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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. For example, the title should indicate the selection and granting of game elements.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 19 are directed towards a medium and a device, (machine), which is statutory category of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to function as: a presentation unit configured to selectably present provision of a game element with restrictions on grant, and provision of a game element without restrictions on grant; and a grant unit configured to grant a selected game element.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 12, 13, and 19. Dependent claims 2 – 11 and 14 18 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system the presents game elements with and without restrictions, wherein the claims further discloses granting a selection of a game element. The claimed invention can be practically performed as a mental process by a human managing game elements in a video game. A human select game elements and make game determinations in their mind. For example, in the event that a player is playing a role-playing game, nothing precludes a human from selecting game elements corresponding to rules of the role-playing game.
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system comprising game elements with and without restrictions, wherein the system is further configured to grant selection of a game element. The claims recite instructions with these features. Here, a human can observe the restricted and non-restricted game elements, and then determine a next step to make that is favorable to the player. For example, in event that a player is playing a role-playing game, a player observe an available weapon, (game element), and an attribute booster, (restricted game element), and then determine whether to select the weapon or the attribute booster that is favorable to the player. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic computer along with instructions that generate and present a game elements, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not affect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a computer and game elements, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Walker et al. 2004/0038733 par. 0005 regarding selecting game elements as being known in the art). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Kurosawa et al. (U.S. 6,807,521).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 13, and 19, Kurosawa discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium and device storing a program, (“The present invention relates to a computer readable program product storing a program”, col. 1, lines 8 – 9), causing a computer, (“the present invention relates to a computer readable program product storing a program of a video game of the role playing game (RPG) type, a game control method and video game system”, col. 1, lines 11 – 14, wherein the Examiner views the video game system as being equivalent to a computer), to function as a presentation unit configured to selectably present provision of a game element with restrictions on grant, (“there are limits on the number of items of equipment which a player character can simultaneously provide itself with. For example, it cannot provide itself with several of the same type of equipment. In the example shown in FIG. 6, there are five types of equipment, that is, head protective gear, weapons, body protective gear, hand protective gear, and accessories”, col. 7, lines 48 – 54, wherein the Examiner views the limits on the number of items a player can collect such as weapons, as being equivalent to provision of game elements with restrictions), and provision of a game element without restrictions on grant, (“Note that there is no limit on the number of acquired special abilities”, col. 8, lines 6 – 7, wherein the Examiner views the limit on the number of acquired special abilities as being equivalent to provision of game elements without restrictions), and a grant unit configured to grant a selected game element, (“The items of equipment include ones owned from the start of the game and ones picked up, purchased, or seized from an enemy character in the process of progress of the game”, col. 4, line 67 – col. 5, line 5, wherein the Examiner views the items of equipment owned by the player including ones picked up or purchased as being equivalent to a grant unit configured to grant a selected game element).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Kurosawa discloses under a condition that a game element with restrictions on grant is in a first state, enable selection of provision of the game element with restrictions on grant, and under a condition that the game element with restrictions on grant is in a second state, disable selection of provision of the game element with restrictions on grant, (“there are limits on the number of items of equipment which a player character can simultaneously provide itself with. For example, it cannot provide itself with several of the same type of equipment. In the example shown in FIG. 6, there are five types of equipment, that is, head protective gear, weapons, body protective gear, hand protective gear, and accessories”, col. 7, lines 48 – 54, wherein the Examiner views the limits on the number of items a player can collect as being equivalent to enable selection of a game element that is in a first state and in the event the number of items of reaches the limit, disabling the selection of a game element in a second state).
Regarding claim 3, Kurosawa discloses distinguishably present enabled selection or disabled selection of provision of the game element, (“there are limits on the number of items of equipment which a player character can simultaneously provide itself with. For example, it cannot provide itself with several of the same type of equipment. In the example shown in FIG. 6, there are five types of equipment, that is, head protective gear, weapons, body protective gear, hand protective gear, and accessories”, col. 7, lines 48 – 54, wherein the Examiner views the limits on the number of items a player can collect as being equivalent to enabling or disabling the selection of a game element).
Regarding claim 4, Kurosawa discloses wherein the presentation unit is configured to present an option to select provision of the game element, and under a condition that the game element with restrictions on grant is in the second state, present the option as unselectable, (“there are limits on the number of items of equipment which a player character can simultaneously provide itself with. For example, it cannot provide itself with several of the same type of equipment. In the example shown in FIG. 6, there are five types of equipment, that is, head protective gear, weapons, body protective gear, hand protective gear, and accessories”, col. 7, lines 48 – 54, wherein the Examiner views the limits on the number of items a player can collect as being equivalent to the selection of a game element being restricted, in a second state, and being unselectable).
Regarding claim 5, Kurosawa discloses wherein the grant unit is configured to grant a selected game element in exchange with a predetermined payment, (“The items of equipment include ones owned from the start of the game and ones picked up, purchased, or seized from an enemy character in the process of progress of the game”, col. 4, line 67 – col. 5, line 5, wherein the Examiner views the items of equipment owned by the player including being purchased as being equivalent to a granting a game element in exchange with a predetermined payment).
Regarding claim 6, Kurosawa discloses wherein the presentation unit is configured to, under a condition that payment for exchanging with a selected game element is insufficient, make transition to a screen that allows shortage in the payment to be granted, (“The items of equipment include ones owned from the start of the game and ones picked up, purchased, or seized from an enemy character in the process of progress of the game”, col. 4, line 67 – col. 5, line 5, wherein the Examiner views the items of equipment owned by the player including ones picked up or seized as being equivalent to allowing shortage in payment to be granted).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Kurosawa discloses wherein the restrictions on grant are restrictions based on a number of times of grant of the game element for one player, the first state indicates that the number of times of grant has not reached an upper limit, and the second state indicates that the number of times of grant has reached the upper limit, (“there are limits on the number of items of equipment which a player character can simultaneously provide itself with. For example, it cannot provide itself with several of the same type of equipment. In the example shown in FIG. 6, there are five types of equipment, that is, head protective gear, weapons, body protective gear, hand protective gear, and accessories”, col. 7, lines 48 – 54).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Kurosawa discloses wherein at an initial time of a game, the upper limit of the number of times of grant is at least one, (“The items of equipment include ones owned from the start of the game”, col. 4, line 67 – col. 5, line 5).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Kurosawa discloses wherein the game element includes a plurality of types of game elements, and for each of the types, the game element is classified into a game element with restrictions on grant and a game element without restrictions on grant, (“there are limits on the number of items of equipment which a player character can simultaneously provide itself with. For example, it cannot provide itself with several of the same type of equipment. In the example shown in FIG. 6, there are five types of equipment, that is, head protective gear, weapons, body protective gear, hand protective gear, and accessories”, col. 7, lines 48 – 54, and “Note that there is no limit on the number of acquired special abilities”, col. 8, lines 6 – 7, wherein the Examiner views the limit on the number of acquired special abilities as being equivalent to provision of game elements without restrictions), wherein the Examiner views the limits on the number of items a player can collect such as weapons, as being equivalent to game elements classified with restrictions and the special abilities as being classified without restrictions).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Kurosawa discloses wherein the game element with restrictions on grant is a first set including a plurality of game elements necessary for a player to participate in a fighting game, and the game element without restrictions on grant is a second set including a plurality of game elements that enable a player to progress a fighting game advantageously, (“there are limits on the number of items of equipment which a player character can simultaneously provide itself with. For example, it cannot provide itself with several of the same type of equipment. In the example shown in FIG. 6, there are five types of equipment, that is, head protective gear, weapons, body protective gear, hand protective gear, and accessories”, col. 7, lines 48 – 54, and “Note that there is no limit on the number of acquired special abilities”, col. 8, lines 6 – 7, wherein the Examiner views the game element with restrictions, (weapons), as being necessary for a player to participate in a fighting game and the game element without restrictions, (special abilities), as being equivalent to game elements that enable a player to progress a fighting game advantageously).
Regarding claim 11, Kurosawa discloses wherein the restrictions on grant are restrictions based on a quantity of stock of the game element, the first state indicates that a granted amount of the game element does not exceed the quantity of stock, and the second state indicates that the granted amount of the game element has reached the quantity of stock, (“there are limits on the number of items of equipment which a player character can simultaneously provide itself with. For example, it cannot provide itself with several of the same type of equipment. In the example shown in FIG. 6, there are five types of equipment, that is, head protective gear, weapons, body protective gear, hand protective gear, and accessories”, col. 7, lines 48 – 54).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights