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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “An information processor comprising: a controller configured to switch a game state, depending on a predetermined condition, between (i) a first game state in which a first game which requires a bet is executed and (ii) a second game state in which a second game which does not require the bet is executed, the game state including the first game state and the second game state; and a display configured to display how the first game and the second game progress, and the controller being configured to: determine the number of execution times of the second game in the second game state; when the second game is executed an initial predetermined number of times in the second game state, set the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game to a value obtained by subtracting one from an initial value each time the second game is executed, the initial value being set to be smaller than the number of execution times of the second game, the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game being displayed on the display as the remaining number of game plays of the second game; and set the actual remaining number of game plays of the second game as the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game when the second game is executed after the second game has been executed the initial predetermined number of times in the second game state” (Claim 1); “A game control method executed by a computer, comprising: a process of switching, depending on a predetermined condition, a game state between (i) a first game state in which a first game which requires a bet is executed and (ii) a second game state in which a second game which does not require the bet is executed, the game state including the first game state and the second game state; a process of displaying how the first game and the second game progress on a display; a process of determining the number of execution times of the second game in the second game state; when the second game is executed an initial predetermined number of times in the second game state, a process of setting the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game to a value obtained by subtracting one from an initial value each time the second game is executed, the initial value being set to be smaller than the number of execution times of the second game, the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game being displayed on the display as the remaining number of game plays of the second game; and a process of setting the actual remaining number of game plays of the second game as the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game when the second game is executed after the second game has been executed the initial predetermined number of times” (Claim 5); and “A game control method executed by a computer, comprising: a process of switching, depending on a predetermined condition, a game state between (i) a first game state in which a first game which requires a bet is executed and (ii) a second game state in which a second game which does not require the bet is executed, the game state including the first game state and the second game state; a process of displaying how the first game and the second game progress on a display; a process of determining the number of execution times of the second game in the second game state; and a process of executing the second game the number of all the execution times in the second game state while a value smaller than the number of the execution times of the second game is repeatedly counted down” (Claim 6). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity, particularly, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for or to switch from a first game state for a first bet game to a second game state for a non-bet second game and manage a display-use remaining number of game plays for the second game). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping). In this case, instructions or rules to switch a game state, depending on a predetermined condition, between (i) a first game state in which a first game which requires a bet is executed and (ii) a second game state in which a second game which does not require the bet is executed, the game state including the first game state and the second game state; determine the number of execution times of the second game in the second game state; when the second game is executed an initial predetermined number of times in the second game state, set the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game to a value obtained by subtracting one from an initial value each time the second game is executed, the initial value being set to be smaller than the number of execution times of the second game, the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game being displayed on the display as the remaining number of game plays of the second game; and set the actual remaining number of game plays of the second game as the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game when the second game is executed after the second game has been executed the initial predetermined number of times in the second game state (Claim 1); switching, depending on a predetermined condition, a game state between (i) a first game state in which a first game which requires a bet is executed and (ii) a second game state in which a second game which does not require the bet is executed, the game state including the first game state and the second game state; determining the number of execution times of the second game in the second game state; when the second game is executed an initial predetermined number of times in the second game state, a process of setting the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game to a value obtained by subtracting one from an initial value each time the second game is executed, the initial value being set to be smaller than the number of execution times of the second game, the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game being displayed on the display as the remaining number of game plays of the second game; and a process of setting the actual remaining number of game plays of the second game as the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game when the second game is executed after the second game has been executed the initial predetermined number of times (Claim 5); and/or switching, depending on a predetermined condition, a game state between (i) a first game state in which a first game which requires a bet is executed and (ii) a second game state in which a second game which does not require the bet is executed, the game state including the first game state and the second game state; determining the number of execution times of the second game in the second game state; and a process of executing the second game the number of all the execution times in the second game state while a value smaller than the number of the execution times of the second game is repeatedly counted down (Claim 6) pertain to concepts performed via fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). Additionally, the limitations pertaining to “a display configured to display how the first game and the second game progresses” (Claim 1); “a process of displaying how the first and the second game progress on a display” (Claim 5); “a process of displaying how the first game and the second game progress on a display” (Claim 6) is recited at a low level of generality and amounts to mere post solution outputting (via a display), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claimed computer components (processor, controller, display, computer) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of a “processor”, “controller”, “display”, and/or “computer”) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the information processor and/or game control method(s) and/or medium or the extent to which a computer performs/implements the information processor and/or game control method(s). The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-4 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cuddy (US 2008/0153584).
Claim 6: Cuddy discloses a game control method executed by a computer (¶ 36-40), comprising: a process of switching, depending on a predetermined condition (an achievement of a triggering event (¶ 58) in the primary game or first game), a game state between (i) a first game state in which a first game which requires a bet is executed (¶ 10, 44-46, 52-56, 71) and (ii) a second game state in which a second game (bonus round) which does not require the bet is executed (¶ 58-60), the game state including the first game state and the second game state (see above); a process of displaying how the first game and the second game progress on a display (see above, ¶ 40-43); a process of determining the number of execution times of the second game in the second game state (¶ 74); and a process of executing the second game the number of all the execution times (3 execution times/rounds) in the second game state while a value smaller than the number of the execution times of the second game is repeatedly counted down (¶ 75-81, here the value is 2 wherein the first execution time is then initiated; then the value is counted down to 1 wherein the second execution time is then initiated; and then the value is counted down to 0 wherein the third execution time is then initiated).
Best Applicable Prior Art
In regards to Claims 1 and 5, Cuddy (US 2008/0153584) teaches an information processor comprising: a controller configured (encompasses game control method) to switch a game state, depending on a predetermined condition, between (i) a first game state in which a first game which requires a bet is executed and (ii) a second game state in which a second game which does not require the bet is executed, the game state including the first game state and the second game state; and a display (encompasses game control method) configured to display how the first game and the second game progress, and the controller being configured to: determine the number of execution times of the second game in the second game state (see above).
Cuddy teaches the above, but fails to teach, in combination, when the second game is executed an initial predetermined number of times in the second game state, set the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game to a value obtained by subtracting one from an initial value each time the second game is executed, the initial value being set to be smaller than the number of execution times of the second game, the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game being displayed on the display as the remaining number of game plays of the second game; and set the actual remaining number of game plays of the second game as the display-use remaining number of game plays of the second game when the second game is executed after the second game has been executed the initial predetermined number of times in the second game state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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 (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights