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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received July 30, 2026.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9-11, 14 and 15 are amended. Claims 16-19 are newly added. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13 are canceled. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, and 14-19 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 30, 2026 has been entered.
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, 9-11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1 recites:
detect that of a first user and a second user have used predetermined game content together in a game service; access game progress information generated during the use of the predetermined game content; determine, based on the game progress information, that the second user satisfied a specific condition during the use of the predetermined game content: and update the user information to register the second user as a friend of the first user, based on the determination and without receiving a user selection of the second user by the first user.
Claim 6 recites:
automatically associate with a first user, a second user who has decided to share, is sharing, or has shared a predetermined experience in a predetermined service with the first user, wherein the automatic association comprises registering the second user as a friend of the first user, performing the association, , based on the predetermined experience and without receiving a user selection of the second user by the first user, wherein the predetermined service is a game service, the predetermined experience comprises using predetermined game content together, and register the second user as the friend of the first user based on determining, from game progress information generated during use of the predetermined game content, that the second user satisfied a specific condition during the use of the predetermined game content.
Claim 11 recites:
A method comprising: automatically associating, with a first user, a second user who has decided to share, is sharing, or has shared a predetermined experience in a predetermined service with the first user, wherein the automatic association comprises registering the second user as a friend of the first user, the associating based on the predetermined experience and without receiving a user selection of the second user by the first user, wherein the predetermined service is a game service, the predetermined experience comprises using predetermined game content together, the method further comprises determining, from game progress information generated during use of the predetermined game content, that the second user satisfied a specific condition during the use of the predetermined game content, and the registering of the second user as the friend of the first user is based on the determining.
This is an abstract idea that is a certain method of organizing human activity - managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). This step is management of relationship or interaction between people because it can is understood as game rules: when people play a game service, which could be a table game of Magic: The Gathering, if they follow certain rules then they will be registered together as users. Therefore claims 1, 6, and 11 recite an abstract idea that is a certain method of organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in claims 1, 6, and 11 recite generic computing components such as:
Claim 1:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer system, having storage that stores user information, to:
a terminal device x 2
stored in the storage
Claim 6:
An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor; an association unit which uses the at least one processor to
the association unit
using the at least one processor
the association unit uses the at least one processor to
Claim 11:
Computer implemented method
These elements amount to no more than instructions to apply the above identified abstract idea to a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), see “A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” The elements in combination further amount to the same: instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer. Therefore there is no practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, for the reasons identified above in the practical application section, there is not significantly more recited than the abstract idea, either alone or in combination.
Claims 1, 4-, 9-10, and 14-19 further describe the abstract idea of the independent claims, and the additional elements were previously described in the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chandrasekaran et al., US PGPUB 20170319967 A1 (“Chandrasekaran”).
Per claims 1, 6, and 11, which are similar in scope, Chandrasekaran teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer system, having storage that stores user information, to: detect that a terminal device of a first user and a terminal device of a second user have used predetermined game content together in a game service; [0023] “Data processing server 111 includes a data repository 113 containing friend graph data representing friend state details for each member of the gaming service. A friend graph is a data model that depicts a user's total friend state with other users of the service. A friend graph may include identification of and other information surrounding the current user's friends. Data may include attributes that dive deep into a friendship state between players such as number of mutual friends, following states, time friends, and who initiated friendship action. The data may also include or may be appended with activity and history data from interactions between the friends, such as number of times in chat together, number of games played together, etc. More detail about friend attributes as used to match players to games with friends is provided later in this specification.” See also [0024] “In general use of the invention, a player, such as one of players 107-109, may connect online with the gaming service with or without application 114. The player may search or browse to select a game to play. When the user initiates to play the game, the user may be directed to server 111 for subsequent game matching based on friend graph data of the player. SW 112 in cooperation with game matching SW or acting unilaterally, with game search and match capability, may search for running instances of the game selected by the player, where friend graph data about the player is used by the SW to identify running instances of the game selected by the player where there are one or more friends of the player actively engaged in playing the game. It is noted herein that SW 112 may be integrated with existing game-matching software, or it may be a standalone version of game-matching software having added capability of matching players to games where friends of the player are engaged.” See also [0020] “Devices 107, 108, and 109 may be any wirelessly-capable or tethered computing appliances having browser capability of accessing WS 104 to be redirected to one or more of gaming servers 110 (1-n). In this example, devices 107, 108, and 109 are wireless gaming devices such as a smart phone, a tablet computer, a laptop, a gaming station, or similar devices.”
[0020] teaches terminal devices one and two.
Chandrasekaran then teaches access game progress information generated during the use of the predetermined game content; [0027] “Data server 111 makes a determination as to which running game instance the player will be inserted into during a brief processing window (broken rounded rectangle). During this process, SW (112) may utilize player friend graph data and run one or more weighting algorithms to determine which game instance with one or more friends of the player engaged is the best one into which to insert the player. Friend graph data may be utilized at more than one level to determine where to insert a player considering available attributes of a friend model detailed later in this specification.” Game instance teaches game progress information.
Chandrasekaran then teaches determine, based on the game progress information, that the second user satisfied a specific condition during the use of the predetermined game content in [0028] “In this example, the first player is inserted by server 111 into game instance 115 (n) based on analysis of friend graph data relative to friends 201 (1) and 201 (n) within the brief processing window. In this case each game instance has one friend of the player engaged. Therefore, in analysis of friend graph data the SW may have weighed one or more attributes of the friends as they relate to the player at a higher level than simply sending the player to the instance having a friend engaged.” Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, each game instance has one friend of the player engaged teaches satisfied a specific condition, because it is taught in contrast to “simply sending the player to the instance having a friend engaged,” which is a different specific condition.
Chandrasekaran then teaches and update the user information stored in the storage to register the second user as a friend of the first user, based on the determination and without receiving a user selection of the second user by the first user in [0042] Friend 401 may include a chat attribute 405 that indicates a number value (n) representing the total number of chat interactions shared between the player and friend 401. Friend 401 may include a games attribute 406 that indicates a number value (n) representing the total number of games that the player and friend have played together. See also Fig 4. Friend determination is taught by number of games played together and as previously taught where both have played each game instance, both may have also played together. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, there is nothing preventing the registry as friends as precluding any previous friend determination. What is taught is that nothing is received as a user selection. Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the scope of the claims in light of the specification, Chandrasekaran teaches the limitation.
Per claims 4, 9, and 14, which are similar in scope, Chandrasekaran teaches the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 11, above. Chandrasekaran further teaches the specific condition comprises a condition indicating that the second user has a predetermined relationship with the first user in the game service in [0042] Friend 401 may include a chat attribute 405 that indicates a number value (n) representing the total number of chat interactions shared between the player and friend 401. Friend 401 may include a games attribute 406 that indicates a number value (n) representing the total number of games that the player and friend have played together. See also Fig 4.
Per claims 5, 10, and 15, which are similar in scope, Chandrasekaran teaches the limitations of claims 4, 9, and 14, above. Chandrasekaran further teaches the predetermined relationship is set by the first user, and the specific condition is satisfied when the game progress information indicates that the second user has the predetermined relationship with the first user in [0042] Friend 401 may include a chat attribute 405 that indicates a number value (n) representing the total number of chat interactions shared between the player and friend 401. Friend 401 may include a games attribute 406 that indicates a number value (n) representing the total number of games that the player and friend have played together. See also Fig 4. Chat attribute teaches set by the first user because the user is chatting which teaches set under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Therefore, claims 1, 4-6, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 102.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekaran et al., US PGPUB 20170319967 A1 (“Chandrasekaran”) in view of Beamdog, “I’m the multiplayer character and I died. How do I revive?” Beamdog [online], available at: < https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/7720/im-the-multiplayer-character-and-i-died-how-do-i-revive-bgee > Published 2012 (“Beamdog”).
Per claim 16, Chandrasekaran teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Chandrasekaran does not teach wherein the specific condition comprises the second user resurrecting the first user.
Beamdog teaches being revived by a friend. See abstract.
Beamdog teaches wherein the specific condition comprises the second user resurrecting the first user in comment where a friend takes him to a temple to revive.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the friend in video game teaching of Chandrasekaran with the revive teaching of Beamdog because one would be motivated by the teaching in Beamdog that the revival would prevent the player from creating a new character. This would save time and whatever experience points or gold the original character had, increasing enjoyment for the deceased character. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Chandrasekaran with Beamdog.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekaran et al., US PGPUB 20170319967 A1 (“Chandrasekaran”) in view of Tropedia, Combination Attack, archived on January 18, 2022, available at: < https://web.archive.org/web/20220118231149/https://tropedia.fandom.com/wiki/Combination_Attack > (“Tropedia”).
Per claim 17, Chandrasekaran teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Chandrasekaran does not teach the specific condition comprises the second user performing an assisting attack for the first user.
Tropedia teaches combination attacks. See pages 1-20.
Tropedia teaches the specific condition comprises the second user performing an assisting attack for the first user teaches several examples of assisting attacks which are explained as combination attacks. These teach assisting attacks because they are done by another player along with the first player.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the friend game play teaching of Chandrasekaran with the assisting attack teaching of Tropedia because Tropedia teaches on page 2 that power of friendship may be involved. Further these attacks may be more effective than if each casts a component spell on their own. As power of friendship would increase a bond during a game, one would be motivated to combine Tropedia with Chandrasekaran so that friendships are created or further strengthened. For these reasons one would modify Chandrasekaran with Tropedia.
Per claim 18, Chandrasekaran teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Chandrasekaran does not teach the specific condition comprises the first user and the second user participating in a same battle.
Tropedia teaches combination attacks. See pages 1-20.
Tropedia teaches the specific condition comprises the first user and the second user participating in a same battle teaches several examples of participating in the same battle which are explained as combination attacks. These teach participating in the same battle because they are done by another player along with the first player.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the friend game play teaching of Chandrasekaran with the participating in the same battle teaching of Tropedia because Tropedia teaches on page 2 that power of friendship may be involved. Further these attacks may be more effective than if each casts a component spell on their own. As power of friendship would increase a bond during a game, one would be motivated to combine Tropedia with Chandrasekaran so that friendships are created or further strengthened. For these reasons one would modify Chandrasekaran with Tropedia.
Per claim 19, Chandrasekaran teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Chandrasekaran does not teach the first user and the second user winning during the use of the predetermined game content together.
Tropedia teaches combination attacks. See pages 1-20.
Tropedia teaches the first user and the second user winning during the use of the predetermined game content together teaches an “Armageddon” attack with an “I win” button available to players.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the friend game play teaching of Chandrasekaran with the first user and the second user winning during the use of the predetermined game content together teaching of Tropedia because winning together fosters good relations between partners so as to make a friendship. Therefore, for this reason one would be motivated to combine Tropedia with Chandrasekaran so that friendships are created or further strengthened. For these reasons one would modify Chandrasekaran with Tropedia.
Therefore, claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to remarks:
35 USC 112(f) – overcome by amendment and remarks. Nonce words like association unit used but means plus function equivalent language overcome (the nonce word + configured to + function).
Per Prong 1 (abstract idea), Applicant does not provide arguments against this element of the rejection. Per prong 2, Applicant argues:
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the analysis next considers whether the claims recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon).
The Office Action asserts that the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter because they recite a judicial exception without significantly more. Specifically, the Office Action states that the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and, on that basis, concludes that the claims fall within the "Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. However, even assuming the claims do not pass the test of Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims satisfy the test of Step 2A, Prong 2 because the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application.
As noted in MPEP § 2106.04, "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field."
The claims are applied in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In the instant case, Applicant's claimed subject matter is directed to a specific computer-implemented process for updating stored user information in a game service. As amended, claim I recites detecting that terminal devices of a first user and a second user have used predetermined game content together in a game service, accessing game progress information generated during the use of the predetermined game content, determining, based on the game progress information, that the second user satisfied a specific condition during the use of the predetermined game content, and updating the stored user information to register the second user as a friend of the first user based on the determination. Claims 6 and 11 recite corresponding apparatus and method implementations. Thus, rather than merely generating user associations based on user activity, the claims recite a particular computer-implemented process for obtaining and evaluating game-generated information and conditionally updating stored user information based on the evaluation. The claims, when considered as a whole, therefore integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments essentially recite the claim language and based on that language states that therefore there is a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea recited. However, this does not address the rejection in that the Examiner identified that the combination of additional elements is no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea to generic computing devices operating in their ordinary capacity. Applicant’s statement can be taken as true, that this is a “particular computer-implemented process…” but this does not overcome the finding that the particular process, which is an abstract idea that is applied to the generic computing elements, is not a practical application or significantly more. Therefore ,the arguments do not overcome the rejection.
35 USC 103
Applicant arguments are moot as the amendments required further search and consideration, and new art is applied.
Prior Art Considered Relevant
The following prior art is considered relevant to Applicant’s disclosure but is not relied upon in the above rejection:
Johnson et al., US PGPUB 20070173323 A1, teaches in par 045 where a gamer can use a gamecard to set up a matchmaking list where gamers are added to a preferred players list to play again in the future, teaching specific condition of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
