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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges receipt of amendments/arguments filed 7/28/25. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 2-21 is pending and Claim 1 is canceled.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,541,315. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matters as it relates to the method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and system of Claims 2-21 of the instant application No. 18/076345 are encompassed within the subject matters as it relates to the method and non-transitory computer readable medium of Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,541,315.
The following is an example of claim correspondence to illustrate the similarities and/or overlapping subject matter.
U.S. Patent No. 11,541,315
U.S. Application No. 18/076345
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method for providing gaming content in a parallel-reality game, the method comprising:
receiving, from a client device, a request to access controlled gaming content available during a gaming event in the parallel-reality game, the gaming event scheduled over a time range and located at a real-world location, the request including a real-world location of the client device;
determining whether the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event associated with the controlled gaming content, the controlled gaming content being a subset of the provided gaming content in the parallel-reality game that is only accessible to players while at the gaming event who validate one-time passwords;
causing, when the determined real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event, the client device to display a virtual element in the parallel reality game and near the real-world location, the virtual element requesting entry of a password using an entry method; receiving, from the client device interacting with the virtual element, a one-time password obtained via the entry method; validating the one-time password; and
providing virtual elements of the controlled gaming content to the client device during the scheduled time range of the event and causing the client device to display the provided virtual elements of the controlled gaming content in the parallel-reality game near the real-world location of the gaming event.
Claim 2: A computer-implemented method for providing content in a parallel-reality game, the method comprising:
determining whether a real-world location of a client device is in proximity to a real- world location of a gaming event scheduled over a time range, the gaming event providing an opportunity for users of the parallel-reality game to access controlled content of the parallel-reality game if their client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event;
responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event, validating the client device is at the real-world location; and
providing, in response to validating that the client device is at the real-world location, the controlled content to the client device during the time range of the gaming event.
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 2-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) with respect to at least:
Independent Claim 2:
A computer-implemented method for providing content in a parallel-reality game, the method comprising: determining whether a real-world location of a client device is in proximity to a real- world location of a gaming event scheduled over a time range, the gaming event providing an opportunity for users of the parallel-reality game to access controlled content of the parallel-reality game if their client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event; responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event, validating the client device is at the real-world location; and providing, in response to validating that the client device is at the real-world location, the controlled content to the client device during the time range of the gaming event.
Independent Claim 9:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for providing gaming content in a parallel-reality game that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: determining whether a real-world location of a client device is in proximity to a real- world location of a gaming event scheduled over a time range, the gaming event providing an opportunity for users of the parallel-reality game to access controlled content of the parallel-reality game if their client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event; responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event, validating the client device is at the real-world location; and providing, in response to validating that the client device is at the real-world location, the controlled content to the client device during the time range of the gaming event.
Independent Claim 16:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for providing gaming content in a parallel-reality game that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:determining whether a real-world location of a client device is in proximity to a real-world location of a gaming event scheduled over a time range, the gaming event providing an opportunity for users of the parallel-reality game to access controlled content of the parallel-reality game if their client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event; responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event, validating the client device is at the real-world location; and providing, in response to validating that the client device is at the real-world location, the controlled content to the client device during the time range of the gaming event.
In summary, in regards to claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-21, with emphasis on at least Independent Claims 2, 9, and 16, the claimed invention focuses a computer-implemented method, system comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for providing content in a parallel-reality game that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations of the method comprising: determining whether a real-world location of a client device is in proximity to a real- world location of a gaming event scheduled over a time range, the gaming event providing an opportunity for users of the parallel-reality game to access controlled content of the parallel-reality game if their client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event; responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event, validating the client device is at the real-world location; and providing, in response to validating that the client device is at the real-world location, the controlled content to the client device during the time range of the gaming event. Such claimed features, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be non-statutory because they are considered to be drawn to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Such limitations disclose an abstract idea of receiving, from a client device, a request to access controlled content available during a gaming event in the parallel-reality game, the gaming event scheduled over a time range and located at a real-world location, the request including a real-world location of the client device; determining whether the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event; responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event, providing an input option for inputting a password to the client device; receiving, from the client device, a one-time password via the input option; validating the one-time password; and providing, in response to validating the one-time password, the controlled content to the client device during the scheduled time range of the event. Such limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions for managing a parallel-reality game) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, but for the recitations of “computer-implement”, “system”, “processor”, “medium”, and/or “client device”. That is, other than reciting, “computer-implement”, “system”, “processor”, “medium”, and/or “client device”, nothing in the claims precludes the concepts from being performed via managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions for managing a parallel-reality game) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The interactions encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
For example, a person or administrator can determine whether a real-world location of a user/player is in proximity to a real- world location of a gaming event scheduled over a time range, the gaming event providing an opportunity for users of the parallel-reality game to access controlled content of the parallel-reality game if the corresponding user/player is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event; responsive to determining that the real-world location of the user/player is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event, validating the user/player is at the real-world location; and providing, in response to validating that the user/player is at the real-world location, the controlled content to the user/player during the time range of the gaming event. The claimed abstract idea recites instructions for a game administrator or host to follow when interacting with at least one player during a game; and, thus suggest following rules or instructions for interacting or interactions between people.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components (computer-implemented, system, processor, medium, client device) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of a “computer-implemented”, “system”, “processor”, “medium”, and/or “client device” used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the method, medium, and/or system and/or the extent to which a computer performs/implements the functions of the method, medium, and/or system. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Furthermore, the applicant discloses that “The game server 110 can be any computing device and can include one or more processors and one or more computer-readable media” (¶ 39); “A client 120 can be any portable computing device that can be used by a player to interface with the gaming system 100. For instance, a client 120 can be a wireless device, a personal digital assistant (PDA), portable gaming device, cellular phone, smart phone, tablet, navigation system, handheld GPS system, wearable computing device, a display having one or more processors, or other such device. In short, a client 120 can be any computer-device or system that can enable a player to interact with the game system 100” (¶ 47); “one-time password (OTP)…may be obtained by scanning a QR code, typing the password into the client (e.g., using an on-screen keyboard), or other appropriate forms of user input. The OTP 170 may also be obtained automatically or semi-automatically by one or more sensors of the client 120, such as from an electromagnetic signal (e.g., emitted from a Bluetooth beacon), an audio signal (e.g., emitted by a speaker), or the like.” (¶ 48)“A network interface can include any suitable components for interfacing with one more networks, including for example, transmitters, receivers, ports, controllers, antennas, or other suitable components” (¶ 48); “The method 400 can be implemented using any suitable computing system, such as the client-server arrangement of the system 100 of FIG. 1” (¶ 61); “The method 600 can be implemented using any suitable computing device(s)” (¶ 90); “The term "machine-readable medium" shall also be taken to include any medium that is capable of storing instructions 1024 for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies disclosed herein” (¶ 128); and “It will be appreciated that the term "module" refers to computer logic utilized to provide desired functionality. Thus, a module can be implemented in hardware, firmware and/or software controlling a general purpose processor” (¶ 129). Such disclosure suggests that any hardware or software required by the claims are no more than generic components operating in their ordinary capacity.
Nor do the dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-21 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions for managing bets) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 2, 6-9, 13-16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahajan (US 2014/0057725) in view of Agrawal (US 2018/0357592).
Claims 2, 9, and 16: Mahajan teaches a computer-implemented method and system comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for providing content in a parallel-reality game that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations of the method (Abstract, ¶ 242), the method comprising: determining whether a real-world location of a client device is in proximity to a real-world location of a gaming event (¶ 49, 73-78, 136, 191, 199, 208, 213-214, 221, 225-229, 236-238) scheduled over a time range (¶ 112, 114, 123-124, 135, 163, 179, 194, 199, 214, 249, 252), the gaming event providing an opportunity for users of the parallel-reality game to access controlled content of the parallel-reality game if their client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event (Fig. 2L, ¶ 112, 114, 123-124, 135, 163, 179, 194, 199, 214, 249, 252); responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event, providing, the controlled content to the client device during the time range of the gaming event (see above, Fig. 2L, ¶ 79-87, 112, 112, 114, 123-124, 135, 163, 179, 194, 199, 249, 252).
Mahajan teaches the above, but lacks responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event, validating the client device is at the real-world location; and providing, in response to validating that the client device is at the real-world location, the controlled content to the client device. Mahajan at least teaches responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event or upon validating the client device is at the real-world location via location-based actions that determine or validate the client devices proximity to the real-world location or at the real-world location such as password, gps, etc (¶ 49, 74, 136, 191, 208, 213-214, 221, 225-229), wherein upon such determination or validation, providing, the controlled content to the client device during the time range of the gaming event (see above) and that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 260-261). Furthermore, an analogous art of Agrawal teaches controlling user access to gaming content within a gaming system, wherein the system responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of a gaming event, validating the client device is at the real-world location; and providing, in response to validating that the client device is at the real-world location, the controlled content (¶ 50-53, emphasis on at least ¶ 50, 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the controlled content of Mahajan responsive to validating that the client device is at a real-world location, wherein validation occurs responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event as taught by Agrawal because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of unlocking or providing control content to a client device to a user or player based on a real-world location of the client device in relation to proximity to or at a real-world location of a gaming event in which Mahajan is intended (see above). Such a modification can enhance the experience (Agrawal - ¶ 49) and such a modification would provide additional means to verify a user’s location e.g. optimizes location determination/verification.
Claims 6 and 13: Mahajan teaches receiving, from the client device, a request to access the controlled content available during the gaming event (¶ 169-170, 181, 199).
Claims 7, 14, and 20: Mahajan teaches wherein the gaming event at the real-world location coincides with a gaming event in the parallel-reality game (¶ 169-170, 181, 170, 199).
Claims 8, 15, and 21: Mahajan teaches wherein the access-controlled content is provided in conjunction with default content, the default content being content that is available to all players at the location in the virtual world or parallel-reality game (¶ 81, 135).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahajan (US 2014/0057725) in view of Agrawal (US 2018/0357592), and in further view of Hubner (US 2015/0089607).
Claims 3, 10, and 17: Mahajan in view of Agrawal teaches validating the client device is at the real- world location comprises: providing an input option (prompt) for inputting a password (code such as QR code) to the client device (¶ 25, 50, 53); receiving, from the client device, the password via the input option; validating the password; and providing, in response to validating the password (¶ 25, 50, 53), the controlled content to the client device during the scheduled time range of the event (Agrawal - ¶ 25, 50-53, the controlled content to the client device during the scheduled time range of the event corresponds to the controlled content of Mahajan modified with the teachings of Agrawal (see rejection of Claims 2, 9, and/or 16)).
Mahajan in view of Agrawal teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the password provided via the input option being a one-time password. Mahajan at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 260-261) and limit the use of access-controlled content to one user based on a password/authorization scheme e.g. one time use (¶ 168-169). Furthermore, an analogous art of Hubner teaches it is well known in the art to implement the use of a one-time password provided via an input option used for authenticating a user and/or validating a user to engage in computer based transactions such as within in an gaming system for (¶ 1, 13, 21, 78, 84 (upon authentication/validation game content can be provided), 93). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, system, and/or medium of Mahajan in view of Agrawal with the player authentication means (one-time password) means of Hubner to confirm the presence of the player and guarantee/ensure single user use of the access-controlled content in which at least Mahajan is intended (see above). Such a modification avoids replay attacks, phishing, and other types of security breaches (Hubner - ¶ 15).
Claims 5, 12, and 19: Mahajan in view of Agrawal in view Hubner teaches wherein the one-time password is obtained by one of: scanning a two-dimensional barcode by the client device; receiving an alphanumeric code by the client device; detecting an acoustic signal by the client device; and detecting an electromagnetic signal by the client device (Agrawal - ¶ 50-53, Hubner - ¶ 21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Double Patenting Rejection
The Double Patenting Rejection is maintained and is held in abeyance by the applicant until the claims are deemed allowable.
101 rejection
Applicant argues:
“The Examiner characterizes the claims as being drawn to "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" and, therefore, as falling within the judicial exception for certain methods of organizing human activity. That characterization ignores the claim's focus on a concrete, computer-implemented technique for validating the physical presence of a client device and conditionally transmitting digital game assets. Independent claim 2 requires (i) acquiring device geolocation data, (ii) performing a proximity computation against a geofence for a scheduled event, (iii) executing a separate validation procedure at the event location, and (iv) delivering controlled content only after successful validation and only during the event's time range. Each of these steps employs computing hardware and sensor input, not human judgment, to achieve a technical result.
To expand, the "validation" step itself is machine-centric. The specification explains that the one-time password can be obtained automatically "by one or more sensors of the client 120, such as from an electromagnetic signal ... [or] an audio signal" 99. That automatic sensor collection, followed by programmatic comparison on the game server, cannot be performed manually in any realistic sense, nor is it an organization of steps that could be performed by a person. Additionally, the system is the system merely "using a computer as a tool." The claims recite a specific sequence of data-processing operations that evaluate coordinates, receive sensor- derived credentials, and gate network transmission of payload data, all of which are operations rooted in computer technology and unavailable outside that context.
Moreover, contrary to the Examiner's suggestion, the claims do not "manage interactions between people" for business or behavioral purposes. They manage interactions between distributed computing elements (client device, server, sensors) to determine whether cryptographically scarce, bandwidth-intensive game assets should be streamed. The subject matter therefore lies outside the cited human-activity exception.
