DETAILED ACTION
A preliminary amendment filed August 1, 2024 canceling claims 1-20 and adding new claims 21-40 is acknowledged. Therefore, claims 21-40 are currently pending.
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 .
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-one:
The claims recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of independent claims 21, 34 and 38 as representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea including some or all of the following limitations:
receiving an entrance request that identifies a tournament, the entrance request received in response to the user identifying or selecting the tournament, the entrance request identifying one of a number of player spots and an entrance fee to be paid for the one of the number of player spots for the tournament;
requesting validation in response to receiving the entrance request; and
sending match content to a lobby that identifies the user as the one of the number of player spots in response to receiving the validation, wherein the validation includes confirmation that a holding account associated with the user contains funds that are equal to or greater than the entrance fee to be paid for the one of the number of the player spots for the tournament.
The limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior (e.g. certain methods of organizing human activity), such as account/payment validation integrated with social activities to manage personal interactions that involve payment for play – i.e. managing receiving an entrance request, validating payment and account status pertaining to the request and upon proper validation, providing game play content associated with the request.
Similarly, the above-identified limitations also correspond to the group mental processes—such as, an observation, an evaluation and/or a judgment process, etc. A human can perform the abstract idea in their mind and/or using pen and paper, to observation pertaining to the receiving of entrance requests, evaluation pertaining to the validation of payment, account status and the like, and judgement pertaining to providing content associated with the entrance request in response to proper validation.
Regarding dependent claims 22-23, 35-37, 39, & 40: These claims recite additional limitations that are deemed additional process steps of the abstract idea or additional generic computing elements (detailed below) that fail to provide any improvement to technology and merely utilize the generic computing elements in a distributed computing format to perform the abstract idea. For example, the claims recite additional steps to perform additional requests and validations (e.g. money transfer, user authentication, payout determinations, etc.).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-two
The claims recite additional elements, including one or more processors, a network, a tournament system, a payment platform, a user device, a lobby server, etc. configured to perform the above-identified limitations that ultimately collect information receive entrance requests and process them accordingly including validations resulting in content associated with the entrance requests.
The claimed additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claims are considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. The inclusion of multiple conventional computers appears to merely convey a distributed computing scheme in which multiple generic computers (e.g. a user device, a lobby server, a payment platform, etc.) conventionally communicate data (via a network) to generically and digitally perform the process a human can perform as detailed above. Accordingly, none of the current claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is worth to note that the use of the conventional computer and/or network technology to facilitate the process of receiving entrance requests for game content, validating payments, and providing said game content associated with the entrance requests is directed to well-understood, routine or conventional activity in the art (e.g. US PgPub No. 2014/0200062 at paragraph 0083 and figures 7-8).
Therefore, claims 21-40 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, as none of the claims, that recite an abstract idea, incorporate an element, or combination of elements, that provides a technological improvement over existing/conventional technology, in order to set forth an abstract idea with the significantly more required.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paradise et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0200062; hereinafter “Paradise”)
Claims 21, 34, & 38: Paradise discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, over a network, by a tournament system that includes one or more processors (figures 1, 7, & 8), an entrance request that identifies a tournament from a user device that is associated with a user (figures 1-8 and paragraphs 0034-0079, wherein Paradise discloses a user utilizes their user device to identify a tournament and request entry, e.g. figure 5 illustrates a user selects “James Game” and can request entry via buttons 550), the entrance request received in response to the user identifying or selecting the tournament via a Graphical User Interface (GUI) of the user device from interactive gaming match content displayed on the GUI of the user device by the tournament system (figures 1-8 and paragraphs 0034-0079, wherein Paradise discloses the GUI, as illustrated in figure 5, displays gaming match content data of different tournaments available and the user can identify and select one for the entrance request), the entrance request identifying one of a number of player spots and an entrance fee to be paid for the one of the number of player spots for the tournament (figures 1-8 and paragraphs 0034-0079, wherein Paradise discloses the entrance request is associated with detailed information 530, such as a number of available player spots and an entrance fee to be paid for one of the player spots for the tournament, e.g. “James Game” has a maximum of 12 players and a $1 entry fee as illustrated in figure 5);
requesting, by the tournament system, validation from a payment platform in response to the tournament system receiving the entrance request from the user device (figures 1-8 and paragraphs 0034-0079, wherein Paradise discloses a number of processes pertaining to the validation via a payment platform in response to receiving the entrance request, such as the determination that a user has enough funds to cover the entrance fee associated with an entrance request); and
sending, over the network by the tournament system, match content to a lobby server that identifies the user as the one of the number of player spots in response to receiving the validation from the payment platform (figures 1-8 and paragraphs 0034-0079, wherein Paradise discloses that upon a user being validated as having a paid spot in the tournament, players may be presented with a tournament lobby via a lobby server that identifies the user as one of the number of player spots, e.g. see paragraph 0066), wherein the validation includes confirmation that a holding account associated with the user contains funds that are equal to or greater than the entrance fee to be paid for the one of the number of the player spots for the tournament (figures 1-8 and paragraphs 0034-0079, wherein Paradise discloses determining that the user has sufficient funds to be validated for entry into the tournament, at which time the funds are held or escrowed; see paragraphs 0035, 0046, 0051 and 0078).
Regarding claims 34 & 38, all of the above applies, wherein Paradise discloses the method as detailed above is facilitated by the execution of computer instructions or programs stored in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium by at least one processor of system (paragraph 0018).
Claims 22, 35, & 39: Paradise disclose sending, over the network, by the tournament system, a request to transfer money from a user account associated with the user to the holding account in response to the user action of confirming the transfer of the money from interactive payment confirmation content displayed on the GUI of the user device by the tournament system (Paradise discloses a player uses a button to initiate requesting entry to a tournament, as illustrated in figure 5 with respect to “Play” button 550, which is interpreted as a request to transfer money from the user’s account to a holding account and from displayed interactive payment content displayed by the GUI, as Paradise escrows or holds funds that are wagered, e.g. see paragraphs 0035, 0046, 0051, and 0078).
Claim 23: Paradise disclose that the sending, by the tournament system, of the request to transfer the money occurs before the requesting, by the tournament system, of the validation from the payment platform in response to the tournament system receiving the entrance request from the user device (Paradise discloses a user must interact with the “Play” button to initiate any payment validation process upon the desire to enter the tournament, thus Paradise disclose sending of the request to transfer money (the “Play” button activation) before requesting validation from the payment platform).
Claim 24: Paradise discloses that the sending, by the tournament system, of the request to transfer the money comprises requesting an amount of money that is equal to or greater than the entrance fee (i.e. when the user selects the “Play” button the request to transfer money is at least equal to the required entrance fee).
Claims 25 & 36: Paradise discloses sending, over the network, by the tournament system, a request to authenticate the user account associated with the user to an authentication service, wherein the sending, by the tournament system, of the request to transfer the money is sent after receiving, by the tournament system, authentication of the user account from the authentication service (figures 1-8 and paragraphs 0034-0079, wherein Paradise discloses a player must login or sign in to the system and be authenticated, such as via the GUI of figure 3 and authentication process 706 or 708), prior to the request to transfer the money or “Play”).
Claim 26: Paradise discloses sending, by the tournament system, of the request to transfer the money comprises debiting at least a digital wallet associated with the user account for the transfer of the money (paragraph 0051, wherein the player’s account is interpreted as a digital wallet that includes previously deposited funds, which are held or escrowed or otherwise debited when the player utilizes the “Play” button).
Claim 27: Paradise discloses that the authentication of the user account from the authentication service comprises authentication of the user account by single authentication or double authentication (i.e. email and password can be interpreted as “single authentication or “double authentication”, as no specificity is set forth; see paragraphs 0062-0064).
Claims 28 & 29: Paradise discloses that payment platform and the holding account are hosted by the tournament system (figures 1-8 and paragraphs 0034-0079, wherein Paradise discloses the tournament system consists of a number of different servers that operate different functionality of the overall tournament system including hosting a payment platform and a holding account where user funds may be held). Similarly, Paradise also discloses that validation further comprises confirmation that the entrance fee to be paid for the one of the number of the player spots for the tournament has been debited from the holding account associated with the user to a prize pool account associated with the tournament platform (e.g. Paradises discloses the funds are “held” at the player’s account and escrowed into a prize pool; see paragraph 0046: “Securing the funds can include transferring the funds from the player account to an escrow account as well as placing a "hold" on the funds in the player's account”).
Claims 30, 37, & 40: Paradise discloses sending, over the network, by the tournament system, the match content for all of the number of the player spots for the tournament from the lobby server to a game server associated with the tournament after the lobby server has received the match content for all of the number of the player spots for the tournament, wherein the match content includes the user as one of the number of the player spots for the tournament (figure 7[steps 726-760] and paragraphs 0072-0077, wherein Paradise discloses that when the game associated with the tournament is to be started, data or match content including identifying the user as occupying one of the number of player spots is provided to a game server to enable play of the underlying game by the players in the player spots).
Claim 31: Paradise discloses that sending the match content for all of the number of the player spots for the tournament from the lobby server to a game server comprises sending the match content to the game server via a game Application Programming Interface (API) hosted on the tournament system (paragraph 0056).
Claim 32: Paradise discloses determining, by the tournament system, a payout amount for at least one of the number of the player spots for the tournament in response to receiving a tournament endgame report from the game server for the tournament, wherein the payout amount is based on data included in the tournament endgame report; and distributing, by the tournament system, the payout amount from the prize pool account to the user’s account (a digital wallet) associated with the user if the payout amount for the user as the one of the number of the player spots for the tournament is greater than zero (figure 7, step 760 and paragraph 0076).
Claim 33: Paradise discloses determining, by the tournament system, a payout amount for at least one of the number of the player spots for the tournament in response to receiving a tournament endgame report from the game server for the tournament, wherein the payout amount is based on data included in the tournament endgame report; and distributing, by the tournament system, the payout amount from the prize pool account to the holding account associated with the user if the payout amount for the user as the one of the number of the player spots for the tournament is greater than zero (figure 7, step 760 and paragraph 0076).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 41-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,522,006, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,839,650 and claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,538,311. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of at least independent claims 21, 34, & 40 are substantially encompassed within the scope of corresponding independent claims set forth in these patents. That is, the independent claims each generally are directed to substantially overlapping subject matter directed to entrance requests for a tournament, payment authentication requests related to user accounts, and sending match content that includes player numbers, entrance fees, and the like for the game to game servers. Certain of the dependent claims of the instant application further recite limitations found in either the independent claims of said patent or further dependent claims of said patent, such that the subject matter of the totality of claims 41-60 appear sufficiently overlapping with the subject matter of the claims of each of the above-identified patents thereby reasonably warranting a terminal disclaimer to obviate this obviousness-type double patent rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715