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 Notes
Page 6 of applicant’s response, line 2 of the Restriction section recites “Claims 10-24 are hereby withdrawn.” This appears to be a typographical error. Claims 20-24 are withdrawn.
Claim 20, from the 9/5/25 response, is listed as “(Original)”. It should probably be listed as “(Withdrawn)”.
Page 6 of applicant’s response, the Claim Interpretation section makes the record clear with respect to 35 USC 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoles et al. (US PG pub 2013/0084969) in view of Amer et al. (US PG pub 2021/0275908) and McKenzie (US PG pub 2021/0357447).
Knoles et al. shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying a subscription logic configured for fans to subscribe to competitors and distributing royalties associated with competitions.
Knoles et al. shows,
In regards to claim 1,
A competition management system comprising:
an I/O configured to receive communications from a plurality of clients via a communication network; (Figure 1, see the communication between the gaming devices 102x and the online gaming service via the Network 106)
storage configured to store competitor data, event data and fan data; (Figure 3 and paragraph [0046], “Game data sharing module 322 facilitates sharing of game data for different users, allowing one user to play an event against a previously recorded playing of the event by another user.” Paragraph [0049] discusses identities of users including fan clubs.
matchmaking logic configured for the fans to participate in the selection of competitors in a competition; (Paragraph [0049] discusses users making request for fans, car clubs, friends and social network members. Fans participate via a filtering process.)
competition logic configured for determining competitions and executing competitions; (Figure 1, The online gaming service 104 including the matchmaking service 114 and Gameplay Service 112.) and
a processor configured to execute at least the matchmaking logic. (Figure 1, The matchmaking service 114)
Amer et al. teaches, paragraph [0036], a play popularity data 322 which includes a number of accounts subscribed to the player’s streaming channel. The player is considered to be a competitor.
In regards to claim 7, to be discussed below, the player’s streaming channel broadcast content to their fans.
Based on the teaching of Amer et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Knoles et al. to incorporate the streaming subscription logic of Amer et al. in order to provide the fans and competitors stronger connections and to provide a revenue source.
McKenzie teaches, a feedback system for content tracks user input provided by each user for purposes of determining intellectual property rights. Paragraph [0023] teaches many forms of content including sporting events and sports broadcasts which are considered associated with competitions. The sporting events are considered to be real-life competitions. NFTs are also listed as content. Paragraph [0121] teaches that the system determines and/or assign a percentage of ownership, a percentage of intellectual property rights such as copyrights, publishing rights, and/or any other right to users based on identifying ideas in content that were provided as user input and/or feedback using the system. The system may be enabled to generate a smart contract, an agreement, a contract, a report, a document, a blockchain item, and/or another record of how ownership, claims of ownership, intellectual property rights, copyrights, royalties, and/or any other rights to content should be distributed among one or more users.
Based on the teaching of McKenzie, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Knoles et al. to incorporate the feedback system of McKenzie, including distributing royalties associated with competitions in order to provide proper compensation for those who deserve it.
Claims 2, 7, 11-12, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoles et al. (US PG pub 2013/0084969), Amer et al. (US PG pub 2021/0275908) and McKenzie (US PG pub 2021/0357447) in further view of Koch et al. (US patent 11,331,579).
The combination system Knoles et al., Amer et al. and McKenzie, as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying an NFT logic including generation, triggering, trading future interest, smart contracts, subset of rules, purchasing, granting, and reselling by users.
Koch et al. teaches, column 6, lines 6-17, “Referring to the game and to online gaming platform 105, in some implementations, individual players may own and/or control individual unique digital articles, correlated entities, and/or other virtual items, and exchange these with (or to) other individual players. As used herein, exchanges refer to individual players winning, losing, auctioning, selling, purchasing, trading, bartering, wagering, staking, and/or otherwise exchanging virtual items (directly, without a store or store interface under control of online gaming platform 105) to other individual players or with other individual players (including exchanging virtual items through player-to-player challenges).”
Column 7, lines 8-10, teaches, “A digital article may be non-fungible if it is unique, or one-of-a-kind. For example, a specific individual CryptoKitty™ may be non-fungible.”
Column 21, line 55 to column 23, line 16 teaches about smart contracts, rules, and earnings/interest of digital articles.
Based on the teaching of Koch et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination system Knoles et al. Amer et al. and McKenzie to incorporate an NFT logic including generation, triggering, trading future interest, smart contracts, subset of rules, purchasing, granting, and reselling by users in order to provide a versatile online currency.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoles et al. (US PG pub 2013/0084969); Amer et al. (US PG pub 2021/0275908), McKenzie (US PG pub 2021/0357447) and Koch et al. (US patent 11,331,579) in further view of Cvinar (WO 2018/208384).
The combination system Knoles et al.; Amer et al., McKenzie and Koch et al., as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying a judging logic configured for fans to participate in the judging of competitions.
Cvinar teaches, paragraph [0018], “Video contests can be initiated by users, brands, or by the platform. In some embodiments, anyone can upload their video entry to compete for free. Viewers can vote to determine the winners of prestigious prizes exclusively through the platform.”
Based on the teaching of Cvinar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination system Knoles et al.; Amer et al., McKenzie and Koch et al. to incorporate a judging logic configured for fans to participate in the judging of competitions in order to provide more involvement in the judgement.
Claims 4-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoles et al. (US PG pub 2013/0084969); Amer et al. (US PG pub 2021/0275908), McKenzie (US PG pub 2021/0357447) and Koch et al. (US patent 11,331,579) in further view of Walsh (US PG pub 2019/0303960).
The combination system Knoles et al.; Amer et al., McKenzie and Koch et al., as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying a wallet for the NFT including storage and identifiers and competitors include a fighter and a football player.
Walsh teaches, paragraph [0032], “In preferred examples, the cryptocurrency module 142 can provide a wallet feature that allows the users 202a and 202b to manage their respective cryptocurrency accounts 206a and 206b. The wallet feature can allow the users 202a and 202b to check account balances and make cryptocurrency transfers to or from the accounts.”
Walsh teaches, paragraph [0028], “The competition can be or include, for example, a virtual fight, a virtual battle, a virtual race, and/or a virtual sport (e.g., football or tennis).”
Based on the teaching of Walsh, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination system Knoles et al.; Amer et al., McKenzie and Koch et al. to incorporate a wallet for the NFT including storage and identifiers in order to improve the organization of digital assets. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination system Knoles et al.; Amer et al., McKenzie and Koch et al. to incorporate competitors include a fighter and a football player in order to provide specific choices of competition.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoles et al. (US PG pub 2013/0084969); Amer et al. (US PG pub 2021/0275908), McKenzie (US PG pub 2021/0357447) and Koch et al. (US patent 11,331,579) in further view of Smith et al. (US PG pub 2023/0101707).
The combination system Knoles et al.; Amer et al., McKenzie and Koch et al., as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying competitors in a fantasy sports league.
Smith et al. teaches a system for incentivizing user participation in video games.
Paragraph [0012], “The system, according to an embodiment, may be applied to any video game genre (e.g., role-playing game (RPG), first-person shooter (FPS), massively multiplayer online games (MMO), cooperative games, player versus environment (PvE), player versus player (PvP), strategy, sports, simulation, role-playing, racing, puzzle, fighting, adventure, action, fantasy, battle chess, auto-battler, and battle royale).”
Based on the teaching of Smith et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination system Knoles et al.; Amer et al., McKenzie and Koch et al. to incorporate competitors in a fantasy sports league in order to provide specific choices of competition.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoles et al. (US PG pub 2013/0084969); Amer et al. (US PG pub 2021/0275908), McKenzie (US PG pub 2021/0357447) and Koch et al. (US patent 11,331,579) in further view of Farudi et al. (US PG pub 2022/0401842, NPL – provisional application 63/212,036 is provided for 6/17/2021 support).
The combination system Knoles et al.; Amer et al., McKenzie and Koch et al., as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying distributing royalties to the fans.
Farudu et al. provision application teaches, paragraph [0036], “various cryptographic utility tokens in the form of non-fungible tokens, or NFTs. can be awarded to fans by the interactive sports management system or purchased by fans from the interactive sports management system.
Based on the teaching of Farudi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination system Knoles et al.; Amer et al., McKenzie and Koch et al. to distributing royalties to the fans in order to properly pay out royalties based on content rights.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim 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.
On page 8 of the arguments, applicant asserts that the examiner cited col 5, line 39-43 of Koch. The examiner actually cited column 6, lines 6-17.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on 571 272-7147. 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.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715