Additionally, the claims, even if viewed as reciting an abstract idea, are integrated into a concrete technical workflow that produces a practical result. The method first computes whether a client device's GNSS coordinates fall inside a geofence for a scheduled gaming event, then validates on-site presence through sensor-captured data such as a one-time password obtained from a Bluetooth beacon or acoustic emitter. Only when both machine conditions (e.g., correct location and event time window) are satisfied does the server transmit a subset of digital game assets to the device (assets that remain inaccessible to all other players). These additional elements narrow application of any abstract concept to a specific technological setting and therefore "impose a meaningful limit" consistent with MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The ordered combination also supplies an inventive concept. Neither Mahajan nor Agrawal teaches or suggests coupling geofence testing with a separate, sensor-based validation step and then streaming location-locked content immediately upon success; Mahajan rewards real-world accomplishments, while Agrawal releases physical packages at a store. By uniting these disparate functions, the claimed system defeats geo-spoofing and prevents illegitimate access to bandwidth-intensive game assets, a technical improvement that goes beyond routine computer implementation. Accordingly, the claims recite "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea and should be deemed patent eligible.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner reiterates that the claimed limitations disclose an abstract idea of receiving, from a client device, a request to access controlled content available during a gaming event in the parallel-reality game, the gaming event scheduled over a time range and located at a real-world location, the request including a real-world location of the client device; determining whether the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event; responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event, providing an input option for inputting a password to the client device; receiving, from the client device, a one-time password via the input option; validating the one-time password; and providing, in response to validating the one-time password, the controlled content to the client device during the scheduled time range of the event. Such limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions for managing a parallel-reality game) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, but for the recitations of “computer-implement”, “system”, “processor”, “medium”, and/or “client device”. That is, other than reciting, “computer-implement”, “system”, “processor”, “medium”, and/or “client device”, nothing in the claims precludes the concepts from being performed via managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions for managing a parallel-reality game) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claimed limitations merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components (computer-implemented, system, processor, medium, client device) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claims provide no technological specificity to (i) acquiring device geolocation data, (ii) performing a proximity computation against a geofence for a scheduled event, (iii) executing a separate validation procedure at the event location, and (iv) delivering controlled content only after successful validation and only during the event's time range other than via the use of generic computer components or implementation that merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The generic use of computing hardware and/or sensor input does not suggest that that abstract idea can’t be implemented via managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions for managing a parallel-reality game) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The claimed limitations surrounding a sequence of operations, the client device receiving the one-time device, and transmission of data such a content generically uses a computer as tool to implement the operations, wherein the operations provide nothing that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea implemented via a computer. The “specification explains that the one-time password can be obtained automatically "by one or more sensors of the client 120, such as from an electromagnetic signal ... [or] an audio signal"; however, the claimed limitations generically applies the sensor as a tool used to receive the one-time password. The applicant’s specification indicates that “A client 120 can be any portable computing device that can be used by a player to interface with the gaming system 100. For instance, a client 120 can be a wireless device, a personal digital assistant (PDA), portable gaming device, cellular phone, smart phone, tablet, navigation system, handheld GPS system, wearable computing device, a display having one or more processors, or other such device. In short, a client 120 can be any computer-device or system that can enable a player to interact with the game system 100” (¶ 47); and the “one-time password (OTP)…may be obtained by scanning a QR code, typing the password into the client (e.g., using an on-screen keyboard), or other appropriate forms of user input. The OTP 170 may also be obtained automatically or semi-automatically by one or more sensors of the client 120, such as from an electromagnetic signal (e.g., emitted from a Bluetooth beacon), an audio signal (e.g., emitted by a speaker), or the like.” (¶ 48). Such disclosure suggests that any hardware or software required by the claims are no more than generic components operating in their ordinary capacity. Other than the reciting “computer-implement”, “system”, “processor”, “medium” and/or “client device” (or applicant’s suggested distributed computing elements) nothing in the claims precludes the concepts from being performed via managing personal behaviors or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions for managing a parallel-reality game) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Additionally, determining whether cryptographically scarce, bandwidth-intensive game assets should be streamed is not something positively reflected in the claims.
The claimed limitations are not indicative of a practical application. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components (computer-implemented, system, processor, medium, client device) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The method pertaining to determining whether a client device’s GNSS coordinates fall inside a geofence for a scheduled gaming event or the validation of on-site presence through sensor-captured data such as a one-time password obtained from Bluetooth beacon or acoustic emitter are features not recited in the rejected claim(s) to such a specificity. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the use of a sensor is a generic means of using a tool to receive or validate the one-time password and fails to amount to significantly more the abstract idea. Lastly, while the claimed invention prevents spoofing by providing added steps such steps are not improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a); thus, fails to amount to “significantly more”.
At least based on the above, the 101 rejection of Claims 2-21 are herein maintained.
Prior Art Rejection
Applicant argues that the “the cited references do not disclose or suggest "providing, in response to validating that the client device is at the real-world location, the controlled content to the client device during the time range of the gaming event." Particularly, the applicant suggests that Mahajan’s (US 2014/0057725) reward is tied to a location-based action at the location and not to the player’s mere presence at the event. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Mahajan teaches that the location-based action includes the player’s presence at the event. For example, “In some embodiments, location networking system 120a can identify a user 101 based on the user 101's proximity to location 115. A user 101's proximity can be determined using various devices or applications, such as a GPS device, a social networking site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), a location tracking site (e.g., Foursquare, Google Latitude), a location reservation site (e.g., OpenTable, Expedia), and the like. Location networking system 120a could then access this proximity information to identify the user 101. For example, if user 101 enters a store, he could access Foursquare via any suitable computing device to indicate that he is at the store, and Foursquare could transmit this information to location networking system 120a, thereby informing location networking system 120a that user 101 is at the store. In another example, location 115 could have a QR code printed inside the location, which user 101 could photograph with a mobile client system 130 (e.g., a smart phone) and transmit to location networking system 120a. In yet another example, if user 101 makes a reservation to dine at a restaurant on OpenTable, location networking system 120a could identify user 101 when he checks in with the maitre d' at the restaurant” (¶ 74). Additionally, Mahajan discloses that “In some embodiments, if the location-based action is verifying the presence of user 101 at location 115, verification system 118 can verify the user 101's presence at the location 115 using a variety of methods. For example, verification system 118 can verify user 101's presence based on some form of identification presented at location 115; based on the user 101's proximity to location 115; when the user 101 provides an indication of the user 101's presence at location 115; and by using other location-verification methods.” (¶ 213). Lastly, Mahajan discloses responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event, providing, the controlled content to the client device during the time range of the gaming event (see above, Fig. 2L, ¶ 79-87, 112, 112, 114, 123-124, 135, 163, 179, 194, 199, 249, 252). At least based on the above, Mahajan discloses the argued gated content that is only provided based on the client device being physically located at the event location during a scheduled time range.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Mahajan at least teaches responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event or upon validating the client device is at the real-world location via location-based actions that determine or validate the client devices proximity to the real-world location or at the real-world location such as password, gps, etc (¶ 49, 74, 136, 191, 208, 213-214, 221, 225-229), wherein upon such determination or validation, providing, the controlled content to the client device during the time range of the gaming event (see above) and that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 260-261). Additionally, Agrawal teaches controlling user access to gaming content within a gaming system, wherein the system responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of a gaming event, validating the client device is at the real-world location; and providing, in response to validating that the client device is at the real-world location, the controlled content (¶ 50-53, emphasis on at least ¶ 50, 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the controlled content of Mahajan responsive to validating that the client device is at a real-world location, wherein validation occurs responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of the gaming event as taught by Agrawal because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of unlocking or providing control content to a client device to a user or player based on a real-world location of the client device in relation to proximity to or at a real-world location of a gaming event in which Mahajan is intended (see above). Such a modification can enhance the experience (Agrawal - ¶ 49) and such a modification would provide additional means to verify a user’s location e.g. optimizes location determination/verification. The above bolded portions provide clear motivation to combined teachings of Mahajan in view of Agrawal. Even if the Agrawal addresses retail logistics it still relates to controlling user access to gaming content within a gaming system, wherein the system responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of a gaming event, validating the client device is at the real-world location; and providing, in response to validating that the client device is at the real-world location, the controlled content. Mahajan clearly pertains to unlocking gaming content to a user based on determining a presence of the user via a client device during a time range of a scheduled event (see above), wherein applying similar practices relating to unlocking content would apply to Mahajan e.g. the teachings of Agrawal are similar in nature in this regard, regardless if Agrawal pertains more to retail logistics and/or encouragement of hand-off of a physical, ordered good e.g. the specificity of the game being different is not what is being applied to Mahajan, but rather the steps required by the claimed limitations.
Lastly, Agrawal extra confirmation step would simply enhance the gaming experience of Mahajan and provide an additional means to verify a user’s location e.g. optimizes location determination/verification. The teaching of responsive to determining that the real-world location of the client device is in proximity to the real-world location of a gaming event, validating the client device is at the real-world location; and providing, in response to validating that the client device is at the real-world location, the controlled content of Agrawal is being applied for providing the control content of Mahajan not replacing the control content. The extra confirmation would not add any substantially delay that would contradict the unlocking of Mahajan’s game content to a player and if so, would not undermine the principle operation thereof.
At least based on the above, the prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRAMAR HARPER wh