DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s submission of an Information Disclosure Statement on 7/10/2023 has been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 5A and 5B are discussed in the specification but appear to be mislabeled as Figs. 1A and 1B in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification includes numerous typos and awkward language.
For example, in paragraph 8, “dosing”, line 5 should be replaced with “doing”. Also in paragraph 8, line 16, it appears that “can” should be inserted between “system” and “similarly”. Further, in paragraph 26, line 5, it appears that “of” should be inserted between “one” and “several”. Additionally, in paragraph 27, line 6, “a PoW enable system is subject to security and functional” is awkward. The above listed citations are merely examples of a specification that is replete with typos and awkward language. Applicant is requested to fully review the entire specification to correct all language issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 14 recite a “recumbent neural network”. It is unclear what is meant by a “recumbent” neural network. In paragraph 117 of the current specification, Applicant recites a single occurrence of the term “recurrent” neural network associated with a PoS. Clarification is required.
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 PEG Analysis
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, etc.)
Claims 1-20 are directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea. The following specific limitations in the claims under examination recite an abstract idea:
Selecting/Pairing user computer devices/validators (e.g., claims 1, 11)
Identifying a winning user (e.g., claims 1, 11)
Determining a type of game activity, including a winning condition (e.g., claims 2, 10 12, and 20)
Determining game type complexity (e.g., claims 3, 4, 13 and 14)
Transferring currency to a user’s electronic wallet (e.g., claims 5 and 15)
Implementing a smart contract (e.g., claims 8 and 18)
After validating, release user computing devices (e.g., claims 9 and 19)
The above listed identified limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity:
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 or relationships of interaction between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims are primarily directed to rules for implementing/playing a game, wherein the game rules align with a method of organizing human activity. As set forth above in the system (claim 1) and computer platform (claim 10), perform actions of implementing/playing a game by validating a user’s electronic device, determining a game winner, and then recording the game information.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Overall, the claim limitations appear to merely implement the abstract idea, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use. In this case, triggering a first block on the blockchain (e.g., see claims 1, 6, 11, and 16) is a modern equilvant to recording and storing data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to claims 1-20 the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The above listed additional claim limitations display and process game data in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way. Further, the computer hardware of claim 1 (e.g., various generic systems, devices, processor, and memory) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. It is noted that the specification describes many different technical hardware features, but it does appear connect disclosed non-generic hardware features to the individual claimed systems/devices (e.g., entertainment computing system, user computing system, DL computing system, validator computing system, proof of game validation system, etc.).
If the Applicant believes that any of the claimed systems and devices are other than generic computing systems, then Applicant is advised to address this issue in Applicant’s response.
In order to satisfy the Berkheimer factual determination of conventional elements in the art, U.S. Patent No. 7,819,742 to Chamberlain is cited for disclosing the conventional features of gaming machines including processors (e.g., see at least column 11, lines 14-16) and displays (e.g., see column 7, lines 12-25). Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 101.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0282906 to Yong.
With regard to claim 1, Yong discloses system comprising: an entertainment computing system (e.g., see at least Fig. 1A that shows various client game devices; see also paragraph 23 that discusses the system being used for video games, which are for entertainment) comprising an online entertainment platform processing instructions to provide a plurality of online competitive entertainment activities (e.g., see at least paragraph 39 that discusses that platform-specific blockchain ledger 115 may be played via an “online network service”); a plurality of user computing devices, each user computing device being associated with a different user, wherein each user computing device of the plurality of user computing devices participate in online competitive entertainment activities provided via the online entertainment platform (e.g., see at least Fig. 1A that shows three client devices 110A-C, for playing video game 120A; see also paragraphs 25-28 for discussion of client devices 110A-C); a distributed ledger (e.g., see paragraph 6, “distributed ledger”)computing system comprising a blockchain (e.g., see at least paragraph 29 for introductory discussion of a “blockchain ledger”); a plurality of validator computing devices (e.g., see at least paragraph 29 that states that each of ledges “permanently store a validated history of transactions”, wherein each of the blockchain ledgers 115/125, of Figs. 1A-C, include a validator computing device), wherein each validator computing device of the plurality of validator computing devices is associated with the distributed ledger computing system e.g., see at least paragraph 29 that states that each of ledges “permanently store a validated history of transactions”, wherein each of the blockchain ledgers 115/125, of Figs. 1A-C, include a validator computing device); and a proof of game validation system (e.g., see at least paragraph 113 that discusses various types of systems for proof of game, such as “proof-of -work”, “proof-of-stake”, and “proof-of-activity”) comprising:
one or more processors (e.g., see at least paragraph 135 that discusses processors 810 and memory 820), wherein each processor of the one or more processors is associated with one or more different devices; and non-transitory memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (e.g., see at least paragraph 135 that discusses processors 810 and memory 820), cause the proof of game validation system to:
select, based on a type of a first online competitive entertainment activity provided by the entertainment computing system, a first number of user computing devices of the plurality of user computing devices and a corresponding first number of validator computing devices of the plurality of validator computing devices (e.g., see at least paragraph 42 for discussion of verifying a client device); pair, randomly, each of the first number of user computing devices to a corresponding validator computing devices of the first number of validator computing devices (e.g., see at least paragraph 107 that discusses validating a user in a distributed peer-to-peer network); identify, based on an indication of an end of the first online competitive entertainment activity, a winning pair of a first user computing device and a first validator computing device (e.g., see at least paragraph 53 for discussion of tracking wins and losses associated with a specific player); and trigger, by the distributed ledger computing system and the identification of the first validator computing device, a first block on the blockchain (e.g., see at least paragraph 116 that discusses generating a new block to add to the blockchain);
[claim 2] wherein the instructions further cause the proof of game validation system to determine the type of the first online competitive entertainment activity provided by the entertainment computing system (e.g., see at least paragraph 113 that discusses various types of systems for proof of game, such as “proof-of -work”, “proof-of-stake”, and “proof-of-activity”);
[claim 3] wherein the first number of validator computing devices and first number of user computing devices, is dependent upon a complexity of a game type (e.g., see at least paragraph 38 that discusses that identifying different of types of video games);
[claim 4] wherein the complexity of each game type of a plurality of game types is determined by a recumbent neural network of the proof of game validation system (as best understood, see Yong at paragraph 113 that states that a PoS may be used; it is noted that Applicant associates a PoS with a recurrent neural network in Applicant’s disclosure at paragraph 117);
[claim 5] wherein the instructions further cause the proof of game validation computing system to trigger transfer of a cryptocurrency from the distributed ledger computing system to an electronic wallet associated with the first user computing device (e.g., see at least paragraphs 29, 30, and 114 for discussion of transferring cryptocurrency);
[claim 6] wherein the instructions further cause the proof of game validation computing system to trigger creation of a first block in a competitive entertainment activity blockchain (e.g., see at least paragraph 116 that discusses generating a new block to add to the blockchain);
[claim 7] further comprising an entertainment ledger computing platform comprising the competitive entertainment activity blockchain (e.g., see at least paragraph 23 that discusses the system being used for video games, which are for entertainment);
[claim 8] wherein the first block of the competitive entertainment activity blockchain comprises a smart contract comprising an indication of the first number of user computing devices, the first number of validator computing devices, and the first online competitive entertainment activity (e.g., see at least paragraph 37 for discussion of smart contract operations);
[claim 9] wherein the instructions further cause the proof of game validation computing system to, based on creation of the first block on the block chain, release the first number of user computing devices and the validator computing devices (e.g., see at least paragraph 116 that discusses generating a new block to add to the blockchain); and
[claim 10] wherein the instructions further cause the proof of game validation computing system to, monitor the first online competitive entertainment activity to identify a winning condition (e.g., see at least paragraph 53 for discussion of tracking wins and losses associated with a specific player).
Claims 11-20 are anticipated by Yong based on the same analysis set forth above for claims 1-10, which are similar in claims scope.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0312089 to Joao for discussing a sports betting apparatus including blockchain technology (e.g., see at least Fig. 18)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0277938 to Kim for discussing a device for providing a game service including cryptocurrency and electronic wallets (e.g., see at least Fig. 3)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0201683 to Muskal for discussing a system for managing memory resources used by smart contracts of a blockchain in a game environment (e.g., see at least paragraphs 182-188 and 209).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0314726 to Masini for discussing gaming consensus protocol for blockchain (e.g., see at least Fig. 1)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0143207 to Kumar for discussing an online token-based game including decentralized blockchain (paragraph 30), proof of participation (paragraphs 39 and 42), and validation (paragraph 66)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0130698 to Simons for discussing a distributed multi-ledger gaming architecture using blockchain (e.g., see at least paragraph 38 and Fig. 8A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-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, 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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715