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 .
The Applicant’s argument received on 10/06/2025 has been considered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a method and system, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
The claims recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites a brand e-sports platform with a mobile application (GO4) for gaming consoles, comprising: a) A mobile app that allows players to receive a schedule of sponsored tournaments, register for tournaments, and enter a sponsor's tournament on their gaming console using a unique code.
b) A system for uploading tournament scores to the player's mobile app, determining eligibility for prizes, special offers, or loyalty points from sponsors, and allowing players to purchase offers and redeem loyalty points for prizes.
c) A performance-based marketing platform that charges advertisers when players decide to play for their promotion or esports tournament, creating voluntary engagement.
d) A web portal or app for creating virtual tournaments in gaming consoles, allowing business owners to set up competitions, furnish reward tokens, and offer discounts to console gamers.
e) Advertisements displayed during tournaments to generate brand and consumer awareness.
f) Remote monitoring of multiple game events for revenue, promotion results, and maintenance.
g) Gameplay reward options, including digital discount coupons, digital tokens, and popular blockchain tokens to incentivize player participation.
h) Data collection and trend analysis using artificial intelligence (Al) to inform vendors about more lucrative choices when organizing events.
i) Targeted promotional messages sent to players via email and text messages regarding tournament results and upcoming events.
j) A mobile app that allows players to purchase offers within the app, with payment rails to pay merchants or brands their share of the revenue.
Claim 6 recite the steps of a method for operating a brand e-sports platform with a mobile application (GO4) for gaming consoles, comprising:
a. Providing a mobile app that allows players to receive tournament schedules, register for tournaments, and enter sponsor's tournaments on gaming consoles.
b. Uploading tournament scores to the mobile app, determining eligibility for prizes, special offers, or loyalty points, and enabling players to purchase offers and redeem loyalty points for prizes.
c. Charging advertisers based on player engagement in promotions or esports tournaments.
d. Creating virtual tournaments in gaming consoles using a web portal or app, allowing business owners to set up competitions, furnish reward tokens, and offer discounts.
e. Displaying advertisements during tournaments to generate brand and consumer awareness.
f. Remotely monitoring multiple game events for revenue, promotion results, and maintenance.
g. Providing gameplay reward options, including digital discount coupons, digital tokens, and popular blockchain tokens.
h. Collecting data and performing trend analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) to inform vendors about more lucrative choices when organizing events.
i. Targeting players with promotional messages via email and text messages.
j. Enabling players to purchase offers within the mobile app, with payment rails to pay merchants or brands their share of the revenue.
The claim limitations (as underlined above) are steps of organizing human activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, organizing human activity includes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction 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 a messaging application that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
The claim limitations (as underlined) recite that a gaming application is initiated and a communication interface with a player is received. The steps of charging and purchasing are steps of a fundamental economic principle or practice and also step of managing social activities. The abstract idea of organizing human activity includes managing interaction between people including social activities. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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 – see Vanda Memo
-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)
-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
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-10 do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-10 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
The claims recites additional limitation of a computer system. These limitations are not positively claimed to be part of the claimed system. Assuming that they were part of the claims system, these limitations in combination with the user terminal is used to transmit and storing (retrieving and providing steps, identify and display information (event information, location, selection options, prizes).
The courts have ruled that storing data in a database and retrieving data from a database is well-known conventional and routine functions of a computer as indicated below.
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
The steps of identifying events, identifying and displaying available outcomes, providing selection options, are steps of presenting offers. The courts have ruled that a computer to present offers is well-known, routine and convention, or insignificant extra solution activity.
Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 2011/0078050) in view of Washington et al (US 2018/0005483).
Regarding claims 1 and 6: Schwartz discloses a brand e-sports platform with a mobile application (GO4) for gaming consoles (see paragraph [0050], showing gaming console and mobile application), comprising: mobile app that allows players to receive a schedule of sponsored tournaments, register for tournaments, and enter a sponsor's tournament on their gaming console using a unique code (see paragraph [0067]); a system for uploading tournament scores to the player's mobile app, determining eligibility for prizes, special offers, or loyalty points from sponsors, and allowing players to purchase offers and redeem loyalty points for prizes (see paragraphs [0046], [0052], showing uploading results); a performance-based marketing platform that charges advertisers when players decide to play for their promotion or esports tournament, creating voluntary engagement (see paragraph [0038]); a web portal or app for creating virtual tournaments in gaming consoles, allowing business owners to set up competitions, furnish reward tokens, and offer discounts to console gamers (see paragraphs [0026]-[0030]).
In an analogous invention, Washington et al teaches advertisements displayed during tournaments to generate brand and consumer awareness (see abstract, showing in-game advertising and in-game product placement, digital in the game); remote monitoring of multiple game events for revenue, promotion results, and maintenance (see paragraphs [0341], [0470]); gameplay reward options, including digital discount coupons, digital tokens, and popular blockchain tokens to incentivize player participation (see paragraphs [0029], [0073]); data collection and trend analysis using artificial intelligence (Al) to inform vendors about more lucrative choices when organizing events (see paragraph [0415], showing account server providing and generating profit/loss reports); targeted promotional messages sent to players via email and text messages regarding tournament results and upcoming events (see paragraphs [0254], [0261]); a mobile app that allows players to purchase offers within the app, with payment rails to pay merchants or brands their share of the revenue (see paragraphs [0139], [0412], [0442]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Schwartz as taught by Washington et al for the purpose of providing a game system where advertisement is presented to the users of the game during game play in-game and through the mobile application. This yields the expected result of increasing the game providers user interest in their product by displaying and presenting the sponsorship advertisement during game player.
Regarding claims 2 and 7: Schwartz discloses wherein the mobile app operates on a smartphone, tablet, or laptop (see paragraph [0050], showing smartphone such as an iPhone).
Regarding claims 3 and 8: Schwartz discloses wherein the gaming consoles include Xbox and PlayStation (see paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claims 5 and 10: Schwartz discloses wherein the mobile app provides notifications to gamers, vendors, and consoles regarding tournament scores and updates (see claim 27 of Schwartz).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 2011/0078050) in view of Washington et al (US 2018/0005483) and Coburn et al (US 2018/0197172).
Regarding claims 4 and 9: Schwartz and Washington et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
However, they do not disclose further comprising optional block chain features for recording and encrypting tournament transactions, allowing for transparency and secure storage of data.
In an analogous invention, Coburn et al teaches further comprising optional block chain features for recording and encrypting tournament transactions, allowing for transparency and secure storage of data (see paragraphs [0050], [0055], showing the use of blockchain technology for recording transactions in a system with a tournament style game).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Schwartz as taught by Washington et al and Coburn et al for the purpose of providing a game system where blockchain technology is used for recording and storing online transaction data. This yields the expected result of providing registered transaction authentication and secured record storage, thereby increasing the user’s confidence and satisfaction in the game system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument with regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection, the examiner disagrees.
Step 2a1, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite judicial exception. Applicant argues that the elements are tied to specific technological environment and remove the realm of pure mental processes or fundamental economic practices. The examiner disagrees. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, organizing human activity includes managing some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of a messaging application that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping. In this instance, the applicants claim limitations recite that a gaming application is initiated and a communication interface with a player is received. The steps of charging and purchasing are steps of a fundamental economic principle or practice and also step of managing social activities. The abstract idea of organizing human activity includes managing interaction between people including social activities. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea of organizing human activity and the rejection is maintained.
Step 2a2. Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application. Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims provide tournament schedules, registration, etc. However, the provision of these features is not a solution but an abstract idea of organizing of human activity by providing the activity of registration, providing tournament schedules, etc. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
In response to the applicant’s argument with regards to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-10, the examiner disagrees. 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, Washington prior art teaches the limitations not found in Schwartz and the combination of references teach the limitations as presented by the applicant.
Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the 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 ADETOKUNBO OLUSEGUN TORIMIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571)270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715