Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Amendment filed on 4/30/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-24, and 26-29 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 4 and 25 stand cancelled. Claims 1, 10, 13, 18, 24, 26, and 28 have been amended. The prior art rejection and previous 112a rejections have been overcome by amendment.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/30/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim of priority to provisional US Application 63027179 is acknowledged. However, the provisional application does not provide support for at least the steps of: a game environment is updated in real time across all users present in the game environment, such that a device of each said user reflects the location and characteristics of other simultaneously connected users; maintaining a database of user payment accounts linked to gaming accounts such that a single gaming account identity maps to both in-game virtual currency and real-world payment credentials; upon conclusion of a gaming session, automatically contacting multiple physical world stores via their respective digital storefronts from which items were purchased during a single gaming session and transmitting payment authorization to each such store based on items purchased at that store's virtual representation during the session; the payment system automatically tracks purchase patterns derived from user navigation and interaction within the game environment and generates targeted advertisements based on a combination of gaming behavior including in-game navigation paths and item interactions and purchasing history; creating temporary virtual pop-up stores within the game, wherein at least one temporary virtual pop-up store is limited to a select number of users; in claims 1, 13, and 24, and the further steps of providing a user an option to play a game-in-game within the online game; and offering options to the user in the game-in-game to allow the user to modify an avatar, pay an entrance fee, play against other users or groups of users, create a temporary avatar, or hire a mercenary for the game-in-game in Claim 13.
The claims are therefore afforded an effective filing date of 3/24/2021.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13, and 24 recite that “a game environment is updated in real time across all users present in the game environment, such that a device of each said user reflects the location and characteristics of other simultaneously connected users,” “maintaining a database of user payment accounts linked to gaming accounts such that a single gaming account identity maps to both in-game virtual currency and real-world payment credentials,” “upon conclusion of a gaming session, automatically contacting multiple physical world stores via their respective digital storefronts from which items were purchased during a single gaming session and transmitting payment authorization to each such store based on items purchased at that store's virtual representation during the session,” and “coordinating payment processing via a payment server that concurrently processes both virtual currency transactions for in-game items and real-world currency transactions for physical products within a game session, wherein the payment system automatically tracks purchase patterns derived from user navigation and interaction within the game environment and generates targeted advertisements based on a combination of gaming behavior including in-game navigation paths and item interactions and purchasing history.” The subject matter of the claim does not conform to the disclosure in such a manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such system/method as being that which Applicant adequately described as the invention or what applicant actually had possession of at the time of the invention. A review of the disclosure does not provide support for these limitations; while the Specification supports the ability to “make real-time purchases” [0007], that “users may move around the game together …meet at a particular location at a particular time… go shopping together,” [0054], that “the in-game payment system may contact the various stores from which items were purchased and arrange payment via the payment server,” [0049], that “the in-game payment system may be tied to the user's gaming account and personal credit cards or other payment accounts …the in-game payment system may provide loyalty points …the in-game payment system may track a user's purchases and offer directed advertisements,” [0042] that it does not support the recited limitations identified above. In other words, while the disclosure supports user navigation, the system contacting stores, users shopping together, and directed ads, it does not support real-time game environment updates, the mapping and use of both in-game virtual currency and real-world payment credentials, a gaming session with respective steps happening during and after the session, operations occurring without additional action/transaction, or advertisements based on navigation paths, item interactions, and purchasing history, let alone in the specific manner claimed. It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection.
Claims 2-3, 5-12, 14-23, and 26-29 depend on Claims 1, 13, and 24 and are rejected on the same basis.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to for the following informality: “wherein, after the first user purchases the first product, initiates two results without any additional action by the first user…” should be a separate method step that does not start with “wherein.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 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 1-3, and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-3 and 5-12 are directed to a machine. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-12 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as recited in MPEP 2106.
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
a game, wherein the game includes at least a first store representation of a first physical world store;
wherein the game transmits, in real time, game play and commerce transaction data reflecting a location of each user within the game, identity and characteristics, and in-game store interactions to all users during a gaming session, such that a game environment is updated in real time across all users present in the game environment, such that each said user reflects the location and characteristics of other simultaneously connected users, and
wherein the first store representation offers a first product or a first service to a first user for purchase from within the game; and,
wherein:
if the first user selects the first product, a product purchase of the first product from the first store representation initiates two results without any additional action by the first user, namely both (1) the first product being purchased within the game and transferred to the first user in the game, rendering the first product to the first user within the game environment, and (2) the first product being transferred in the physical world to the first user without requiring any additional purchase transaction by the first user;
if the first user selects the first service, a service purchase of the first service initiates two results without any additional action by the first user, namely both (1) the first service being purchased within the game and (2) the first service being performed in the physical
wherein the first product or the first service is provided to the user;
wherein the system further comprises an in-game payment system for maintaining a storage of user payment accounts linked to gaming accounts such that a single gaming account identity maps to both in-game currency and real-world payment credentials;
upon conclusion of a gaming session, contacting multiple physical world stores via their respective storefronts from which items were purchased during a single gaming session and transmitting payment authorization to each such store based on items purchased at that store’s representation during the session; and
coordinating payment processing via a payment means that concurrently processes both currency transactions for in-game items and real-world currency transactions for physical products within a game session, wherein the payment system tracks purchase patterns derived from user navigation and interaction within the game environment and generates targeted advertisements based on the combination of gaming behavior including in-game navigation paths and item interactions and purchasing history, and
wherein the system includes pop-up store access control for creating temporary stores within the game, wherein at least one temporary pop-up store is limited to a select number of users;
wherein the representation of the first physical world store is one of a plurality of physical world stores and the representation of the first physical world store includes a first customizable subset of a larger group of physical world stores; and,
wherein a second user of the game has a second representation that includes a second customized subset that is different than the first customizable subset of the larger group of the plurality of physical world stores.
The above limitations recite the concept of gamified purchasing. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
An e-commerce system compromising a game server communicatively coupled to a network
The game being accessible via the network and hosted by the game server
The game server transmitting data over the network
Ecommerce data
Avatar
User devices connected to the game server via the network
The store representations being online
Alternative reality technology
processors configured to execute computer-executable instructions
A database
Steps being automatic
A payment server
Elements being virtual or digital
technology
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 2-3 and 5-12 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
An e-commerce system compromising a game server communicatively coupled to a network
The game being accessible via the network and hosted by the game server
The game server transmitting data over the network
Ecommerce data
Avatar
User devices connected to the game server via the network
The store representations being online
Alternative reality technology
processors configured to execute computer-executable instructions
A database
Steps being automatic
A payment server
Elements being virtual or digital
technology
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 13-23 are directed to a process. Therefore, claims 13-23 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as recited in MPEP 2106.
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claim 13 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
connecting a first user to the game, wherein the game transmits in real time game play and transaction data reflecting a location of each user within the game, identity and characteristics, and in-game store interactions to all users connected to the game during a gaming session, such that a game environment is updated in real time across all users present in the game environment, such that each said user reflects the location and characteristics of other simultaneously connected users;
providing a user an option to play a game-in-game within the game;
offering options to the user in the game-in-game to allow the user to modify an avatar, pay an entrance fee, play against other users or groups of users, create a temporary avatar, or hire a mercenary for the game-in-game;
providing a first set of stores corresponding to a plurality of physical world stores within the game,
wherein the first set of stores is selectable by a first user of the game;
wherein the first set of stores comprises a customizable subset of stores from a larger set of stores;
offering at least a first product for purchase within a first store;
wherein, after the first user purchases the first product, initiates two results without any additional action by the first user, namely both (1) the first product being provided to the first user within the game by rendering the first product to the first user within the game environment and (2) the first product being provided to the first user in the physical world without requiring any additional purchase transaction by the first user; and
executing an in-game payment process comprising:
maintaining a storage of user payment accounts linked to gaming accounts such that a single gaming account identity maps to both in-game currency and real-world payment credentials;
upon conclusion of a gaming session, contacting multiple physical world stores via their respective storefronts from which items were purchased during a single gaming session and transmitting payment authorization to each such store based on items purchased at that store’s representation during the session; and
coordinating payment processing via a system that concurrently processes both currency transactions for in-game items and real-world currency transactions for physical products within a same session, wherein the payment process tracks purchase patterns derived from user navigation and interaction within the game environment and generates targeted advertisements based on a combination of gaming behavior including in-game navigation paths and item interactions and purchasing history; and,
implementing pop-up store functionality comprising: creating temporary pop-up stores within the game, wherein at least one temporary pop-up store is limited to a select number of users; and
providing the first product in the physical world after the first user purchases the first product in the store within the game.
The above limitations recite the concept of gamified purchasing. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claim 13 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
The game being online
A game server communicatively coupled to a network
Ecommerce data
avatar
devices/user devices
elements being virtual or digital
Alternative reality technology
A database
processors configured with computer-executable instructions
a payment server
steps being automatic
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 14-17 and 21-23 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As for claims 18-20, these claims are similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of further avatars. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
The game being online
A game server communicatively coupled to a network
Ecommerce data
avatar
devices/user devices
elements being virtual or digital
Alternative reality technology
A database
processors configured with computer-executable instructions
a payment server
steps being automatic
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 24 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 24 & 26-29 are directed to an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 24 & 26-29 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as recited in MPEP 2106.
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claim 24 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
connect a first user to a game, wherein the game transmits, in real time, game state data reflecting each user’s position, state, and in-game store interactions to all concurrently connected users, such that a game environment is synchronized across multiple simultaneously connected users;
enter a store within the game and make a purchase of at least a first product within the game, wherein the purchase initiates two results without any additional action by the first user, namely both (1) the first product being provided to the first user within the game with the game rendering the first product to the first user within the game environment, and (2) the first product being provided in a physical world to the first user without requiring any additional purchase transaction by the first user; and,
deliver payment for the purchase of the first product within the game;
execute in-game payment instructions comprising:
maintain a storage of user payment accounts linked to gaming accounts such that a single gaming account identity maps to both in-game currency and real-world payment credentials;
upon conclusion of a gaming session, contact multiple physical world stores via their respective storefronts from which items were purchased during a single gaming session and transmit payment authorization to each such store based on items purchased at that store’s representation during the session; and
coordinate payment processing that concurrently processes both currency transactions for in-game items and real-world currency transactions for physical products within a same session, wherein the payment instructions track purchase patterns derived from user navigation and interaction within the game environment and generate targeted advertisements based on a combination of gaming behavior including in-game navigation paths and item interactions and purchasing history; and
execute pop-up store instructions comprising: creating temporary pop-up stores within the game wherein at least one temporary pop-up store is limited to a select number of users;
wherein the first product is provided to the first user, and the first product is provided in the physical world to the first user, and
wherein the store is one store of a first set of stores corresponding to a plurality of physical world stores to display within the game for a first user, wherein the first set is a subset of all available stores for display within the game, and
wherein a second user of the game has a second set of stores that differs from the first set of stores by at least one store.
The above limitations recite the concept of gamified purchasing. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claim 24 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that are executed by at least one processor of a computing device
The game being hosted by game server via a network
Avatar
User devices
elements being virtual or digital
a database
a payment server
steps being automatic
Alternative reality technology
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 26 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As for claims 27-29, these claims are similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of avatars and 3-dimensional game play. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that are executed by at least one processor of a computing device
The game being hosted by game server via a network
Avatar
User devices
elements being virtual or digital
a database
a payment server
steps being automatic
Alternative reality technology
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Over Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-3, 5-24, and 26-29 are allowable over prior art. The combination of elements and the claim as a whole are not found in the prior art.
