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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on 02/25/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for obtaining geographical information” in claim 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 8, is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 11, and 12 of copending Application No. 19/062,346. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to matching players in a competitive game using first type game elements.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant application
(19/062,345)
Co-pending application
(19/062,346)
Similarities
Claim 1: A program causing a computer that matches players for a match in a competitive game where players play against each other to perform processes comprising: a first reception process for receiving a matching request from a player from a communication terminal used by the player; a matching process for matching the player corresponding to the matching request and another player with each other on a basis of the received matching request; and a control process for controlling the player to be matched in the matching process, wherein the control process performs control in such a way as not to match, in the matching process, a first player corresponding to the matching request with a second player who has been matched with the first player most recently.
Claim 12: The gaming system according to claim 11, wherein the plurality of matching criteria includes a criterion relating to a matching frequency between same players, and wherein the matching means performs control in such a way as not to match a first player corresponding to the matching request with a second player who has been matched with the first player most recently.
Both the instant claims and co-pending claims are directed to competitive game elements of a first and second type, and a condition involving registration of a first type element
Claim 6: The program according to claim 1, wherein the match progresses using competitive game elements registered for each player, the game elements including a game element of a first type and a game element of a second type, wherein the matching request includes information regarding the competitive game elements registered for the player corresponding to the matching request, and wherein the control process performs control in such a way as to perform the matching process on a basis of the matching request on a condition that the matching request include information regarding the game element of the first type as the information regarding the competitive game elements.
Claim 1: A program causing a computer that conducts a match in a competitive game where players play against each other to perform processes comprising: a construction process for constructing a competitive deck to be used in the match on a basis of an operation input by a player; and a transmission process for transmitting, to a matching server in response to reception of an input operation relating to a start of playing of the match, a matching request to be matched with an opponent, the matching request including information regarding the competitive deck constructed in the construction process, wherein, in the competitive game, game elements of a first type and game elements of a second type, which are different from the game elements of the first type, appear, wherein a game element of the first type and a game element of the second type can be registered to the competitive deck, and wherein the matching request is transmitted to the matching server in the transmission process on a condition that the game element of the first type be registered in the competitive deck.
Both the instant claim and co-pending claim are directed to matching that uses a criterion relating to the first type game element and preferentially pairs players whose first type game element differ.
Claim 8: The program according to claim 6, wherein the control process performs control in such a way as to preferentially match players whose matching requests include different game elements of the first type with each other.
Claim 11: The gaming system according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of matching criteria includes a criterion relating to the game element of the first type, and wherein the matching means preferentially matches players with each other whose game elements of the first type registered in respective competitive decks are different from each other.
Both the instant claim and co-pending claim are directed to matching that uses a criterion relating to the first type game element and preferentially pairs players whose first type game element differ.
As shown above, the instant claims (1, 6 and 8) of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims (12, 11, and 1) of co-pending Application No. 19/062,346 respectively, because the claims of the instant application recite overlapping subject matter directed to the same inventive concept as recited in claims 1, 11, and 12 of the ‘346 application. Although the claims are not identical, the instant claims (1, 6, and 8) and the claims of the co-pending application are of overlapping scope and are not patentably distinct. For example, claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 12 of the co-pending ‘346 application because both claims are directed to the same competitive game matchmaking framework whereby first and second type game elements are registered and matching proceeds on the condition that a first type game element is present in the deck. The differences in the claims are not patentably distinct because the claims of the instant application are directed to the matching framework from the program and/or server (e.g., information processing apparatus) (see claim 16 of instant application) perspective, while the co-pending claims are directed to the same framework from the communication terminal (see claim 8 of co-pending aplication) perspective. These represent obvious, non-patentably distinct variations of the same inventive concept, and the differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Applicant is not entitled to a patent for the claimed invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the instant application. For at least these reasons, claim(s) 1, 6 and 8 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim(s) 1, 11, and 12 of the co-pending application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention us directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
[STEP 1] Claim 1 recites “A program causing a computer…to perform processes.” A claim to a program per se is non-satutoy under MPEP 2106.03, as it is not directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 is therefore rejected under U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a non-satutory subject matter. Claims 16 and 17 is/are directed to a machine and system, respectively, which is/are one of the statutory categories.
[STEP2A PRONG 1] The claims recite limitations which have been construed as certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. Claim(s) 1 recites a program, claim(s) 16 recites an information processing apparatus and claim 17 recites a gaming system for performing steps including receiving a matching request, matching the requesting player with another player, and controlling the match so that the player is not matched with the most recently played player or last opponent. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited steps establish managing interactions between people, following rules for a game, and pairing and/or selecting players based on specific conditions (e.g., player attribute(s)). The recited steps therefore include certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Courts have recognized that rules for playing games constitute an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Selecting and pairing players based on rankings and other conditions is a longstanding human activity that could be performed by pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly, claims 1-26 recite abstract ideas.
