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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 12/31/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 7-15, 18-20, 22-30 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 9/16/2015 are noted.
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, 5, 7-15, 18-20, 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1, 5, 7-15, 18-20, 22-30 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved. The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html).
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a non-transitory, computer-readable medium in claims 1, 5, 7-15, 18-20, 22-30. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The exemplary independent claims (e.g. 1, 14, and 27-30) recites the following: “1. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions, which when executed by a processor cause a system to:
receive first location information of a first mobile device;
receive second location information of one or more discoverable mobile devices;
determine a first distance between the first mobile device and one of the one or more discoverable mobile devices based on the first and second location information;
provide the second location information to the first mobile device;
receive from the first mobile device a digital image of a user of the one of the one or more of the discoverable mobile devices taken by the first mobile device;
transmit the digital image to the one or more discoverable devices;
determine if the digital image is the user identified with the one of the one or more discoverable devices by voting by the one or more discoverable devices; and
notify the first mobile device of the determination.”
“14. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions, which when executed by a processor cause a first mobile device to:
receive first location information of the first mobile device;
receive second location information of one or more discoverable mobile devices;
display, on a user interface of the first mobile device, the first location the second location information;
display, on the user interface of the first mobile device, movement of the first mobile device and movement of the one or more discoverable devices;
provide a digital image of a user of one of the one or more of the discoverable mobile devices to a control system, wherein the digital image is taken by the first mobile device; and
receive a notification if the digital image is a user identified with the one of the one or more discoverable mobile devices, wherein the digital image is identified as the user of the one of the one or more discoverable mobile devices by voting by the one or more discoverable devices.”
27. (Currently Amended) A comprising executable instructions, which when executed by a processor cause a system to:
receive first location information of a first mobile device;
receive second location information of one or more discoverable mobile devices;
determine a first distance between the first mobile device and one of the one or more discoverable mobile devices based on the first and second location information;
provide the second location information to the first mobile device;
receive from the first mobile device a digital image of a user of the one of the one or more of the discoverable mobile devices taken by the first mobile device;
determine if the digital image is the user identified with the one of the one or more discoverable devices; and
notify the first mobile device of the determination;
wherein a reward geofence is established, the reward geofence defining a reward area, wherein the first mobile device receives a bonus, a new life, or other reward when the first mobile device is located within the reward geofence.
28. (Currently Amended) A comprising executable instructions, which when executed by a processor cause a first mobile device to:
receive first location information of the first mobile device;
receive second location information of one or more discoverable mobile devices;
display, on a user interface of the first mobile device, the first location the second location information;
display, on the user interface of the first mobile device, movement of the first mobile device and movement of the one or more discoverable devices;
provide a digital image of a user of one of the one or more of the discoverable mobile devices to a control system, wherein the digital image is taken by the first mobile device; and
receive a notification if the digital image is a user identified with the one of the one or more discoverable mobile devices;
wherein a reward geofence is established, the reward geofence defining a reward area, wherein the first mobile device receives a bonus, a new life, or other reward when the first mobile device is located within the reward geofence.
29. (New) A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising executable instructions, which when executed by a processor cause a system to:
receive first location information of a first mobile device;
receive second location information of one or more discoverable mobile devices;
determine a first distance between the first mobile device and one of the one or more discoverable mobile devices based on the first and second location information;
provide the second location information to the first mobile device;
receive from the first mobile device a digital image of a user of the one of the one or more of the discoverable mobile devices taken by the first mobile device;
determine if the digital image is the user identified with the one of the one or more discoverable devices by facial recognition; and notify the first mobile device of the determination.
30. (New) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions, which when executed by a processor cause a first mobile device to:
receive first location information of the first mobile device;
receive second location information of one or more discoverable mobile devices;
display, on a user interface of the first mobile device, the first location the second location information;
display, on the user interface of the first mobile device, movement of the first mobile device and movement of the one or more discoverable devices;
provide a digital image of a user of one of the one or more of the discoverable mobile devices to a control system, wherein the digital image is taken by the first mobile device; and
receive a notification if the digital image is a user identified with the one of the one or more discoverable mobile devices, wherein the digital image is identified as the user of the one of the one or more discoverable mobile devices by facial recognition.”
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions of the exemplary claim, with substantially similar features found in independent claims. The dependent claims include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. The abstract idea may be viewed, for example as:
Real-time monitoring of an electric power grid, as in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Device profiles for use in a digital image processing system, as in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014);
An interface providing user display access of customized information, as in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Recording, transmitting and administering digital images, as in TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
A method of organizing human activities, as discussed in Alice and Bilski.
The claimed abstract idea and steps of the claims amount to observation, judgment, and collection of information that could be carried out mentally or with the use of pen and paper. In Electric Power Group, the Federal Circuit found that merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas. The claims at issue were directed to gathering information to identify problems in an electric grid and to output that information to a user. The court found that such steps constitute an abstract idea based upon several previous court decisions, including Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Content Extraction &Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Digitech Image Techs. LLC v. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. The Court also relied upon TLI Communications, Digitech, Bancorp Servs. LLC v. Sun Life, among others, to state that analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds are essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field ( see MPEP 2106.05(a));
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition ;
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b));
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and/or
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo).
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The abstract idea in the present case is similar in that it gathers information and communicates to other devices. There is no asserted inventive concept in the improvement of computers as tools, but instead upon certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Such a finding suggests that the decisions in Enfish v. Microsoft, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America do not apply here. The additional elements of the claims such as a mobile devices and a processor, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The receiving, determining, providing, notifying, and transmitting steps of the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation for the use of the judicial exception and similarly are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the organizing activities needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality).
Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, Claims 1, 14, and 27-30 as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1, 14, and 27-30 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claims 1, 14, and 27-30 do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional elements in the claim (i.e. mobile devices, processor, etc.) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components used as tools. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Further, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Here, the displaying and controlling steps of the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation extra-solution activity. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) and then to present or display said information is well known as in presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Thus, Claims 1, 14, and 27-30 and their dependent claims remain ineligible.
AIA Notice
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0254336 A1 to Nocon et al. (hereinafter Nocon).
Regarding Claim 29, (New) Nocon discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising executable instructions, which when executed by a processor cause a system to:
receive first location information of a first mobile device (para. [0018] discloses a first player starts a game through interaction with a first smartwatch and additional players join the game through interactions with smartwatches that are connected to the first smartwatch over a data connection, such as a wireless network connection. Each player's smartwatch determines its location, such as using a satellite positioning system, and provides its location to the other players' smartwatches);
receive second location information of one or more discoverable mobile devices (para. [0018] discloses a first player starts a game through interaction with a first smartwatch and additional players join the game through interactions with smartwatches that are connected to the first smartwatch over a data connection, such as a wireless network connection. Each player's smartwatch determines its location, such as using a satellite positioning system, and provides its location to the other players' smartwatches);
determine a first distance between the first mobile device and one of the one or more discoverable mobile devices based on the first and second location information (paras. [0018]-[0019], [0041] discloses once gameplay begins, each of mobile devices 210a, 210b, and 210c may exchange location data at regular intervals such that each mobile device is aware of the locations of the other mobile devices in the game);
provide the second location information to the first mobile device (paras. [0018]-[0019], [0041] discloses once gameplay begins, each of mobile devices 210a, 210b, and 210c may exchange location data at regular intervals such that each mobile device is aware of the locations of the other mobile devices in the game);
receive from the first mobile device a digital image of a user of the one of the one or more of the discoverable mobile devices taken by the first mobile device (paras. [0039], [0056]-[0057] discloses player 205a may manually flip up mirror 370 at some point prior to capturing image data. For example, the image data may be used in identifying a target (e.g., player 205b) indicated by a targeted action);
determine if the digital image is the user identified with the one of the one or more discoverable devices by facial recognition (paras. [0047], [0056], [0065], [0073] discloses the first device identifies that a target of the targeted action is associated with the second device based on the orientation of the first device and the location of the second device. For example, gameplay engine 130 of FIG. 1 may determine a direction in three-dimensional space indicated by the orientation determined at 504, and may determine that the location of the second device determined at 506 is located in the direction. As such, gameplay engine 130 may determine that a player associated with the second device is the target … paras. [0056] discloses image data may be used to determine whether a targeted action missed its intended target, such as if player 205a was pointing directly to the side of player 205a … image recognition software may be used to identify the more precise target from image data); and
notify the first mobile device of the determination (paras. [0065]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 30, (New) Nocon discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions, which when executed by a processor cause a first mobile device to:
receive first location information of the first mobile device (para. [0018] discloses a first player starts a game through interaction with a first smartwatch and additional players join the game through interactions with smartwatches that are connected to the first smartwatch over a data connection, such as a wireless network connection. Each player's smartwatch determines its location, such as using a satellite positioning system, and provides its location to the other players' smartwatches);
receive second location information of one or more discoverable mobile devices (paras. [0018]-[0019], [0041] discloses once gameplay begins, each of mobile devices 210a, 210b, and 210c may exchange location data at regular intervals such that each mobile device is aware of the locations of the other mobile devices in the game);
display, on a user interface of the first mobile device, the first location the second location information (paras. [0039], [0056]-[0057] discloses player 205a may manually flip up mirror 370 at some point prior to capturing image data. For example, the image data may be used in identifying a target (e.g., player 205b) indicated by a targeted action);
display, on the user interface of the first mobile device, movement of the first mobile device and movement of the one or more discoverable devices (paras. [0039], [0056]-[0057] discloses player 205a may manually flip up mirror 370 at some point prior to capturing image data. For example, the image data may be used in identifying a target (e.g., player 205b) indicated by a targeted action);
provide a digital image of a user of one of the one or more of the discoverable mobile devices to a control system, wherein the digital image is taken by the first mobile device (paras. [0047], [0056], [0065], [0073] discloses the first device identifies that a target of the targeted action is associated with the second device based on the orientation of the first device and the location of the second device. For example, gameplay engine 130 of FIG. 1 may determine a direction in three-dimensional space indicated by the orientation determined at 504, and may determine that the location of the second device determined at 506 is located in the direction. As such, gameplay engine 130 may determine that a player associated with the second device is the target); and
receive a notification if the digital image is a user identified with the one of the one or more discoverable mobile devices (paras. [0065]-[0067]),
wherein the digital image is identified as the user of the one of the one or more discoverable mobile devices by facial recognition (paras. [0056] discloses image data may be used to determine whether a targeted action missed its intended target, such as if player 205a was pointing directly to the side of player 205a … image recognition software may be used to identify the more precise target from image data).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0254336 A1 to Nocon et al. (hereinafter Nocon) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0157210 A1 to Hall.
Regarding Claims 27 and 28, (Currently Amended) Nocon discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1,comprising executable instructions, which when executed by a processor cause a system to:
receive first location information of a first mobile device (para. [0018] discloses a first player starts a game through interaction with a first smartwatch and additional players join the game through interactions with smartwatches that are connected to the first smartwatch over a data connection, such as a wireless network connection. Each player's smartwatch determines its location, such as using a satellite positioning system, and provides its location to the other players' smartwatches);
receive second location information of one or more discoverable mobile devices (para. [0018] discloses a first player starts a game through interaction with a first smartwatch and additional players join the game through interactions with smartwatches that are connected to the first smartwatch over a data connection, such as a wireless network connection. Each player's smartwatch determines its location, such as using a satellite positioning system, and provides its location to the other players' smartwatches);
determine a first distance between the first mobile device and one of the one or more discoverable mobile devices based on the first and second location information (paras. [0018]-[0019], [0041] discloses once gameplay begins, each of mobile devices 210a, 210b, and 210c may exchange location data at regular intervals such that each mobile device is aware of the locations of the other mobile devices in the game);
provide the second location information to the first mobile device (paras. [0018]-[0019], [0041] discloses once gameplay begins, each of mobile devices 210a, 210b, and 210c may exchange location data at regular intervals such that each mobile device is aware of the locations of the other mobile devices in the game);
receive from the first mobile device a digital image of a user of the one of the one or more of the discoverable mobile devices taken by the first mobile device (paras. [0039], [0056]-[0057] discloses player 205a may manually flip up mirror 370 at some point prior to capturing image data. For example, the image data may be used in identifying a target (e.g., player 205b) indicated by a targeted action);
determine if the digital image is the user identified with the one of the one or more discoverable devices (paras. [0047], [0056], [0065], [0073] discloses the first device identifies that a target of the targeted action is associated with the second device based on the orientation of the first device and the location of the second device. For example, gameplay engine 130 of FIG. 1 may determine a direction in three-dimensional space indicated by the orientation determined at 504, and may determine that the location of the second device determined at 506 is located in the direction. As such, gameplay engine 130 may determine that a player associated with the second device is the target); and
notify the first mobile device of the determination (paras. [0065]-[0067]).
However, Nocon does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a reward geofence is established, the reward geofence defining a reward area, wherein the first mobile device receives a bonus, a new life, or other reward when the first mobile device is located within the reward geofence.
In a related invention, Hall discloses wherein a reward geofence is established, the reward geofence defining a reward area, wherein the first mobile device receives a bonus, a new life, or other reward when the first mobile device is located within the reward geofence (para. [0090] discloses If it is determined, at step 92, that the type of virtual object is good, the player utilizing the mobile device to participate in the geogame is rewarded at step 94. A reward can include a point or points added to the player's score. A reward can include time added to a player's game play time. For example, if game players are provided a fixed amount of time to play a game, and the winner of the game is the player with the most points when the game is over, a reward for capturing a good virtual object could be to add time (e.g., seconds, minutes, hours) to the player's time allotted for game play).
Nocon discloses games relating to gameplay using mobile devices. Embodiments include receiving, by a first device, input from a player initiating a targeted action. Embodiments include determining, by the first device, an orientation of the first device. Hall discloses In a geographic location based game (geogame), players (actual persons) utilize mobile communications devices to play a game in which players catch virtual "good" objects and/or avoid virtual "bad" objects. Virtual objects can be stationary, move in accordance with deterministic pattern, move in accordance with non-predetermined patterns, and/or move randomly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system of Hall with the system of Nocon in order to incentivize the players for playing the game by giving them a reward.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered. Claims 1, 5, 7-15, 18-20, and 22-26 are hereby withdrawn from the previous prior art rejection based on Applicant’s arguments. However, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 above.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 5, 7-15, 18-20, 22-30 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715