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:
“Construction means,” and “transmission means” in claim(s) 8, and 9.
“Conduct means” in claim 10.
“Matching means,” in claim(s) 10, 11, 12, and 14.
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, 11 and 12 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 6, 8 of copending Application No. 19/062,345. 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
(19/062,346)
Co-pending application
(19/062,345)
Similarities
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.
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.
Both the instant claim and co-pending claim are directed to competitive game elements of a first and second type, and a condition involving registration of a first type game element.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Both the instant claim and co-pending claim are directed to a matching control that does not match a first player with the second player that was most recently matched with the first player.
As shown above, the instant claims (1, 11, and 12) of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims (6, 8, and 1) of co-pending Application No. 19/062,345 respectively, because the instant claims recite overlapping subject matter directed to the same inventive concept as recited in claims 6, 8, and 1 of the ‘345 application. Although the claims are not identical , the instant claims (1, 11, and 12) and the claims of the co-pending application are of overlapping scope and are not patentably distinct. Specifically, the instant application recites substantially the same claimed invention as recited in claim 1 of the co-pending ‘345 application, both of which are directed to a matchmaking system where a player can request a match in a competitive game based on a first type and second type elements. The differences in the claims are not patentably distinct because the claims of the instant application are directed to constructing a and registering a competitive deck and using the registered deck information in the player matching process, including preferential matching based on different first type game elements and additional matching criteria; while the co-pending claims are directed to a player and opponent matching framework in a competitive game, including matching based on first and second type elements, rank and/or attribute information, and opponent display and selection control. 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, 11 and 12 of the instant application us not patentably distinct from claim(s) 1, 6, 8 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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is 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-statutory 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-statutory subject matter. Claims 8 and 9 is/are directed to a machine and system which is/are one of the statutory categories of invention.
[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 recite a program, claim(s) 8 recites a communication terminal and claim 9 recites a gaming system for performing steps including building a competitive deck from a player’s selections, sending a matching request, and pairing players by criteria. 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., ). The recited steps therefor 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 1-14 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 “matching server,” and “communication terminal,” and “gaming system” 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, specifically, networked video game matchmaking, (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, matching server, communication terminal are under their broadest reasonable interpretation, conventional tools for implementing the abstract idea. The specification discloses that the control unit 101 and the server control unit 201 are each a central processing unit that executes a program stored in a storage device (Pg. 5, Hardware Configuration of Player terminal; “A control unit 101 is a processor such as a central processing unit (CPU), and performs various types of control including control of operation ” and Pg. 7, Hardware Configuration of Server; “A server control unit 201 is a processor such as a CPU, and performs control relating to achievement of various functions including control of operation”). 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 1-14 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim(s) 2-7, and 10-14 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 dependent claims recite no additional limitations. For example, claim(s) 2 and 3 further define rules governing whether the first type and second type game elements registered in the deck may be changed before and during the match; claim(s) 5 and 6 further define selecting and registering game elements during construction; and claims 10-14 further define the matching criteria. The claims recite further rules and conditions for the game, and thus falls within the same abstract idea without adding significantly more.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14 is/are rejected for being unpatentable under 103 over Inagaki et al., (JP 2023124466 A) herein after Inagaki, in view of Maeda et al., (US 20230173390 A1) hereinafter Maeda.
In regards to claim 1, Inagaki teaches a program causing a computer that conducts a match in a competitive game where players play against each other to perform processes comprising (Pg. 16, par. [4]; “Here, a "competitive game" is, for example, a computer game in which a user competes with an opponent to determine the winner or loser. For example, an online competitive game played between game terminals 10 of a plurality of users connected via a network corresponds to an example of a "competitive game".”) and (Pg. 22-23; par. [10]; “In the processing described below, a game program stored in a storage device (ROM 12, RAM 13, auxiliary storage device 14, ROM 32, RAM 33, or auxiliary storage device 34, etc.) is executed by the control unit 110”)
a construction process for constructing a competitive deck to be used in the match on a basis of an operation input by a player (Pg. 1, Abstract; “A registration part registers a plurality of use objects including at least one object on the basis of a user's operation.”) and (Pg. 15, par. [8]; “The registration unit 111 has a function of registering a plurality of usage targets including at least one object based on a user's operation.”) and (Pg. 23, par. [2]; “the CPU 11 stores and registers training player orders in a storage device…based on the user's operation.”).
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 (Pg. 11, par. [1]; “The top screen G300 of FIG. 4 includes a matching button B304 for requesting matching. When the matching button B304 is tapped, the user's game terminal 10 sends a matching request with the aforementioned condition setting to the server 30 .”) and (Pg. 23, par. [10]; “the CPU 11 transmits to the server 30 a matching request accompanied by the setting of matching conditions…The matching request data transmitted from the game terminal 10 to the server 30 includes the condition setting information and the user ID.”)
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 (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 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.
wherein a game element of the first type and a game element of the second type can be registered to the competitive deck (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. Then, the hybrid order may be associated with at least part of the matching game conditions in the same manner as the training player order and event character order.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mixed order is a competitive deck in which at least one training player and at least one event character are both registered.
Inagaki teaches transmitting the matching request upon a matching button input carrying the registered order (Pg. 23-24, par. [10]; “CPU 11 transmits to the server 30 a matching request accompanied by the setting of matching conditions. By tapping the matching button B304 on the top screen G300 of FIG. 4, the user can make a matching request accompanied by the matching condition setting. The matching request data transmitted from the game terminal 10 to the server 30 includes the condition setting information and the user ID.”) and that a mixed order includes at least one training player (e.g., first type).
Inagaki does not explicitly teach 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.
However, Maeda teaches that the terminal transmits the matching request in response to a matching start input (Par. [0194]; “when an input of designating the start button image 59 is performed by the user, the terminal apparatus 2 transmits, to the server 1, a matching request based on the matching condition and the game setting designated at that time. Specifically, the terminal apparatus 2 transmits, to the server 1, the matching request including information regarding the user… information of the use character and the captain skill, information of the matching condition”) and (Par. [0195] further teaches that the transmission is conditioned on the designated use character satisfying the applicable condition; “In the exemplary embodiment, even when a matching start instruction has been performed, if the use character designated at that time (i.e., the use character displayed in the use character area 50) does not satisfy the designated matching condition (i.e., the matching condition represented by the matching condition image 53), the terminal apparatus 2 does not transmit a matching request…In the above case, the terminal apparatus 2 notifies the user that the use character does not satisfy the matching condition, or performs a notification that urges the user to designate a use character or a matching condition again.”)
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 Maeda’s transmission restriction condition with Inagaki’s mixed order and matching framework in order to transmit the matching request on the condition that a first type element (e.g., training player) is registered in the deck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Inagaki and Maeda because both references are directed to matching players in a competitive game who compete using player selected objects and characters; and transmit a matching request that includes information regarding the selected objects and matching condition. The combination would prevent transmission of a matching request for decks lacking the required first type element.
In regards to claim 4, Inagaki further teaches the program according to claim 2, wherein, in the conduct process, the match is conducted on a condition that the competitive deck include one game element of the first type and one or more 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 regards to claim 5, Inagaki teaches the program according to Claim 1, wherein, in the construction process, game elements selected from among game elements associated with the player through an operation input by the player are registered to the competitive deck (Pg. 5, section 2-1. par. [6]; “The event character acquired by the user in the game is associated with the user ID as the user's possessed character, stored in a storage device (database DB, auxiliary storage device 14, auxiliary storage device 34, etc.) and managed in the game system 1.”) and (Pg. 15, par. [3]; Fig. 14; “This possessed character data DT105 is data indicating information of a character possessed by the user (that is, a character associated with the user's user ID).”) and (pg. 23, par. [2]; “The user can tap the player-to-be-trained order edit button B301 on the top screen G300 of the real-time battle mode illustrated in FIG. 4 to open the player-to-be-trained order edit screen G400 illustrated in FIG. 5, edit and register the player-to-be-trained order.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Inagaki discloses that only the user’s possessed characters that are associated with the user’s ID, area available for selection. The user editing and registering the order through user taps reads on game elements selected from among game elements associated with the player.
In regards to claim 6, Inagaki teaches the program according to claim 1, wherein, in the construction process, one or more decks to be used in the match is constructable, the program further causing the computer to perform processes comprising: a selection process for selecting one of the one or more decks as the competitive deck on a basis of an operation input by the player (Pg. 17, par. [6]; “For example, if a plurality of decks corresponding to a plurality of leagues are registered in advance, each deck that the user wishes to use may be set as a "game condition".”) and (Pg. 19, par. [2]; “FIG. 17 shows an example in which a total of 6 team orders, ie, 3 event character orders and 3 training player orders, can be registered.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Inagaki teaches a plurality of decks whereby a user designates a desired pre-registered deck as the applicable game condition for a given match reads on the limitation of claim 6 because selecting which registered deck to apply is a player input selection of one deck from among a variety of constructed decks.
In regards to claim(s) 8 and 9, claim(s) 8 and 9 recite a communication terminal and a gaming system, respectively. The claims recite the same limitations as claim 1, performed in an apparatus and system. Inagaki teaches a game terminal 10 (Pg. 2, par. [1]; “A game terminal 10 operated by a user is a computer used by the user to play a game.”), (Pg. 2, par. [9]; “The CPU 11 interprets and executes commands of the game program, and controls the game terminal 10 as a whole.”) and a gaming system (Pg. 1, Game system configuration section; “This game system 1 includes a plurality of game terminals 10-n…and a server 30.”) that perform the construction or registration and matching request transmission framework as described in claim 1. Maeda teaches that the terminal does not transmit the matching request unless the designated use character satisfies the applicable condition (Par. [0195]). Therefore, claims 8 and 9 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
In regards to claim 10, Inagaki teaches the gaming system according to claim 9, wherein the matching server includes matching means for matching, for the match, a specified number of players selected from among players corresponding to received matching requests on a basis of a plurality of matching criteria, and wherein the communication terminal further includes conduct means for conducting the match in which the specified number of players participate on a condition that the matching means have matched the specified number of players (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.”). 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.
In regards to claim 11, Inagaki teaches 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 (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 rank, 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.
In regards to claim 14, Inagaki teaches the gaming system according to claim 10, wherein attribute information is associated with each of the players, wherein the plurality of matching criteria includes a criterion relating to a degree of similarity of the attribute information associated with each of the players, and wherein the matching means matches the specified number of players associated with same or similar attribute information (Pg. 12, par. [6]; “In addition, 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. 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.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, game levels and team ranks are attribute information associated with each player, preferentially matching users with similar game levels and team ranks reads on matching players associated with the same attribute information.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (JP 2023124466 A) in view of Maeda (US 20230173390 A1), and further in view of Flesh and Blood (Tournament Rules and Policy (preview)).
In regards to claim 2, Inagaki teaches the program according to Claim 1, further causing the computer to perform processes comprising: a conduct process for conducting the match with the opponent on a condition that the matching server have matched the player with the opponent (Pg. 24, par. [1]; “After transmitting the matching request to the server 30, the game terminal 10 enters a standby state until matching is established.”) and (Pg. 24, par. [5]; “In the present embodiment, the match is started when both of the matched users A and B operate the match start button B632 within the time limit (S112).”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Inagaki’s teaching of conducting the match only after, and on the condition that, the server has matched the player with the opponent reads on this claim limitation.
Inagaki teaches registering two element types to the competitive game (Pg. 21, par. [4]; “the objects included in the usage target may include at least a first object and a second object of different types.”), as well as an editable pre-match construction process.
Inagaki does not explicitly teach a change to the game element of the first type registered in the competitive deck is unacceptable, but a change to the game element of the second type registered to the competitive deck is acceptable. However, Flesh and Blood discloses tournament rules and policies in a game consisting of a hero card (e.g., first type) and deck cards (e.g., second type) (Pg. 48, sections 7.2 and 7.4; “A Player’s classic constructed card-pool comprises 1 non-young hero card and a combined maximum of 80 arena-cards and deck-cards.”) that defines a first type element is locked for the entire event once registered (pg. 48, section 8.2; “Players must choose and register the hero they will play before the end of deck construction, and must play as that hero for the entire format.”) and that the second type (e.g., non-hero deck cards) can be modified, as part of the start of match procedure (Pg. 10, section 3.3, “Each Player selects the deck-cards from their card-pool that will become their deck (i.e. cards that start in the deck zone)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply Flesh and Blood’s element specific registration convention to Inagaki’s matchmaking and pre-match construction process because Inagaki already discloses the matchmaking and construction framework, and Flesh and Blood supplies distinguishing which registered element may be changed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Flesh and Blood’s teachings to Inagaki would produce the claimed limitation whereby the first type element remains unchanged during construction, while the second type elements remain adjustable.
In regards to claim 3, claim 3 depends on claim 2, therefore the rejections set forth above with respect to claim(s) 2 is applied here. The combination of Inagaki and Flesh and Blood already establish that the first type element may not be modified or changed during construction and the entirety of the game (pg. 48, section 8.2; “play as that hero for the entire format”).
Flesh and Blood further teaches wherein, in the construction process while the match is being conducted, changes to the game element of the first type and the game element of the second type registered in the competitive deck is not acceptable (Pg. 26, section 4.10; “A Player’s inventory is a group of cards that is a subset of the Player’s registered card-pool but is not being used in the current game. During the start-of-game procedure for each game (see Section 3.3- Start-of-Match Procedure)”).
For the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 2, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Flesh and Blood’s restrictive condition during the game to lock both element types. The combination would have been an application of a known technique to yield predictable results of a fixed configuration during the game.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (JP 2023124466 A), in view of Maeda (US 20230173390 A1) and further in view of Sarudate et al., (JP 2020121097 A) hereinafter Sarudate.
In regards to claim 7, Inagaki does not explicitly teach that the first type element has a plurality of effects that switch in accordance with a progress parameter, or that the second type element has one non-switching effect.
However, Sarudate teaches an element (e.g., buddy) whose behavior varies in accordance with the progress of the game. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the labels “first type” and “second type” are arbitrary; Sarudate labels the card as its “first game element” and the buddy as its “second game element,” (Pg. 3, par. [3]; “If the first game element is, for example, a card, the second game element autonomously or voluntarily determines the selection or action of the card held by the player in the match in the game.” and “although it is the second game element, the players A and B can obtain it by selecting their favorite buddy from a plurality of second game elements (hereinafter referred to as buddies) at the time of account registration”).
Sarudate teaches wherein a progress parameter for determining whether each of the players playing against each other in the match is able to continue to play the match is set for the player (Pg. 6, par. [4]; “The turn consisting of such a series of phases is alternately repeated by the player A side and the opponent player B side, and the life of either player or buddy becomes 0, or the number of cards in the deck becomes 0. The winning or losing is decided by this.”). Sarudate’s teaches that the “life” of a player is a progress parameter that determines whether the match can continue, the win or loss is decided when a player’s or buddy’s life reaches zero.
wherein the game element of the first type is a game element for which a plurality of effects that switches in accordance with the progress parameter is set (Pg. 3, par. [4]; “the second game element has character information. This character information is attribute information of the second game element. The character information affects the autonomous or spontaneous behavior of the second game element (use of the first game element).”) and (Pg. 18, par. [9]; “The second game element has a plurality of parameters that change based on predetermined conditions related to the game. The plurality of parameters influences the autonomous or spontaneous behavior of the second game element (use of the first game element). In other words, the character information is the ability and personality of the second game element, and the autonomous or voluntary action (use of the first game element) of the second game element is caused by the difference between the ability and the personality. It is different. Then, this character information changes in accordance with the progress of the game so that the person grows through various experiences. For example, the character information is changed by achieving a predetermined condition related to the game.”). Sarudate teaches that the buddy is an element for which a plurality of effects switches based on a progress parameter.
wherein the game element of the second type is a game element for which one effect that does not switch in accordance with the progress parameter is set (Pg. 3, par. [7]; “In each card, ability parameter values such as a level, offensive power, and HP used for competitive play (battle) with a computer-controlled enemy character or an opponent such as another player are defined.”). Sarudate teaches that the card is a fixed element and that each card is assigned a predetermined effect applied by the card’s action that is not tied to the life or progress parameter.
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 Inagaki’s two element types with Sarudate’s teachings of one element type having a plurality of effects that switch with a progress parameter and the other has a fixed effect to increase the variety and interest of the competitive experience as Sarudate describes (Pg. 19, par. [4]; “Since the second game element has a plurality of parameters as described above, a wide variety of second game elements are generated depending on the progress of the game of the player…in the above-described first embodiment becomes a battle with more variation.”). The combination applies a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (JP 2023124466 A), in view of Maeda (US 20230173390 A1) and further in view of Takahashi (US 7914380 B2).
In regards to claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, therefore the rejection set forth above with respect to claim 11 is applied here.
Inagaki teaches matching on various criteria and/or conditions but does not explicitly teach 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.
However, Takahashi teaches storing an identifier of prior opponents and sending a matchup request if the opponent is not a previous opponent (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.”).
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 Takahashi’s criterion of not matching previous and/or the most recent opponent into Inagaki’s matching process to avoid consecutive rematches and to increase the variety of matches. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognize that the combination adds a known matching criteria to a system already performing matching based on multiple conditions, yielding predictable results.
In regards to claim 13, claim 13 depends on claim 12, therefore the rejections set forth above with respect to claim(s) 11 and 12 is applied here.
Inagaki teaches wherein, among the plurality of matching criteria, the criterion relating to the matching frequency between the same players is given priority over the criterion relating to the game element of the first type (Pg. 12, par. [5]; “In addition, when matching users who have set both the use order condition and the number of innings condition to "Random", for example, the use order and the number of innings may be determined randomly, or may be set in advance. The order of use and the number of innings may be determined according to priority.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Inagaki teaches applying multiple conditions with an order or priority among them. Inagaki’s priority scheme reasonably encompasses prioritizing the matching frequency criterion over the first type criterion.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-14 is/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