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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection below.
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, 4-20 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. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and/ or certain methods 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 machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a – Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and disseminating social feedback data to assess player reputation in a game—a mental process (e.g., observing interactions, evaluating praise types and volumes, calculating ratios) and a method of organizing human activity (managing social relations through commendations and status levels). This is similar to Example 6 of USPTO Examples (managing a Bingo game by inputting numbers, assigning player IDs, and verifying wins), which was deemed an abstract idea of "rules for playing a game" implemented generically on a computer, without eligibility. Similarly, in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America (N.D. Cal. 2020), claims for aggregating player game results to update conditions (e.g., adjusting odds or unlocks in multiplayer modes) were held abstract as a "game machine that updates the game conditions based on past results to keep players engaged," lacking specific implementation details. The core here—using praise data to compute given/received points and ratios for player levels—is analogous, as it automates social evaluation without claiming how the computation or P2P handling technically improves networked gaming (e.g., no novel data synchronization or latency reduction).
Abstract ideas like mental processes remain ineligible unless the claim recites limitations not practically performable in the human mind (e.g., specific hardware structures beyond generic servers). The claims' praise typing and ratio calculation could be done manually (e.g., tallying commendations on paper), placing them squarely in the mental process grouping.
Step 2a – Prong 2 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)
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While set in a multiplayer game with P2P connections, the server and processors are invoked merely as tools to "apply" the idea, without improving computer functionality or solving a technical problem in gaming (e.g., no claims to enhanced P2P reliability for praise exchange or scalable ratio computation under high loads). The August 4, 2025 USPTO memo emphasizes distinguishing "apply it" claims (generic automation) from those improving technology, such as addressing network-specific challenges in multiplayer environments—none of which are present here. Dependent claims add minor details (e.g., first set of points smaller than second, praise limits, anonymity), but these are conventional social mechanics (e.g., capping feedback to prevent spam), not transformative integrations.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The elements amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities: generic servers obtaining/storing data via networks, processors determining/calculating points (basic arithmetic), and providing information to devices. No unconventional ordered combination exists, and the claims add nothing "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself.
In summary, the claims are not eligible under § 101, as they attempt to patent an abstract social evaluation process using off-the-shelf computing. To overcome this, amendments could emphasize technical improvements (e.g., specific P2P protocols for real-time praise syncing).
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US 2018/0126281 A1).
1. Lin discloses a server device comprising:
memory configured to store instructions; one or more processors, that upon execution of the instructions, are configured to perform operations comprising:
obtaining a plurality of pieces of praise information from a plurality of information processing apparatuses communicatively coupled to the server device via a network (e.g., player devices connected via the online gaming service), wherein each piece of praise information of the plurality of pieces of praise information comprises identification information for a player of a plurality of players in a multiplayer game session executed by one or more information processing apparatuses of the plurality of information processing apparatuses communicatively coupled via peer-to-peer (P2P) connection and type information identifying a praise type of a plurality of praise types (i.e. player matching server (1100) obtains feedback/commendation data via interface (1120) from client devices communicatively coupled via a network after multiplayer game sessions executed with peer-reviewed interactions among players; each commendation piece includes player identification (e.g., user profile links) for the praised player in the session and type information identifying praise types such as "friendly," "helpful," "team oriented," or "honorable opponent"), [0031], [0057];
determining, for each respective player of the plurality of players, a first set of points and a second set of points, wherein the first set of points is determined based on the identification information of the respective player, the type information, and an amount of praise given by the respective player to one or more other players of the plurality of players (i.e. determines a first set of recognition points/boosts for givers based on identification of the praising player providing commendations to others (e.g., quota increases or participation credits for issuing commendations, stored as behavioral data in user profiles) [0036]-[0040], and wherein the second set of points is determined based on the identification information of the respective player, the type information, and an amount of praised received by the respective player from one or more other players of the plurality of players (e.g., weighted commendation counts per type, with decay, for personality scores)), [0041]-[0045], [0072];
for each respective player of the plurality of players, ascertaining a level based in-part on calculating a ratio based on the first set of points and the second set of points for the respective player (i.e. ascertains personality levels/categories (e.g., "Teammate" or "Mentor" levels) based in-part on ratios of received commendation points (second set, weighted per type) to overall behavioral data including given commendations (first set, via quota/participation), requiring e.g., at least 25% of total received points in specific types like "friendly" and "team oriented" for progression, with decay balancing give/receive for sustained levels), [0057]; and
providing, from the server device to one or more information processing apparatuses of the plurality of information processing apparatus, level information for the plurality of plurality of players, wherein the level information comprises information of the level ascertained for each respective player of the plurality of players (i.e. provides ascertained level information (e.g., personality category badges and aggregate scores) from the server to client devices for display in user interfaces/profiles, including details for all session players), [0057].
4. Lin discloses the server device according to claim 1, wherein the first set of points are smaller than the second set points (i.e. giver recognition boosts/quota increases are minor participation credits, smaller than receiver-weighted commendation counts and personality point totals used for badges/levels), [0071], [0074]-[0075].
5. Lin discloses an information processing device comprising: memory configured to store instructions; one or more processors that upon execution of the instructions, are configured to: display a list of players on a display device, wherein the list of players comprises one or more players other than a user player associated with the information processing device in a game of a multiplayer game session executed by one or more information processing devices communicably coupled via a peer-to-peer(P2P) connection, upon termination of the P2P connection; receive selection of another player in the list of players and a praise type indicated by one or more operations of the information processing device; send praise information via a network to a server device, wherein the praise information includes identification information of the player, identification information of the other player, and type information identifying the praise type; obtain evaluation information regarding praise for the user player based, at least in part on points awarded to the user player by being praised by the other player wherein the evaluation information includes a ratio of each type for the user player; and display the evaluated information on the display device as similarly discussed above.
6. Lin discloses a method of conducting evaluation regarding praise, comprising: obtaining a plurality of pieces of praise information from a plurality of information processing apparatuses communicatively coupled to the server device via a network, wherein each piece of praise information of the plurality of pieces of praise information comprises identification information for a player of a plurality of players in a multiplayer game session executed by one or more information processing apparatuses of the plurality of information processing apparatuses communicatively coupled via peer-to-peer (P2P) connection and type information identifying a praise type of a plurality of praise types; determining, for each respective player of the plurality of players, a first set of points and a second set of points, wherein the first set of points is determined based on the identification information of the respective player, the type information, and an amount of praise given by the respective player to one or more other players of the plurality of players, and wherein the second set of points is determined based on the identification information of the respective player, the type information, and an amount of praised received by the respective player from one or more other players of the plurality of players; for each respective player of the plurality of players, ascertaining a level based in- part on calculating a ratio based on the first set of points and the second set of points for the respective player; and providing, from the server device to one or more information processing apparatuses of the plurality of information processing apparatus, level information for the plurality of plurality of players, wherein the level information comprises information of the level ascertained for each respective player of the plurality of players as similarly discussed above.
7. Lin discloses the server device of claim 1, wherein a number of players given praises by each respective player is equal to or less than a predetermined number of players (commendations are quota-limited to a predetermined number, e.g., starting at 30 and increasing by 3 per game played, regardless of session size), [0046].
8. Lin discloses the server device of claim 1, wherein a number of players given praises by each respective player is equal to or less than a number of players in the game (quota limits are scalable but often less than or equal to session players, e.g., one "honorable opponent" per opposing team, with overall quota constraining total gives to ≤ game size), [0046].
9. Lin discloses the server device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to store the praise information in a manner that a player who gives a praise is maintained anonymous (commendation data is stored in the server database with giver identities anonymized, not viewable by receivers or in aggregates), [0073].
10. Lin discloses the information processing device of claim 5, wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to allow each respective player to select a predetermined number of players, [0046]-[0054].
11. Lin discloses the information processing device of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to allow each respective player to select is equal to or less than a number of players in the game, [0046]-[0054].
12. Lin discloses the information processing device of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to prevent each respective player to select the other player after selecting the other player for a predetermined period of time, [0046]-[0054].
14. Lin discloses the information processing device of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are configured to allow the player to select the other player in the game with the praise type anonymously, [0073].
15. Lin discloses the method of claim 6, wherein a number of players given praises by each respective player is equal to or less than a predetermined number of players, [0046]-[0054].
16. Lin discloses the method of claim 6, wherein a number of players given praises by each respective player is equal to or less than a number of players in the game, [0046]-[0054].
17. Lin discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising storing the praise information in a manner that a player who gives a praise is maintained anonymous, [0073].
18. Lin discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising preventing each respective player to select the other player after selecting the other player for a predetermined period of time, [0046]-[0054].
20. Lin discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are configured to allow the player to select the other player in the game with the praise type anonymously, [0073].
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 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.
Claim(s) 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2018/0126281 A1).
13. Lin discloses the information processing device of claim 5, wherein many restriction are in place to prevent abuse of the system [0046]-[0054] but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to prevent the player to select a player in a friend list. However, it would have been obvious to prevent the player to select a player in a friend list to ensure fair reputation building, as a routine optimization in feedback systems for multiplayer games.
19. Lin discloses the method of claim 6, wherein many restriction are in place to prevent abuse of the system [0046]-[0054] but does not explicitly disclose preventing the player to select a player in a friend list. However, it would have been obvious to prevent the player to select a player in a friend list to ensure fair reputation building, as a routine optimization in feedback systems for multiplayer games.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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 L. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715