[STEP2A PRONG II] The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to a technological improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The additional elements such as “an information processing apparatus,” and “a communication terminal,” under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic components that perform routine, and well-understood functions such as receiving a player’s operation input, storing information regarding the competitive deck, transmitting and receiving a matching request over a network and pairing players (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional limitations merely add instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
[STEP2B] The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as the computer, and communication terminal are under their broadest reasonable interpretation, conventional tools for implementing the abstract idea. The specification discloses that the control unit 101 and server control unit 201 is a processor such as a CPU (Par. [0023]; “A control unit 101 is a processor such as a central processing unit (CPU)”) and (Par. [0030]; “A server control unit 201 is a processor such as a CPU”). The recitation of these additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, but rather link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, claims 1-26 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim(s) 2-15, and 18-26 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and include all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. For example, claim(s) 2-5 further define when a rematch is permitted including, after a predetermined number of intervening opponents, adjusted by player attributes or skill difference. Claim(s) 6-8 further define first and second type game elements, preferentially pairing different first type elements. Claims 9-15, and 18-26 further define transmitting and displaying player information including rank selection, map background, larger and smaller display icons for first and second type players. These are further rules for the game and further conditions for pairing, selecting, and presenting players.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at 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. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Takahashi (US7914380B2).
In regard to claim(s) 1, 16 and 17, Takahashi teaches a program causing a computer that matches players for a match in a competitive game where players play against each other (Abstract; “A multi-player game system (100) includes a lobby server (3) and a plurality of game devices (A1, A2. . . . and B1, B2. . . . ). When there is a preceding entry game device in a competition waiting state, since the server device has already received an entry request from the preceding entry game device, the lobby server (3) indicates the preceding entry game device as an opponent to a new entry game upon receiving an entry list request from the new entry game device.”).
a first reception process for receiving a matching request from a player from a communication terminal used by the player (Col. 11, lines 23-28; “First, the CPU 300 determines whether or not a request has been received from a game device (step S100), and repeats this determination until a request is received from a game device. Upon receiving a request from a game device, the CPU 300 determines whether the received request has been an entry list request, an entry request”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the lobby server’s receipt of the entry list and/or entry request from a game device reads on a reception of a matching request.
a matching process for matching the player corresponding to the matching request and another player with each other on a basis of the received matching request (Col. 1, lines 41-53; “The server device (3) includes a matchmaker (300)…for returning an opponent indication to a new entry game device (A1) upon receiving from the new entry game device (A1) an entry request when there is a preceding entry game device (B1) in a competition waiting state since the server device has already received another entry request from the preceding entry game device, the opponent indication indicating an opponent of the new entry game device”). Takahashi discloses that the matchmaker pairs the requesting device with another, preceding entry, device in response to the request.
a control process for controlling the player to be matched in the matching process, wherein the control process performs control in such a way as not to match, in the matching process, a first player corresponding to the matching request with a second player who has been matched with the first player most recently (Col. 13, lines 32-36; “In order to avoid match-making against previous opponent game devices, each game device stores the communication address (es) of one or more other game devices against which it competed previously.”) and (Col. 5, lines 30-34; “In this embodiment, the game device that has received entry information in which an identifier is recorded determines whether or not the opponent designated by the server device is a previous opponent, and sends a matchup request only if the opponent is not a previous opponent.”), and further teaches recording such identifiers in a previous opponent’s device list (Col. 7, lines 34-42; “A RAM (random access memory) 201 used as a work area of the CPU 200 stores a previous-opponent-device list. In the previous-opponent-device list, one or more identifiers for identifying one or more opponent teams against which the game device has already competed during a knockout competition. More specifically, as the identifier, a communication address of the game device used by such an opponent team is recorded in the previous-opponent-device list.”). Takahashi further teaches the RAM stores and avoids the most recent opponent (Col. 13, lines 36-39; “each game device may store in the RAM 302 only a communication address of the last opponent game device, so as to only avoid playing against the same game device in succession.”).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 recite an information processing apparatus and a gaming system, respectively. The claims recite the same limitations as claim 1, performed in an apparatus and system. Therefore, claims 16 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US7914380B2), in view of Mifuji (JP2001321570A), and further in view of Inagaki et al., (JP2023124466A) hereinafter Inagaki.
In regard to claim 2, Takahashi teaches the program according to claim 1, wherein the control process performs control in such a way as to make it possible to rematch the first player and the second player with each other on a condition that players other than the second player have been matched with the first player a predetermined number of times after the first player was matched with the second player (Col. 13, lines 36-24; “Alternatively, each game device may store in the RAM302 only a communication address of the last opponent game device, so as to only avoid playing against the same game device in Succession. In this modification, although the same pair of game devices may be allowed to compete against each other in the first and third rounds, match-making is easier.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a predetermined number of times reads on any fixed count of one or more intervening matches. Takahashi teaches permitting the same players to compete in the first and third rounds. A rematch is permitted after the first player has been matched, in the second round, with a game device other than the second player.
In regard to claim 3, Takahashi does not teach wherein attribute information is associated with each player. However, Inagaki teaches a matching server that matches players from among received matching requests based on the matching conditions and/or criteria, and that the match players conduct the match. Inagaki further teaches applying various matching conditions and/or criteria in the matching process, including preferential matching by attribute (Pg. 12, par. [7]; “The server 30 transmits matching information to the game terminals of both users with whom matching has been established. The matching information includes information on game conditions under which matching is established and information on opponents.”) and (Pag. 12, par. [6]; “in the above-mentioned matching process, matching priority setting such as preferential matching of users with similar game levels and team ranks is not performed, but such matching priority setting is performed. may For example, users whose total number of real-time matches, cumulative winning rate, or recent winning rate (for example, winning rate in the last 10 games, winning rate in the last week, etc.) are within a predetermined range may be preferentially matched. Also, users whose team rank in the CPU battle mode (that is, another game mode) is within a predetermined range may be preferentially matched.”).
As established above with respect to claim 2, Takahashi teaches wherein the predetermined number of times is determined on a basis of the attribute information associated with the first player and the attribute information associated with the second player. Additionally, Mifuji teaches a match frequency condition as a function of a degree of difference calculated from the battle history of the player(s) (Mifuji, Pg. 8; “According to the following (Equation 3), the degree of difference is calculated from the battle history based on the number of battles in the past 30 days…Number of matches of the person in the past 30 days For the item of “nationality”, absolute conditions Either “O” or “X” can be set, and a user with a nationality marked with “X” can be excluded from the opponent.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Inagaki’s attribute information (e.g., level, rank, etc.) with each player in Takahashi’s system to enhance the quality of player matchmaking by using player attributes for preferential matching. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would provide fair matching of opponents.
In regard to claim 5, Takahashi teaches the program according to claim 1, wherein the control process performs control in such a way as to make it possible to rematch the first player and the second player with each other (Col. 13, lines 32-36; “In order to avoid match-making against previous opponent game devices, each game device stores the communication address (es) of one or more other game devices against which it competed previously.”), (Col. 13, lines 36-39; “each game device may store in the RAM 302 only a communication address of the last opponent game device, so as to only avoid playing against the same game device in succession.”) but does not teach rematching the first and second player on a condition that a predetermined period of time have elapsed since the second player was matched.
However, Mifuji teaches that a player that has played within a set period is excluded from being matched and becomes matchable again only after the period elapses (Mifuji Pg. 8, Par. [0042]; “The item “fight frequency” is for avoiding or emphasizing the tendency that users with close conditions are likely to be selected as opponents. The absolute condition must be within the range of “1 to 4 weeks”. A period can be set on a weekly basis or in "one month", and "O" or "X" can be set for the period to indicate whether or not a match is possible. That is, by enabling the setting for the “match frequency”, it is possible to increase or decrease the priority of a particular opponent being selected as a match candidate. By lowering the priority, it is possible to prevent the match from becoming a match only with a specific opponent and help improve the ability) and (Pg. 8, “users who have played in less than 1 week are excluded from the competition candidates”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Mifuji’s time range exclusion window to Takahashi’s recent opponent avoidance framework so that a previous opponent becomes re-matchable after a predetermined period. Takahashi and Mifuji are analogous to controlling repeat matchups in the network matchmaking field. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would achieve the predictable result of reducing repetitive rematch with the same or most recent opponent(s) while keeping the opponent list from shrinking significantly in order to allow for fair play for all participants.
In regard to claim 6, Takahashi discloses the program according to claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the game elements including a game element of a first type and a game element of a second type.
However, Inagaki teaches a training player (e.g., first object) and an event character (e.g., second object) that read on a first type and second type, respectively; whereby the event character is different from the training player and both objects appear in the real-time competitive battle game (Pg. 7, par. [6]; “A real-time battle mode using the training player (an example of the first object) and the event character (an example of the second object) will be described below… In the real-time battle mode of this embodiment, two in-game leagues are provided”) and (Pg. 28, par. [4]; “In one aspect of the present invention…the objects include a first object (for example, a training player) and a second object of different types. (for example, an event character), and the plurality of use objects include a first use object (for example, training player order) in which the first object is registered and a second use object in which the second object is registered ( For example, event character order) may be included at least.”). Inagaki thereby discloses wherein the match progresses using competitive game elements registered for each player, the game elements including a game element of a first type and a game element of a second type.
Inagaki further teaches wherein the matching request includes information regarding the competitive game elements registered for the player corresponding to the matching request (Pg. 23, Par. [10]; “The matching request data transmitted from the game terminal 10 to the server 30 includes the condition setting information and the user ID.”)
wherein the control process performs control in such a way as to perform the matching process on a basis of the matching request on a condition that the matching request include information regarding the game element of the first type as the information regarding the competitive game elements (Pg. 10, Par. [5]; “use order condition setting area A510 for the user to set the conditions related to the team order used in the battle in the real-time battle mode. This use order condition setting area A510 includes options P511 to P513. Option P512 is an option for setting a game condition to use the above-described training player order. Option P513 is an option for setting the game condition to use the aforementioned event character order. The option P511 of "Omakase" is an option for setting a game condition in which either a training player order or an event character order can be used for the order used in the match. In other words, the option P511 of "leave it to me" is an option of entrusting the game system 1 with the order used in the battle.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Inagaki teaches performing the matching process on the basis of the matching request where the request designates the first type game element as the order used for the match.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Inagaki’s teaching of orders built from two element types (e.g., event character order and training player order) with the applied matching conditions on the designated order type into Takahashi’s multiplayer matching system to allow each player to designate, within the matching request, which element type order determined the match and to be paired on that basis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would yield the predictable result of pairing players according to their designated game element type (e.g., first or second type) orders.
In regard to claim 7, Inagaki teaches wherein the competitive game elements include one game element of the first type and a plurality of game elements of the second type (Pg. 25, par. [6-1]; “a mixed order (an example of a third use object) including at least one training player and at least one event character may be registered in advance”) and (“a match using the event character order corresponding to the game condition is executed.”).
In regard to claim 8, Inagaki teaches wherein the control process performs control in such a way as to preferentially match players whose matching requests include different game elements of the first type with each other (Pg. 17-18, par. [11]; “the difference in the "object type" associated with the object may be set as the "game condition"”) and (Pg. 17, par. [8]; “In addition, various conditions can be set in the "game condition"…For example… user level, team, player character parameters (for example, ability rank ) or the like may be set as the “game condition” so that the user can search for a matching partner”) and (Pg. 21, par. [5]; “with respect to the above-mentioned "first object and second object of different types", examples of the difference in the types of objects are (1) the difference in acquisition route by which the user acquires the object (for example, the object raised by playing the game) (2) Differences in usage (for example, in a predetermined mode in the game, it may be used as an object to be operated or an object not to be operated) (3) Differences in changeability of parameters after acquisition (for example, whether or not parameters can be changed by processing such as strengthening), (4) Differences in changeable parameters, and the like.”). Inagaki teaches that a difference in the type of object associated with an object may be used as a matching search condition. Inagaki further teaches that the object or character attributes may be set as game conditions which the user can search for a matching partner.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Inagaki’s teaching of different object types associated with a matching condition, to Takahashi’s matching framework in order to preferentially pair players whose first type elements differ. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Inagaki already authorizes different object types as a matching condition, and the motivation to preferentially return different type opponents would provide predictable results of increasing player interest and increasing the matching variety.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US7914380B2), in view of Mifuji (JP2001321570A), and further in view of Inagaki (JP2023124466A) and further in view of Versaci (US8851980B2).
In regard to claim 4, Takahashi in view of Mifuji and Inagaki teach a rematching players after a predetermined amount of games and time, and that the predetermined number of times is based on a player’s skills/ranks but don not explicitly teach wherein the attribute information includes a value that varies depending on playing of the competitive game, and wherein the predetermined number of times is determined as a value that increases as a difference between the attribute information associated with the first player and the attribute information associated with the second player increases.
However, Versaci teaches quantifying a skill gap as a threshold (Col. 8, lines 30-39; “The matching of players based on skill rating may be done, for example by sorting the list of players on a ready list by skill, and matching each successive pair in the list. In order to ensure that players matched have comparable skill, a further requirement may be imposed to require that the skill ratings of two matched players are comparable, e.g. that they differ by less than a pre-defined amount. For example, the difference between the skill ratings of the two players may be required to be less than 10% of the skill rating of the skill rating of the player with the lower skill rating.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predetermined number of times dependent on a player’s skill/ranks as taught by Takahashi in view of Mifuji and Inagaki, and quantify the player’s attribute information as skill rating values that vary depending on play outcomes, as taught by Versaci, to increase the difference between the first player and second player’s skill rating values. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to avoid producing and reproducing unbalanced competitive matchups between recent opponents and improving player engagement.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 25 is/are rejected over Takahashi (US7914380B2) in view of Mifuji (JP2001321570A) further in view of Inagaki (JP2023124466A) and further in view of Akai et al., (JP7431936B1) hereinafter Akai.
In regard to claim(s) 9 and 18, Takahashi teaches the program according to Claim 1 causing the computer to perform processes further comprising: a second reception process for receiving a service login request from a player with respect to a service relating to the competitive game (Abstract; “When there is a preceding entry game device in a competition waiting state, since the server device has already received an entry request from the preceding entry game device, the lobby server (3) indicates the preceding entry game device as an opponent to a new entry game upon receiving an entry list request from the new entry game device.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Takahashi’s entry list request, when a game device enters the lobby, reads on a service login request, and Takahashi’s competition waiting state, where the entered device is registered and available to the lobby server, reads on a login state.
a management process for managing the player corresponding to the service login request as a player in a login state in response to the reception of the service login request, a transmission process for transmitting player information regarding players in the login state other than the foregoing player in the login state to a communication terminal used by the foregoing player in the login state (Col. 11, lines 30-39; “If an entry list request has been received (step S102), the CPU 300 determines whether or not there is an entry list EL in which a communication address is registered (step S103). More specifically, the CPU 300 searches the RAM302 (storage device) and determines whether or not the RAM. 302 stores an entry list EL into which a communication address of a game device is written. If an entry list EL into which a communication address of a game device is written is stored, the CPU 300 sends it to the game device that issued the entry list request (step S104).”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, managing devices in the waiting state and returning to a requesting device, the entry list of other waiting devices’ communication addresses reads on managing players in a login state and transmitting player in a login state and transmitting player information regarding the other players in the login state.
wherein the matching request includes identification information for identifying one of the other players included in the player information as an opponent (Col. 12, lines 47-51; “Next, upon receiving an entry list EL from the lobby server 3 (step S204), the CPU 200 determines whether or not a communication address (identifier and opponent indication) is recorded in the received entry list EL.”),
Takahashi does not teach wherein, in the matching process, the player identified from the identification information and the player corresponding to the matching request are matched with each other. However, Akai teaches (Pg. 9, Par. [6]; “the control unit 101 acquires the player's identification information. In this step, the control unit 101requests the player to read information from the license card, and obtains the player's identification information from the license card via the reader 130.” And Par. [10]; “the control unit 101 acquires information about candidate players included in the assigned matching lobby from the server 200.”), wherein the control process controls the transmission process in such a way as to transmit the player information including information regarding players of a first type, who can be matched with the first player, to a communication terminal used by the first player (Pg. 5, Par. [5]; “Therefore, when receiving a lobby connection request from the game device 100, the server control unit 201 allocates one matching lobby to the player using the game device 100, and assigns another matching lobby that is also assigned to the matching lobby. Player information is shared with the game device 100.”). Akai teaches that the server transmits the candidate player’s information for the lobby to the requesting terminal.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takahashi’s lobby and entry list framework with Akai’s matching lobby that includes player information sharing, so that the player in the login state is sent information regarding matchable opponent(s). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would achieve player selection and information matchmaking.
In regard to claim(s) 10 and 20, Akai teaches wherein the control process controls the transmission process in such a way as to transmit the player information including the information regarding the players of the first type and information regarding players of a second type, who cannot be matched with the first player, to the communication terminal used by the first player, and wherein the identification information identifies one of the players of the first type (Pg. 7, Par. [1]; “standby characters that are already being played by a candidate player will be displayed differently in the virtual space, and no match requests will be accepted.”) and (Pg. 7, Par. [2]; “For example, for a candidate player whose level in a competitive game (a parameter managed for each player that usually increases as the number of uses increases) is higher than the applicant player's level by a predetermined value or more, or a candidate player whose level is lower than the applicant player's level by a predetermined value or more, The display mode is changed to make matching impossible. Such control is performed in each game device 100 based on candidate player information related to the matching lobby to which the applying player is assigned.”). Akai teaches the transmitted candidate information includes both matchable and non-matchable candidates, and that the non-matchable candidates are displayed in a different mode.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the Takahashi and Akai combination in claim(s) 9 and 18 to transmit and display both matchable (e.g., first type) and non-matchable (e.g., second type) players in order to differentiate the two, as Akai explicitly teaches. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to include non-matchable candidates in the shared lobby information and distinctly label them so that a player is aware of which opponent(s)/are available.
In regard to claim 11 and 22, Akai further teaches wherein the player information includes detailed information regarding the players of the first type but does not include detailed information regarding one of the players of the second type and wherein the display control means displays the detailed information regarding one of the players of the first type on the display means in accordance with an input operation but does not display the detailed information regarding one of the players of the second type on the display means in accordance with an input operation (Pg. 6, Par. [5]; “When the playable character moves close to the standby character, an application screen 611 as shown in FIG. 6(c) is displayed on the first display section 111. The application screen 611 includes a display 621 of competition information showing details about a competition game in which the candidate player related to the standby character wishes to be matched”) and (Pg. 10, Par. [3]; “In S1105, the control unit 101 determines whether the candidate player (hereinafter referred to as the target player) corresponding to the icon for which the operation input has been performed is in a state capable of accepting a competition application. The determination in this step is made based on whether or not the target player has already been matched, or whether the level difference in the competitive game with the applicant player is greater than a predetermined value. If the control unit 101 determines that the target player is in a state where it is possible to accept a competition application, it moves the process to S1106, and if it determines that the target player is not in a state where it can accept it, it moves the process toS1110.”). Akai discloses a competition information screen that is displayed only when the player inputs on to matchable candidate’s icon and skips the detail screen for non-matchable candidates.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the Takahashi and Akai combination to present detailed competition information on input for matchable (e.g., first type) while withholding it for non-matchable (e.g., second type) candidates as taught by Akai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to present details of candidates that a player can challenge, maintaining a streamlined selection of acceptable players.
In regard to claim(s) 15 and 23, Akai further teaches wherein the control process controls the transmission process in such a way as to transmit the player information updated at predetermined time intervals and wherein, upon receiving the updated player information, the display control means changes what is displayed on the display means on a basis of the player information (Pg. 5, Par. [4]; “Furthermore, if the matching status of each player changes due to the assignment of players to a matching lobby or the establishment of a match application, the server control unit 201 sends information to that effect to the players classified in the lobby. Itis shared among each of the game devices 100 to be used.”) and (Pg. 9, Par. [3]; “the GPU 104 generates a corresponding screen at predetermined intervals”). Akai teaches that the server pushes updated candidate information based on the status change.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the Takashi and Akai combination to transmit updated candidate player information and to update the display accordingly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that updating the display screen with the most recent player information would yield the predictable result of display of accurate player availability and status.
In regard to claim 19, Aaki further teaches wherein the player information includes information regarding a plurality of players, wherein each of the communication terminals further includes display control means for displaying the information regarding the plurality of players included in the player information on display means, and selection means for receiving selection of the opponent from among the plurality of players displayed on the display means, and wherein the first transmission means transmits the matching request including the identification information for identifying a player selected by the selection means as the opponent (Pg. 5, par. [3]; “the matching lobby is a place on the network where a plurality of players can arbitrarily select an opponent player and start a competitive game. Each player has an opportunity to play a competitive game in an assigned matching lobby with players who are also assigned to the matching lobby.”). Aaki teaches that candidate players are displayed as standby character icons and the player selects an opponent to challenge. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, selecting a displayed standby character icon and issuing a match opponent for the candidate reads on receiving a selection of the opponent and transmitting the match request.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takahashi’s entry list opponent identifier with Akai’s displayed candidate selection so that a player selects an opponent from the available displayed candidates and the matching request conveys that opponent’s ID. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Takahashi and Akai to achieve the predictable result of opponent selection that is user directed as Akai teaches (Pg. 5, Par. [3]; “the matching lobby is a place on the network where a plurality of players can arbitrarily select an opponent player and start a competitive game.”).
In regard to claim 21, Akai further teaches wherein the display control means displays the players of the second type on the display means smaller than the players of the first type (Pg. 7, Par. [1]; “standby characters that are already being played by a candidate player will be displayed differently in the virtual space, and no match requests will be accepted.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Akai teaches that the display modes of character icons that have been matched will be displayed differently than character icons of standby characters that have not yet been matched. The decision to make each display icon a different size is merely a design choice (see MPEP 2144.04(I)).
In regard to claim 25, Takahashi teaches wherein the display control means stops displaying the plurality of players based on the player information on a condition that the matching means has performed matching (Col. 9, lines 61-66; “In addition, the game device A1 confirms that the number of the game devices has reached the number necessary for match-making (in this example, two), and sends the game device B1 a match-making completion notification indicating that match-making is completed (step S11).”) and (Col. 10, lines 4-13; “Next, the game device A1 sends a deletion request to the lobby server 3 (step S15). The deletion request demands that the lobby server 3 should delete the communication address of the game device A1 from the entry list EL. Upon receiving a deletion request, the lobby server 3 returns an ACK of the deletion request (step S16), and it deletes the communication address of the game device from the corresponding entry list EL (step S17). Thus, the communication address of a game device for which match-making has been completed can be erased from the corresponding entry list EL.”). Takahashi discloses that once a match has been completed, the matched device’s address is deleted from the entry list that is presented to other devices. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, erasing a matched device from the entry list stops that player from being displayed to others.
Additionally, Akai teaches that once matching is established, the display transitions from the candidate view to the battle view (Pg. 7, Par. [3]-[4]; “When matching is established, information to that effect is presented on the presentation device 110. In the game device 100 of this embodiment, information regarding the matching that is established using the first display section 111 and the second display section 112 is displayed. In the first display section 111, in order to clearly indicate that a match has been established, the icons of the operated character and the standby character serving as the opponent are changed from icons to humanoid character images as shown in FIG.Is displayed... The competitive game executed in game device 100 then transitions from the matching stage to the execution stage. That is, the game devices 100 involved in the established matching execute a process of providing a playing experience of a competitive game in which a player (applicant player) and an opponent player (candidate player) participate.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stop displaying candidates once a match is established, to provide an accurate roster of available candidates to standby or newly joined players. Takahashi discloses deleting matched devices from the entry list, and Akai transitions the standby player icon to a humanoid; and changes the display from the matching stage to the execution stage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that ceasing the display of matched candidates is a conventional and expected in this field.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US7914380B2) in view of Mifuji (JP2001321570A), further in view of Inagaki (JP2023124466A), further in view of Akai (JP7431936B1), and further in view of Sarudate et al., (JP2020121097A) hereinafter Sarudate.
In regard to claim(s) 12 and 13, Takashi does not explicitly teach wherein the attribute information is associated with each player, and wherein the players of the first type are players associated with the attribute information similar to the attribute information regarding the first player, wherein the attribute information includes rank information indicating a rank of each player that changes depending on playing of the competitive game and wherein the players of the first type are players associated with the rank information indicating a same rank as a rank of the first player or a rank lower than the rank of the first player.
However, Sarudate teaches managing player information, including updating the ranking of player(s) (Pg. 6, Par. [10]; “The player information management unit 70 manages player information. The managed information manages basic user information such as the player's nickname, team rank, player rank, and buddy rank.”) and (Pg. 8, Par. [9]; “The rank setting data is data of the rank of the player's team and the cumulative victory points up to the present, the rank of the player and the cumulative victory points up to the present, the rank of the buddy and the cumulative victory points up to the present. FIG. 15 is an example of rank setting data. The rank of the team of player A and cumulative victory points up to the present, the rank of player A and cumulative victory points up to the present, the rank of buddy of player A and the accumulation up to now. It is an example of data in which victory points are stored. These data are updated by the player information management unit70 using the rank information”)
Sarudate further teaches matching same ranked candidates, and if the same ranked candidate is not available, matching a candidate of lower and upper ranks (Pg. 5, par. [10]; “Matching with opponents may be performed by randomly selecting opponents, but matching opponents with too different levels may reduce interest in the game. Therefore, the concept of rank is introduced so that the opponent (matching level) with the game is matched to some extent. Therefore, the rank of the team(hereinafter referred to as the team rank), the rank of the player (human) (hereinafter referred to as the player rank), and the rank of the buddy (hereinafter referred to as the buddy rank).”), and wherein the players of the first type are players associated with the rank information indicating a same rank as a rank of the first player or a rank lower than the rank of the first player (Pg. 5, par. [13]; “in matching, teams having the same rank and players or buddies having the same rank are matched. If a team, player, or buddy having the same rank cannot be searched, a different team, player, or buddy is searched for each of the upper and lower ranks”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sarudate’s framework of matching players based on similar skill rating into Takahashi’s matching based on the most recent opponent to provide players with a fairer game gameplay session. Inagaki discloses preferentially matching users with similar game levels and team ranks (Pg 12, par. [6]; “For example, users whose total number of real-time matches, cumulative winning rate, or recent winning rate (for example, winning rate in the last 10 games, winning rate in the last week, etc.) are within a predetermined range may be preferentially matched. . Also, users whose team rank in the CPU battle mode (that is, another game mode) is within a predetermined range may be preferentially matched.”) proving that matching players based on similar rankings, ratings and/or skills is a well-known and conventional technique in the field. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination would yield predictable results of increasing player engagement.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US7914380B2) in view of Mifuji (JP2001321570A), further in view of Inagaki (JP2023124466A), further in view of Akai (JP7431936B1), further in view of Sarudate (JP2020121097A), and further in view of Aghdaie et al., (US20180369696A1) hereinafter Aghdaie.
In regard to claim 14, Takahashi in view of Sarudate’s teach matching players based on player rankings and skill but do not teach wherein the attribute information includes rank information indicating a rank of each player that changes depending on playing of the competitive game, and wherein the control process controls the transmission process in such a way as to transmit the player information configured to include, in the information regarding the players of the first type, more players associated with the rank information indicating ranks lower than the rank of the first player than players associated with the rank information indicating the same rank as the rank of the first player or ranks higher than the rank of the first player.
However, Aghdaie teaches tracking and analyzing each user’s skill level along with the skill levels of the user’s teammates and opponents (Par. [0066]; “As another example, the retention analysis system 140 may indicate that the 20% retention rate for a user may be based at least in part on the below 25% win ratio. In yet another example, the retention analysis system 140 may indicate that the 25% retention rate for a user may be based at least in part on the skill level of the user's teammates and/or opponents in a match plan not satisfying a skill level threshold.”) and (Par. [0031]; “For example, the machine learning algorithms may determine that some groups of users prefer opponents and/or teammates with particular skill levels.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rank matching of Takahashi in view of Sarudate so that the player information transmitted to the first player includes more players ranked lower than the first player, as taught by Aghdaie, to provide a more balanced matchup. The motivation to combine is supplied by Aghdaie. Aghdaie discloses that some users with lower level skill prefer to play with other users of corresponding level/s of skill to participate equally in the game (Par. [0031]; “For example, the machine learning algorithms may determine that some users with lower levels of skill prefer to play with other users of correspondingly low levels of skill to enable the users to participate equally in the game.”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination yields the predictable results of a more balanced matchup that improves player engagement and retention.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US7914380B2) in view of Mifuji (JP2001321570A) further in view of Inagaki (JP2023124466A) further in view of Akai (JP7431936B1), and further in view Lutnick et al (US20090061974A1), hereinafter Lutnick.
In regard to claim 24, Takahashi in view of Akai teach the gaming system according to claim 23, but do not teach wherein, when receiving the player information updated while the detailed information regarding one of the players of the first type is displayed on the display means, the display control means does not change what is displayed on the display means.
However, Lutnick teaches a player presses a key to call an update about a particular player in a window of the terminal display and the update window may be static (Par. [0027]; “In various embodiments, a key or button may be pressed by a secondary player to call up an update about a game, primary player… In various embodiments, a secondary player may press a key which causes an update to be provided. The update may appear in a window of one of the display screens of the terminal, for example. The update may disappear after some period of time, e.g., after 30 seconds. In some embodiments, the update may remain until the player again presses the key which brought the update in the first place. The window or screen showing the update may be continuously updated or may be static. Thus, in various embodiments, a secondary player may press a key to get updated information about a table, player, etc. However, the information may represent a small snapshot of the latest information and may not represent a continuous information feed of new information as it happens.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the matching lobby information display of Takahashi in view of Akai to present a static snapshot that is not continuously updated while displayed, as taught by Lutnick, to provide a stable snapshot of a player profile. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to exclude the updating of player data from disrupting the player’s current screen.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US7914380B2) in view of Mifuji (JP2001321570A) further in view of Inagaki (JP2023124466A) further in view of Akai (JP7431936B1), and further in view of Davis et al., (US20160016083A1) hereinafter Davis.
In regard to claim 26, Takahashi does not teach wherein each of the communication terminals further includes means for obtaining geographical information associated with the communication terminal, and wherein the display control means displays the plurality of players based on the player information with a map image corresponding to the geographical information as a background
However, Davis teaches displaying a real-world map, connected to the terminal’s GPS location, as the background of a game view with participants represented on it (Par. [0081]-[0082]; “The zone pin will reflect the real-time state of battle for all players who have battle for that zone. The map 3000 will show the players current position at all times,”) and (Par. [0026]; “the primary objective of a game, whereby players are fighting in the game to capture and maintain control of their hometown, the places they visit, and the nearby cities and town, with the restriction that battling for such places can only be done while the player is with physical proximity of the location, with a distance as determined by their GPS coordinates and the game play rules”), (Par. [0044]; “Players may also scan for bases in their current zone 702 (the battle zone that corresponds to the player's physical location)”), (Par. [0066]; “Proximity to a zone is determined by algorithmically comparing the latitude and longitude of the player's physical location on the Earth to the zone's latitude and longitude specified in the game.”), (Par. [0142]; “ Deployed resources are geo-tagged with the latitude and longitude of the location of the deployment, as determined by the player's physical real-world geographic location using the player's latitude and longitude from their mobile device.”). Davis discloses a real-world map representation determined by a player’s physical position.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Davis’s real-world map representation of players based on their geolocation to Takahashi’s display of the plurality of candidate players to achieve the expected result of geolocation driven opponent selection.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-26 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BUSHIRA MUSA whose telephone number is (571)272-9156. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 5712701344. 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.
/B.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights