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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11, 21, 22, 23 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 23 are pending.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 -21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 10 are drawn to a directed towards a method.
Claims 11 – 20 and 21 are drawn to a device and server.
Claims 23 are directed towards a CRM.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 11 - 20 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
11. (Currently amended) A device for providing a game, the device comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor functionally coupled to the memory,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
link an electronic wallet for trading a cryptocurrency over a blockchain network to an account of a user using a game service by storing electronic wallet information of the electronic wallet to the account of a user;
obtain cryptocurrency information of a cryptocurrency about a first cryptocurrency among cryptocurrencies owned by the electronic wallet, wherein the first cryptocurrency is usable set to provide an in-game effect; and
based on the obtained cryptocurrency information of the cryptocurrency, provide a certain in-game effect to the user having the account linked to the electronic wallet, wherein the certain in-game effect is preset in correspondence with the cryptocurrency information used in the blockchain network, which is different from a currency used in the game service.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental process and Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity.
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed to the linking of an users electronic wallet to a user’s account, obtaining information about the currency held in the wallet and enabling an in-game effect for the user based upon the wallets held currency information. This represent concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The latter also falls under the grouping of managing interactions between people, i.e., rules for enabling a game benefit based upon wallet value.)
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): memory, processor, servers
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer elements such as memory, processor, servers. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s specification establishes that these additional elements are generic: [0062] FIG. 1 illustrates a game providing system including a server and a user terminal, according to various embodiments.
[0063] A game providing system 100 of the disclosure may include a server 170 and one or more user terminals 110 to 160. The server 170 may provide various online activities through a network. The server 170 may simultaneously provide online activities to the one or more user terminals 110 to 160.
[0064] According to an embodiment, the server 170 may include a single server, a collection of servers, a cloud server, and the like, but is not limited to the above examples. The server 170 provides various online activities and may include a database storing data for the online activities. Also, the server 170 may include a payment server for generating and processing a payment event. As described above, the server 170 may be a game providing device.
[0068] Throughout the specification, the one or more user terminals 110 to 160 may include a personal computer 110, a tablet 120, a cellular phone 130, a notebook computer 140, a smart phone 150, and a television (TV) 160, as well as a personal digital assistant (PDA), a portable multimedia player (PMP), a navigation device, an MP3 player, a digital camera, a refrigerator, a washing machine, a vacuum cleaner, and the like, but are not limited to the above examples. As described above, the one or more user terminals 110 to 160 may be game providing devices.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims encompass a computer readable medium that covers transitory signals. The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § I01 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals -Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 5 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al (US 2020/0152005) in view of Walker et al (US 2013/0267308) in view of Sutton-Shearer et al (US 2023/0027380)
As per claim 1, Higgins discloses:
linking an electronic wallet for trading a cryptocurrency over a blockchain network, to an account of a user using the game service by storing electronic wallet information of the electronic wallet to the account of the user; (Higgins discloses the linking of a wallet for trading cryptocurrency on a block chain network to a user account of the game establishment wherein wallet information is stored in the player account of the gaming establishment) (Higgins 0018)
obtaining cryptocurrency information of a cryptocurrency about a first cryptocurrency among cryptocurrencies owned by the electronic wallet, wherein the first cryptocurrency is usable to provide an in-game effect; and (Higgins discloses the obtaining of transfer requests to facilitate the transfer of cryptocurrency funds to and from game establishment cryptocurrency wallets and external cryptocurrency wallets (Higgins 0024). Higgins further discloses the system utilizing a first currency out of multiple (i.e. a player may have an account with bitcoin and/or ether. (Higgins 0018, 0019)
Higgins fails to disclose:
…based on the obtained cryptocurrency information of the cryptocurrency, providing a certain in- game effect to the user having the account linked to the electronic wallet, wherein the certain in-game effect is preset in correspondence with the cryptocurrency information used in the blockchain network, which is different from a currency used in the game service.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Walker discloses a game machine wherein a player received in-game benefits or effects based upon the balance (i.e. information) they maintain or have in a game account (Walker 0040, 0043, 0047). A threshold amount held in account may be determined and the player receives a game advantage such as an ability to summon game characters, or have game characters become more powerful in a game (Walker 0055, 0059, 0062).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Higgins in view of Walker to provide an in-game effect to the user based upon the cryptocurrency information such as an amount of a cryptocurrency balance a user possesses. This would beneficial as it would encourage players to maintain an account balance on a particular gaming machine or with the gaming establishment and encourage users to continue gambling in hopes of being rewarded for greater game balances.
In a similar field of endeavor wherein cryptocurrency wallets are utilized to enable an application feature, Sutton-Shearer teaches the use of digital wallet that comprise cryptocurrency information or currency and specifically states, “When a user opens the secret URL, the user application may check to see if their Web3 connected digital wallet (i.e., MetaMask) holds the correct token. If the user wants access, but they do not own the specified token, they may not access the content. This feature enables the application to ensure that a user has a token to gain access to an experience or other resource. Various technologies exist in general to facilitate TPPs such as Mintgate. In this way, for example, NFTs can be used for event ticketing, passes or other event or experience access. Another example of using NFTs is for token-enabled content. This idea is similar to paying to access content behind a paywall but requiring the user to possess a token (e.g., fungible or an NFT) for access.” (Sutton-Shearer 0013, 0055).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Higgins and Walker in view of Sutton-Shearer to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way by providing a token gating feature that determines information about tokens held in a user’s wallet and enable in application or in game features based upon the token information in the wallet. This would be beneficial as it would
As per claim 2, Higgins discloses:
obtaining electronic wallet information comprising at least one of identification information of the electronic wallet and authentication information of the electronic wallet; (Higgins disclose the identification of an electronic wallet and authenticating information associated with the wallet to access the wallet) (Higgins 0018)
verifying validity of the obtained electronic wallet information; and (Higgins disclose verifying the wallet) (Higgins 0018, 0034)
based on the obtained electronic wallet information being valid, registering the obtained electronic wallet information in the account of the user. (Higgins discloses the linking of an external cryptocurrency wallet to a gaming establishment cryptocurrency wallet) (Higgins 0018, 0029-0031, 0034)
As per claim 3, Higgins discloses: wherein the obtaining of the cryptocurrency information of the cryptocurrency comprises obtaining a quantity of the cryptocurrency owned by the electronic wallet. (Higgins discloses the identification a transfer amount from one wallet to another (i.e. quantity owned by wallet)) (Higgins 0029)
As per claim 4, Higgins discloses: wherein the obtaining of the cryptocurrency information of the cryptocurrency further comprises obtaining a quantity of a cryptocurrency of a certain type owned by the electronic wallet. (Higgins discloses the user providing a bitcoin (i.e. type of cryptocurrency) account number that is tied to their bitcoin account) (Higgins 0030, 0036, Page 6, Table 1)
As per claim 5, Higgins discloses: wherein the obtaining of the quantity of the cryptocurrency comprises obtaining a quantity of a first cryptocurrency by converting a quantity of a second cryptocurrency owned by the electronic wallet into the quantity of the first cryptocurrency, based on an exchange rate between the first cryptocurrency and the second cryptocurrency. ( Higgins discloses the conversion of cryptocurrencies from one currency to another based upon an exchange rate) (Higgins 0028, 0052).
As per claim 6, wherein the in-game effect is provided in proportion to the quantity of the cryptocurrency. (Combination of Higgins in view of Walker wherein Walker teaches the in-game effect is proportional to balance amount such as more advantageous paytables for greater balances) (Walker 0070).
As per claim 7, wherein, based on the quantity of the cryptocurrency being greater than a preset threshold value, the in-game effect is provided in a fixed amount regardless of the quantity of the cryptocurrency. (Combination of Higgins in view of Walker wherein Walker teaches the in-game effect is the fixed based upon a balance being greater than a threshold, such as 10 credits per hour for maintaining a balance above a 100 coins) (Walker 0062)
As per claim 8, wherein the providing of the in-game effect comprises, based on the obtained cryptocurrency information of the cryptocurrency, improving an ability of a character of the user in a game. (Combination of Higgins in view of Walker, wherein Walker teaches a threshold amount held in account may be determined and the player receives a game effect such as an ability to summon game characters, or have game characters become more powerful in a game) (Walker 0055, 0059, 0062).
As per claim 9, further comprising providing an interface for displaying, in a game screen, the obtained cryptocurrency information of the cryptocurrency and the provided in-game effect. (Combination of Higgins in view of Walker, wherein Walker teaches the display of an account balance threshold and the provided in game effect such as “a modified payout table”) (Higgins 0070)
As per claim 10, Higgins discloses: wherein the electronic wallet is for trading a cryptocurrency different from a virtual currency used in the game service. (Higgins discloses the game establishment being able to convert cryptocurrency into a different virtual currency used by the game machine/establishment) (Higgins 0052).
Independent claim(s) 11 and 21 - 23 is/are made obvious by the combination of Higgins, Walker and Sutton-Shearer based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope. Examiner notes that regarding the hardware limitations of memory and at least one processor, the Examiner points to paragraphs 0002, 0154, 0179 of Higgins.
Dependent claim(s) 12-20 is/are made obvious by the combination of Higgins, Walker Sutton-Shearer based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2 – 10 respectively, which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 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. Please see above rejection addressing the newly amended claim limitation in view of Sutton-Shearer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 2/7/2026
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715