing method” (i.e. a process), and claim 6 is directed to “An information processing 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 “processing of generating the formation information based on an automatic formation function selected by a player” 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 causing a computer to execute:
processing of setting, based on a player operation, formation information relating to specific content that includes one or more game media, requires setting of the formation information including a predetermined parameter that is calculated based on the one or more game media and that satisfies a minimum condition, and increases in degree of advantage the more the predetermined parameter exceeds the minimum condition;
processing of progressing the specific content based on the set formation information; and
processing of generating the formation information based on an automatic formation function selected by a player from among a first automatic formation function that prioritizes satisfying the minimum condition by a minimum amount and a second automatic formation function that prioritizes satisfying the minimum condition and increasing the degree of advantage, the first automatic formation function and the second automatic formation function automatically generating the formation information.
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” found in independent claim 1, and “one or more computers” found in independent claim 6 are claimed, as these are 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 “processing of generating the formation information based on an automatic formation function selected by a player” 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” found in independent claim 1, and “one or more computers” found in independent claim 6 are claimed, as these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are 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” found in independent claim 1, and “one or more computers” found in independent claim 6 are claimed, are described in the following paragraphs:
“[0532] An information processing program for executing the processing in the above-described embodiment and various modified examples may be stored in a non-transitory computer- readable storage medium and provided as a storage medium.”
“[0017] Examples of the player terminal 1 include a smartphone, a mobile phone, a tablet device, a personal computer, and a game console, and the like. In the present embodiment, a case where a smartphone is used as the player terminal 1 will be described.”
These elements are 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” found in independent claim 1, and “one or more computers” found in independent claim 6 are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more.
Step 2B, o of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2-4 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-6 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alejandro S.S. Azapian (US 20220171698 A1; hereinafter Azapian) in view of Navid Aghadaye et al. (US 20170259177 A1; hereinafter Aghadaye).
Regarding claim 1, Azapian discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute (“The computer readable medium or the memory module 616 may be operatively coupled to the other components of the computing device 1000 via the bus 1012 or the like” (recited in Azapian at least: paragraph [0113])): processing of setting, based on a player operation, formation information relating to specific content that includes one or more game media, requires setting of the formation information including a predetermined parameter that is calculated based on the one or more game media and that satisfies a minimum condition (“One or more processors of the servers may enable automatic performance evaluation of a video game at one or more mobile devices with the execution of an on-device agent application that simulates actions of a player. In one aspect, the one or more processors determine, for example by retrieving from storage 304, the execution context 306 for each mobile device. Based on the execution context 306, the one or more processors load a corresponding harness application 308 to the mobile device” (recited in at least: Azapian paragraph [0039])); processing of progressing the specific content based on the set formation information (“At 922, the processor determines whether the objective(s) for the test has(have) been achieved. If so, the processor reports the results and ends the test” (recited in at least: Azapian paragraph [0105])); and processing of generating the formation information based on an automatic formation function selected by a player from among a first automatic formation function that prioritizes satisfying the minimum condition by a minimum amount and a second automatic formation function that prioritizes satisfying the minimum condition and increasing the degree of advantage, the first automatic formation function and the second automatic formation function automatically generating the formation information (“FIG. 4 shows aspects of a test case data structure 400 in a computer memory for use by one or more processors in automatically evaluating performance of a video game by a computing device. In an aspect, each test case data structure may be referenced by a test case identifier 410. Each test case identifier 410 may be, for example a code or an address. Based on the test case identifier 410, the one or more processors may look up further instructions and/or data in pre-defined data structures. A test case may generally specify the execution context, or the test device's testing environment. More specifically, an execution context 420 may identify the test device as a single mobile device, or an execution context 430 may identify a test farm. A device farm may include devices having different models and operating systems; thus, each device has its own execution context stored in context table 432” (recited in at least: Azapian paragraph [0041])).
However, Azapian does not explicitly disclose that the set information increases in degree of advantage the more the predetermined parameter exceeds the minimum condition.
Aghadaye teaches increases in degree of advantage the more the predetermined parameter exceeds the minimum condition (“monitoring the user's behavior with respect to the video game may enable a determination of the user's skill level and desired level of challenge. Based at least in part on this information, the difficulty of the video game, or portions of the video game, can be adjusted from the initial difficulty level determined based on the associated user cluster for the user” (recited in at least: Aghadaye paragraph [0033])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included dynamic changes within a game as taught by Aghadaye into the system of Azapian for the added benefit of allowing users who are playing a game to actively progress into more difficult levels or easier levels depending on performance that was monitored without disrupting the immersion of the user.
Regarding claim 2, Azapian in view of Aghadaye teach the claimed matter as stated above and Azapian further discloses wherein in the processing of progressing the specific content, the specific content is progressed without requiring a player operation and activation of a game for game progress (“One or more processors of the servers may enable automatic performance evaluation of a video game at one or more mobile devices with the execution of an on-device agent application that simulates actions of a player” (recited in at least: Azapian paragraph [0039])).
Regarding claim 3, Azapian in view of Aghadaye teach the claimed matter as stated above and Azapian further discloses wherein the program further causes the computer to execute processing of allowing progress of the specific content in a case where the set formation information satisfies the minimum condition and processing of not allowing progress of the specific content in a case where the set formation information does not satisfy the minimum condition (“One or more processors of the servers may enable automatic performance evaluation of a video game at one or more mobile devices with the execution of an on-device agent application that simulates actions of a player. In one aspect, the one or more processors determine, for example by retrieving from storage 304, the execution context 306 for each mobile device. Based on the execution context 306, the one or more processors load a corresponding harness application 308 to the mobile device” [0039])).
Regarding claim 4, Azapian in view of Aghadaye teach the claimed matter as stated above and Aghadaye further teaches wherein in the processing of progressing the specific content, an amount of time until progress of the specific content ends is reduced in accordance with a degree of the predetermined parameter exceeding the minimum condition (“an expected churn rate, a retention rate, the length of time a user is expected to play the game, or an indication of the user's expected game play time relative to a historical set of users who have previously played the game. Before or during game play, the prediction model is applied to information about the user to predict the user's expected duration of game play. Based on the expected duration, the system may then utilize a mapping data repository to determine how to dynamically adjust the difficulty of the game, such as, for example, changing the values of one or more knobs to make portions of the game less difficult” (recited in at least: Aghadaye paragraph [0029])).
Regarding claim 5, Azapian discloses an information processing method executed by one or more computers, the one or more computers executing (“The computer readable medium or the memory module 616 may be operatively coupled to the other components of the computing device 1000 via the bus 1012 or the like” (recited in Azapian at least: paragraph [0113])): steps similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Azapian discloses an information processing system comprising: one or more computers, wherein the one or more computers execute (“The method 100 may be performed by one or more computer processors, for example with some processes at a server while some processes at a mobile device” (recited in at least: Azapian paragraph [0033])): steps similar in scope to independent claim 1.
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