Claims 1-3, 5-24, and 26-29 are allowable over prior art though rejected on other grounds (e.g. 112(a) & 101) as discussed above. The combination of elements of the claim as a whole are not found in the prior art.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention. In the present application, claims 1-3, 5-24, and 26-29 are allowable over prior art. The most related prior art patent of record include Fujioka (US 20100211900 A1), , which teaches a virtual shopping mall for multi-player interaction [0035] and multiplayer games and social networking [0037], wherein a server [0048] present a virtual environment with the layout elements of a real-world mall, which can be browsed via specific stores [0036-0038] and navigated to view purchasable products [0029] wherein stores can correspond to respective websites [0051] and user selection of a virtual item can allow the user to also purchase a real-world copy [0029-0030], as well as real-world and virtual services [0049]; wherein user habits and purchases are tracked [0066] and used to make user recommendations [0067] and to handle payments with real-world currency [0068]. It further teaches automatic arrangement of payment to the real retailer behind the virtual store [0051, 0029], and presenting upsell options based on user profile data [0030-0039], as well as limited-time storefronts [0048] and customization of the available storefronts based on user interests and user avatar information [0039], as well as facilitating checkout at respective stores [0040]. The most related prior art patent of record further includes Chung (US 20100082456 A1) which teaches a virtual shopping mall [0019] in which a limited number of users are able to make purchases from a particular store based on inventory [0043]. Further related prior art patents of record further include Denham (US 20160292966 A1) and Siddique et al (US 20130215116 A1) which teach navigable virtual shopping experiences, and Mianji (US 20130296046 A1) which teaches in-game shopping for real goods.
However, none of these references disclose the steps of: maintaining a database of user payment accounts linked to gaming accounts such that a single gaming account identity maps to both in-game virtual currency and real-world payment credentials; upon conclusion of a gaming session, automatically contacting multiple physical world stores via their respective digital storefronts from which items were purchased during a single gaming session and transmitting payment authorization to each such store based on items purchased at that store's virtual representation during the session; and coordinating payment processing via a payment server that concurrently processes both virtual currency transactions for in-game items and real-world currency transactions for physical products within a game session, wherein the payment system automatically tracks purchase patterns derived from user navigation and interaction within the game environment and generates targeted advertisements based on a combination of gaming behavior including in-game navigation paths and item interactions and purchasing history, as claimed.
Each of these references fail to disclose or render obvious the combination of limitations in the dependent claims 1-3, 5-24, and 26-29, alone or in obvious combination. Therefore, at least for the combination of elements recited in claim, claims 1-3, 5-24, and 26-29 are allowable over prior art though rejected on other grounds (e.g. 112(a) and 101) as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC §101
Applicant argues that the claims “do not merely recite the idea of making in-game purchases with real-world fulfillment,” arguing that they instead require “a specific technical architecture for multi-user real-time game state management,” and stating that the claims require an “automatic, session-linked dual-delivery mechanism” that “is not a mental process or an economic process.” Applicant further argues that the claims require “a specific session-scoped store-partitioned, programmatic payment dispatch architecture that has no pre-digital analog.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, the argued ability to perform two actions in response to a product being selected, namely purchasing an in-game version of an item and providing a real-world version as well; and the argued ability to facilitate payments to retailers after a gaming session for purchases initiated by a customer during the session , are part of the abstract idea identified above, which amounts to a concept for gamified purchasing. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that “the amended claims address a particular challenge – coordinating real-time game state synchronization across multiple concurrently connected users while simultaneously managing multi-vendor payment dispatch triggered at session conclusion – that is particular to the architecture of multi-user online gaming commerce and has no real-world brick-and-mortar analog.”
Examiner disagrees. The argued ability to coordinate a game involving multiple players, facilitate in-game purchases, and provide payment following the game session are all part of the abstract idea itself. The additional elements, rather than offering a technological improvement to this abstract idea, or otherwise integrating it into a practical application, provide only a general linking to computer technology, and are invoked as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Applicant further argues that “the combination of technical elements in the amended claims…represents a non-conventional, non-generic arrangement of technical components that is not routine or conventional in the field.”
Examiner disagrees. The additional elements, rather than amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, are invoked as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. At best, the high-generality computer components provide only the improved speed or efficacy inherent to a general purpose computer [MPEP 2106.05(a)]. Examiner notes that some of the argued elements are not present in the claims; for instance, the claims do not recite an “automatic dual-delivery AR rendering pipeline,” or any augmented reality functionality. Furthermore, several of the argued elements, including a “gaming-account-to-payment-credentials mapping” and “session-end multi-store payment authorization dispatch,” are re-phrasing of limitations of the abstract idea, i.e. a gaming account identity that “maps to” in-game currency and real-world payment credentials, and the ability to complete a payment with merchants following the end of a gaming session.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-5 PT.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on (571) 272-6764. 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.
/T.J.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights