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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the Applicant's reply filed 1/22/2026, claims 1-3, 9-13, 20, and 22-24 have been amended, claims 8 and 21 are cancelled, and new claims 25-26 are added. Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15, 16, 20, and 22-26 are pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the argument that the amended claims overcome the 101 rejection because it cannot performed mentally under Step 2A, Prong I (pp. 10-11), the examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, the 101 rejection is updated per the amendment to address that the graphical user interface is additional elements but not amount to significantly more. See infra 101 rejection for further detail.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, 15, 16, 20, and 22-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15, 16, 20, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a graphical user interface through which the user can input a simulated amount of cryptocurrency to purchase and initiate a simulated cryptocurrency transaction in which the simulated amount of cryptocurrency is transferred into a simulated digital wallet of the user, the simulated digital wallet being part of the video game" in lines 16-19. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). In this case the limitation is ambiguous and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement occurs when the graphical user interface is created to allow the user to input, or whether infringement occurs when the user actually enters the input. For the same reason, other independent claims 11 and 20, and dependent claims thereof are rejected as well.
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 1-7, 9-13, 15, 16, 20, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 recite(s):
generating, by a processor, a three-dimensional (3D) virtual world for a video game, the 3D virtual world including game objects and a virtual character representing a use;
moving, by the processor, the virtual character around a virtual space within the 3D virtual world based on directional input from the user, wherein the movement of the virtual character around the virtual space generates an interaction between the virtual character and a game object within the 3D virtual world, wherein the game object is a 3D item displayed in the 3D virtual world, and wherein the interaction involves the virtual character contacting the game object in the 3D virtual world;
detecting, by the processor, the interaction between the virtual character and the game object within the 3D virtual world; and
in response to detecting the interaction:
selecting, by the processor, a learning module from among a plurality of learning modules based on the game object, the learning module being configured to provide a simulation, wherein the simulation includes a graphical user interface1 through which the user can input a simulated amount of trading to purchase and initiate a simulated trading transaction in which the simulated amount of trading is transferred into a simulated digital wallet of the user, the simulated digital wallet being part of the video game; and
executing, by the processor, the learning module to provide the simulation to the user.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor,” “memory” [claim 20], “generating a 3D virtual world[],” “detecting [an interaction],” and “moving, by the processor, the virtual character around a virtual space within the 3D virtual world based on directional input from the user, wherein the movement of the virtual character around the virtual space generates an interaction between the virtual character and a game object within the 3D virtual world, wherein the game object is a 3D item displayed in the 3D virtual world, and wherein the interaction involves the virtual character contacting the game object in the 3D virtual world,” and “graphic user interface [for input]” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a tutor instructing students about cryptocurrency.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, the non-highlighted aforementioned, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the aforementioned additional elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a tutor preparing cryptocurrency tutorials.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “processor,” “memory” [claim 20], “generating a 3D virtual world[],” “detecting [an interaction],” “moving … in the 3D virtual world,” and “graphic user interface [for input].”
The “processor” and “memory” in the aforementioned steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The “generating a 3D virtual world[]” in the aforementioned steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim recites the following additional elements: “detecting [an interaction],” “moving … in the 3D virtual world,” and “graphic user interface.” The additional element step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally linking the use of the aforementioned concept to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned step(s) amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) of generating 3D game environment and navigating a game character in the 3D game environment is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component such as Unreal Engine® by Epic Games®2. Also, any graphic user interface, e.g., Web Brower text field, can be used to receive a user input of amount. Also, the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of displaying information to perform the aforementioned step(s) amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Ameranth, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that displaying data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 16, and 22-26 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitations of “video” [claim 2], “audio” [claim 3], “text” [claim 12], “animated tutorial” [claim 13], and “outputting a graphical overlay [with] graphical objects[]” [claims 4 and 14], which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, insignificant extra-solution activity, or that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. 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. The additional element of “video,” “audio,” “text,” and “animated tutorial” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity or well-known, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) “outputting a graphical overlay [with] graphical objects[]” was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here), and the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Ameranth, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that displaying data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the following common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate: the aforementioned additional elements are well-known, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2144.03 Section C. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, 15, 16, 20, and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminski et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0286403), hereinafter Kaminski in view of Jung et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0106673), hereinafter Jung.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, Kaminski discloses a method/medium/system comprising:
generating, by a processor, a three-dimensional (3D) virtual world for a video game, the 3D virtual world including game objects and a virtual character representing a user (1002, 1006, 1012 in FIG. 10; FIG. 2 illustrates the video game including user information with an avatar 206);
detecting, by the processor, the interaction between the virtual character and the game object within the 3D virtual world (1004, 1008, 1014 in FIG. 10); and
in response to detecting the interaction:
selecting, by the processor, a learning module from among a plurality of learning modules based on the game object, the learning module being configured to provide a simulation (¶19: “the platform may be configured to filter news or articles for the user to assist the user in consuming relevant educational materials that increase the user's investment and stock trading knowledge.”; ¶22: “the articles may be selected based at least in part on a comparison of the content of multiple articles for similar words or phrases. A set of articles that each includes overlapping content may then be selected for publication. In some cases, the platform may identify articles that have similar names, key words, and related market performance data.”; Abstract and ¶35 disclose the content related to cryptocurrency: “During the trading game, each user may have the ability to create custom strategies that are comprised of stocks, bonds, cryptocurrency, and commodities.”; ¶34: “During the trading game, the users may be able to invest the fictional seed money and compete to see who can earn the highest return during the corresponding period of time. Thus, the winner is determined by the user with the most amount of fictional currency in their virtual trading account at the end of each week.”); and
executing, by the processor, the learning module to provide the simulation to the user (1002, 1006, 1012 in FIG. 10).
Kaminski further discloses trading relates to cryptocurrency (¶¶34-35) but does not explicitly disclose moving, by the processor, the virtual character around a virtual space within the 3D virtual world based on directional input from the user, wherein the movement of the virtual character around the virtual space generates an interaction between the virtual character and a game object within the 3D virtual world, wherein the game object is a 3D item displayed in the 3D virtual world, wherein the interaction involves the virtual character contacting the game object in the 3D virtual world, and wherein the simulation includes a graphical user interface through which the user can input a simulated amount of trading to purchase and initiate a simulated trading transaction in which the simulated amount of trading is transferred into a simulated digital wallet of the user, the simulated digital wallet being part of the video game.
Jung discloses educational virtual world game (Abstract, ¶¶14-15, FIG. 8) comprising
moving, by the processor, the virtual character around a virtual space within the 3D virtual world based on directional input from the user, wherein the movement of the virtual character around the virtual space generates an interaction between the virtual character and a game object within the 3D virtual world, wherein the game object is a 3D item displayed in the 3D virtual world, wherein the interaction involves the virtual character contacting the game object in the 3D virtual world (FIG. 42; ¶249: “Referring to the schematic block diagram of FIG. 42, an exemplary virtual world environment 1400 includes a standard VW operational procedure module 1402 that provides various educational, entertainment, and game opportunities for a participant/player 1404 logged on through a virtual world access interface 1406. The participant/player 1404 may take on a virtual world persona such as VW character 1408 as well as participate in other roles in the virtual world environment 1400 as an avatar, virtual shop operator, game facilitator, observer, performer, bogeyman, ombudsman, guide, etc.”; FIG. 8; ¶89: “As shown in FIG. 8, individual players 350 have access via a first bi-directional communication link 352 to a user interface/feedback module 354 with connects through a second bi-directional communication link 356 to a simulated environment 358. Such players can interact with each other or with characters, events, purchase opportunities, competitions, and the like that are provided in the simulated environment 358. The bi-directional communication links also serve to provide player access to products and/or services and/or other items of value that can be acquired pursuant to a virtual credit arrangement”; ¶124: “Various exemplary categories of records may include an ID name and contact address 582 for an authorized user, a fictitious character identity 584 for such user, virtual world credit terms 586 for a particular credit account, virtual credit transactions 587, and virtual world statement status 588.”), and
wherein the simulation includes a graphical user interface through which the user can input a simulated amount of trading to purchase and initiate a simulated trading transaction in which the simulated amount of trading is transferred into a simulated digital wallet of the user, the simulated digital wallet being part of the video game (¶65: “In one aspect of the method and system disclosed herein, a virtual account is provided to a user. The user is enabled to make simulated purchases of goods and/or services and/or items of value.”; ¶73: “The authorized user is enabled to simulated purchases of goods or services or items at predetermined values (block 134). The value of the purchases is posted to an account record (block 135).”; ¶114: “It is to be understood that different categories of purchases may be available to be charged to a virtual credit account, such as[] other items having virtual monetary value, []other items having real monetary value.”; ¶186: “Value categories 1000 for value symbols that may be involved in a virtual world credit transaction or arrangement include, by way of example, virtual currency 1002, discount coupons 1004, award points 1006, access tickets 1008, experience medals 1010, level permits 1012, bonus vouchers 1014, skill merits 1016, as well as other unlisted value symbols 1018. Exemplary data fields for each value symbol may include an owed payable amount 1020 and its related creditor(s) ID 1022, an expected receivable amount 1024 and its related debtor(s) ID 1026”; ¶124: “The schematic illustration of FIG. 14 shows exemplary database records 580 that may be used to practice the business and credit techniques disclosed herein. Various exemplary categories of records may include an ID name and contact address 582 for an authorized user, a fictitious character identity 584 for such user, virtual world credit terms 586 for a particular credit account, virtual credit transactions 587, and virtual world statement status 588.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the invention in Kaminski by adding the educational virtual world game features as taught in Jung in order to provide “educational and entertainment benefits in creating new and challenging ways to relate virtual world environments with real-world experiences” (¶15 of Jung).
Regarding claim 2, Kaminski further discloses that the learning module is further configured to provide an educational tutorial to the user, wherein the educational tutorial includes a video tutorial describing at least one cryptocurrency topic to the user (video in ¶25).
Regarding claim 3, Kaminski further discloses that the learning module is further configured to provide an educational tutorial to the user, wherein the educational tutorial includes an audio tutorial describing at least one cryptocurrency topic to the user (¶24 describes a live stream or recorded content, suggesting that the stream/content includes audio).
Regarding claim 4, Kaminski further discloses that the learning module is configured to output a graphical overlay that includes graphical objects, the graphical overlay being configured to visually overlay at least part of a game screen output to the user, the graphical objects each being selectable by the user to provide the user with additional information about a respective cryptocurrency topic (FIGs 2-9).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kaminski further discloses that each of the game objects is associated with a respective learning module of the plurality of learning modules, each learning module of the plurality of learning modules being executable to provide the user with an educational experience that is different from the other learning modules of the plurality of learning modules (¶20: “To assist with filtering the articles and content for the end user, the platform, discussed herein, may select a set of companies per day (e.g., 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, etc. companies) to focus the educational aspect and the content to, for example, a single industry, topic, or educational theme. By restricting the number of companies and selecting the companies on behalf of the users, the platform is able to curate news around certain events such as earning reports, new product releases, acquisitions, updates, etc. that are focused on the selected companies.”).
Regarding claim 6, Kaminski further discloses that the learning module is only accessible to the user subsequent to the user achieving at least a particular score or game level in the video game (¶30: “if the user is qualified to play the knowledge game (the user is signed up and has answered at least two market sentiment questions)”).
Regarding claim 7, Kaminski further discloses that the game object is only accessible to the user subsequent to the user achieving at least a particular score or game level in the video game (¶30: “if the user is qualified to play the knowledge game (the user is signed up and has answered at least two market sentiment questions)”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kaminski and Jung further teaches that the plurality of learning modules are associated with the game object, and further comprising: determining a type of the interaction between the virtual character and the game object; and selecting the learning module from among the plurality of learning modules based on the type of the interaction, wherein different types of interactions with the game object are mapped to different learning modules of the plurality of learning modules (Kaminski, ¶42: “the knowledge games are unlocking knowledge and potentially exposing the user to companies they did not previously know much about. The ability to interact with the knowledge game gives the user a starting bonus to the trading game each week, which nurtures the highly engaged user with a competitive advantage and additional knowledge.”; Jung, ¶268: “An additional implementation feature may include implementing one or more schedule guideline parameters that pertain to one or more of the following types of virtual world settings or activities or events… class, education, curriculum test, feature film, foreign language, vocabulary program, logic quiz, aptitude training, diagnostic testing, performance assessment, proficiency evaluation, skill improvement, job performance, task performance”).
Regarding claim 10, Kaminski further discloses selecting the learning module from among the plurality of learning modules based on a game level associated with the user, a game score associated with the user, and historical data about tutorials previously viewed by the user (¶30: “if the user is qualified to play the knowledge game (the user is signed up and has answered at least two market sentiment questions)”).
Regarding claim 12, Kaminski further discloses that at least one learning module of the plurality of learning modules includes an educational tutorial, and wherein the educational tutorial includes a textual tutorial describing at least one cryptocurrency topic to the user (¶19: “the platform may be configured to filter news or articles for the user to assist the user in consuming relevant educational materials that increase the user's investment and stock trading knowledge.”).
Regarding claim 13, Kaminski further discloses that at least one learning module of the plurality of learning modules includes an educational tutorial, and wherein the educational tutorial includes an animated tutorial describing at least one cryptocurrency topic to the user (a live stream or recorded content in ¶24).
Regarding claim 16, Kaminski further discloses that the learning module is only accessible to the user subsequent to the user completing at least one other learning module of the plurality of learning modules (¶24: “by answering the questions the users become eligible to participate in a knowledge game (such as, in some cases, a daily game).”; ¶30: “if the user is qualified to play the knowledge game (the user is signed up and has answered at least two market sentiment questions) the game will commence.”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kaminski and Jung further teaches that the game object is a first game object, and further comprising: providing game points to the user for completing the learning module; and based on an input from the user, exchanging the game points for a second game object usable by the virtual character in the video game to perform a game function (Jung, 1196 in FIG. 36 illustrates awarding virtual world benefit in compliance of first event; ¶211: “Possible virtual world benefits may include one or more of the following: virtual world money, virtual items of value, virtual achievement points, virtual character points, more simulated credit transaction opportunities, favorable future virtual credit terms, virtual world purchase discounts, future virtual world event opportunities, and advanced level virtual world participation (block 1197).”).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kaminski and Jung further teaches detecting a game event; and based on detecting the game event, unlocking, by the processor, access to a service that exists outside the video game by transmitting a communication over a computer network to a service server, wherein the service server is associated with a service provider that offers the service and is different from an entity hosting the video game, and wherein the service server is configured to respond to the communication by granting the user access to the service (Jung, 1198 in FIG. 36 illustrates unlocking award of real-world benefits; ¶211: “Such benefits may include an award of a real-world benefit (block 1198)”).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Kaminski and Jung further teaches that the video game is configured to select a first learning module of the plurality of learning modules in response to the interaction being of a first type, and wherein the video game is configured to select a second learning module of the plurality of learning modules in response to the interaction being of a second type, the second type being different from the first type (Jung, ¶122 teaches various types associated with learning modules: “Referring to the schematic diagram of FIG. 13, access to virtual network environment 560 may be accomplished for players 550 via Internet 552 having an interactive communication link 554 through I/O interface 556. Such a virtual network 560 may include a virtual lobby arcade 562 with various types of virtual opportunities. The categories for such virtual opportunities are almost unlimited, and may for example include shops, competitions, journeys, test, battles, entertainment, careers, vehicles, training, auctions, communication links, events, awards, skills, health and homes.”; ¶268 further teaches different learning modules: “An additional implementation feature may include implementing one or more schedule guideline parameters that pertain to one or more of the following types of virtual world settings or activities or events… class, education, curriculum test, feature film, foreign language, vocabulary program, logic quiz, aptitude training, diagnostic testing, performance assessment, proficiency evaluation, skill improvement, job performance, task performance).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Kaminski and Jung further teaches that the game event includes an exchange of game points for access to the service, wherein the service is a financial service. (Jung, ¶69: “Responsive to the simulated credit transactions, the user is provided with an option of engaging in real-world financial transactions (block 116)”).
Kaminski does not explicitly disclose that the service provider is a bank.
The examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that providing a bank as an example for real-world financial transactions, was old and well known in the art before the effective filing date, as it provides means to provide most well-known financial transaction and, therefore, enable to better understand the concept of financial transaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use well-known a comparison algorithm of video files based on a checksum because all the claimed elements were known in the art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. "common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.-,82USPQ2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Regarding claim 26, Kaminski further discloses that the game event includes the user advancing to a particular game level or achieving a particular game score (¶37: “If the user has performed above a threshold level”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J HONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0993. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6PM.
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 co-supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
THOMAS J. HONG
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3729
/THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729
1 It is noted that the limitation “graphic user interface” is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for being indefinite. See supra 112(b) rejection. As best understood, it is interpreted that the graphic user interface is capable of receiving an user input of simulated amount, which can be used for simulated transferring.
2 See Spec. ¶31 (“For example, the game server 102 may execute the Unreal Engine® by Epic Games® to generate the 3D game environment 124.”).
Prosecution Insights