DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 -14 are all within at least one of the four categories of invention, and have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1 - 14 recites at least one step or instruction for mapping the start location of a player during game play which is grouped as a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve concepts performed in the human mind, namely observation, evaluation and judgement, which are mental processes and managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions, which are methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 14 recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A method performed by a computing device including one or more processors, the method comprising:
providing a map of a field where game play will take place to a plurality of users before a game starts;
obtaining information about a game start location selected by each of at least one user of the plurality of users on the map from the at least one user; and
placing a game character of each of the plurality of users on the field based on the
game start location when the game starts.
Accordingly, as indicated above in bold, the above-identified claim (and the computing device of claim 8) recites an abstract idea. Further, dependent Claims 2 – 7 and 9 - 14 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 8 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 7 and 9 - 14) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 8), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of one or more processors, a memory, a computing device as recited in independent Claims 1 and 8 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Furthermore, processors and the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 8 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 7 and 9 - 14) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract
idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.
one or more processors, a memory, a computing device as recited in independent claims 1 and 8). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 8 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 7 and 9 - 14) are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the Claims 1 - 14 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: one or more processors, a memory, a computing device as recited in the independent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components
which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic
functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as
well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner
(e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev.
Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Like SAP America vs InvestPic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 – 14 amounts to
mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or
other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or
transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the
fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does
not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing
technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a
technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification
for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or
upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide
sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention
as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of
how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the
prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution
that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d
1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide
sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any
technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 1 – 14 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1 - 14 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements
do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified
additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 8 (and their dependent claims) do not add
significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other
additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional
elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these
above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed
functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of
generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept
sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the
above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful
limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea
such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 - 14 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a
technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 1 – 14 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea
itself.
Accordingly, claims 1 - 14 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as
being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme
Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur (US Patent No. 11,033,818) in view of Herring et al. (US Patent No. 10,846,991).
As per claim 1, Hur discloses a method performed by a computing device including one or more processors (a game server 100 comprising a memory 110 and a processor 120 that executes stored instructions to provide the game, see Fig. 1, “the processor 120 may include hardware configuration of MPU... or CPU”), the method comprising: providing a map of a field where game play will take place to a plurality of users before a game starts (the game is provided to a plurality of users via multiple player devices 200, and before the match starts (in the “first state”), each user is shown the game map on which the match will be played: “the specific users may view information on the game map, where the specific match is to be played, by using the minimap even in the first state before the specific match starts”, see Fig. 1 and 4B and Col. 11, lines 8 - 14); placing a game character of each of the plurality of users on the field based on the game start location when the game starts (when the match starts (i.e., the “second state” in which “the users play the matches as the players”), the server determines each player's starting position and each player's avatar is placed at, or descends from, that starting position onto the field: “a process of determining each of starting positions of each of the specific players in the second state” (step S206-2), and “each of avatars, corresponding to each of the specific players, carried by each of objects is displayed on each of the starting positions,” with the avatars descending toward the field “to allow the specific players to play the specific match”, see Fig. 5A)
Hur does not expressly disclose obtaining information about a game start location selected by each of at least one user of the plurality of users on the map from the at least one user.
Herring et al. teaches a system providing a virtual environment hosting a player avatar, wherein the player may also be able to select a virtual game play location from a map, where the processor “displays images of a map showing a number of selectable locations” and the player confirms a selected location on that map (see Fig. 7 and step 501).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the determination of each player's starting position in Hur with each user selects his or her own game start location on the game map in view of Herring et al. in order to obtain the predictable result of a player-selected starting position.
As per claim 2, Hur in view of Herring et al. teaches the obtaining comprises: providing an opportunity to select the game start location on the map for a first time period to the plurality of users; and providing an opportunity to change the game start location selected for the first time period for a second time period after the first time period ends to the plurality of users. In the combined system, users select a game start location (Herring et al.) during Hur's pre-match “first state,” which is a bounded waiting period counted down to zero before the match starts (Hur, Fig. 4A, remaining waiting time 402).
It would have been obvious to provide a first period in which a user makes the selection and a subsequent period in which the user may revise it before the selection is locked in at match start, because providing a window to make a selection followed by a window to confirm or modify that selection before commitment is a predictable and well-known arrangement of a user-selection interface, and doing so yields the predictable benefit of allowing the user to reconsider the selection in response to information (e.g., selections of other users) before the match begins.
As per claim 3, Hur in view of Herring et al. teaches the placing comprises placing the game character of each of the plurality of users at a location corresponding to the game start location selected by each of the plurality of users on the field (in the combination of Hur and Herring et al., each user selects a game start location on the map (Herring et al.), and each user's avatar is placed at its starting position when the match starts (Hur, Fig. 2: S206 and FIG. 5A). Because Herring et al. teaches that game play begins at the location the player selected (“game play beginning in a virtual castle” following selection), the combination places each user's character at the location corresponding to that user's selection.
As per claim 4, Hur discloses the placing further comprises, if one or more of the plurality of users have not selected the game start location, placing the game character of each of the one or more users at a random location on the field (determining a player's position on the field by random selection: the second algorithm may be “an algorithm in which the specific set of the coordinates is randomly selected among predetermined sets of coordinate candidates” (see Fig. 2: step S204).
As per claim 5, Hur discloses the obtaining comprises displaying a game start location selected by a user of the same team among the plurality of users on the map (displaying selected/positional information to the players on the map (see Fig. 5B, minimap 510 displaying the permitted area 511, current location 512, and trajectory 513).
As per claim 6, Hur discloses wherein the providing comprises displaying a placement location of a specific field object on the map (displays object/area information on the map provided to the players: the minimap displays the specific permitted area 511 and the trajectory 513 of the object, and objects indicating the perimeter may be displayed on the game map (Hur, FIG. 5A-5B and Col. 11, line 21 – Col. 12, line 17).
As per claim 7, Hur does not expressly disclose the specific field object includes an object which is placed at a specific location within the field at a game start time, or which is deterministically generated at a specific location within the field at a predetermined time after the start of the game, or for which at least one of generation time, generation location, and whether-or-not-to-generate is randomly determined, or for which at least one of generation time, generation location, and whether-or-not-to-generate is determined based on the game progress situation.
Herring et al. teaches a system providing a virtual environment hosting a player avatar, wherein an object placed at a specific location within the field, feature game map data 407 specifies where game objects are located within the virtual location, and prize data 408 specifies where prizes are located, such that objects/prizes are placed at specific locations for the game-play session (see Fig. 4 and feature game map data 407 and feature game prize data 408 and Col. 11, lines 42 - 56).
As per claims 8 – 14, the instant claims are a computing device in which corresponds to the method of claims 1 – 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~9 - ~5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ANKIT B. DOSHI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights