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 § 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 1-4, 6, and 9-20 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.
The aforementioned claims state that “at least one of a plurality of software programs maintained in the blockchain,” however software programs are not maintained in the blockchain, but instead said programs are stored in the blockchain. Within the Specification, Applicant uses the word “deployed,” which is a more accurate description of the interactions between the programs and the blockchain (see Specification, paragraphs [0048, 0058]). Thus, the claims need to be amended to better describe said interaction.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 9, 11-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0406149).
Re claims 1, 11, and 16: Zhang discloses a method, comprising:
generating a game engine request for an electronic game based on user interaction with a graphical game engine for the electronic game (see paragraphs [0272, 0273]: a user generates a game engine request to release a player owned pet into the mating process);
updating game state for the electronic game on a blockchain by transmitting the game engine request to at least one of a plurality of software programs maintained in the blockchain (see paragraph [0284, 0290]: after the blockchain receives the request, the blockchain is updated to a locked state for a virtual pet); and modifying graphical presentation of the electronic game based on the updated game state on the blockchain (see paragraph [0307]: displaying a result of the new locked status of the virtual pet which is released for mating).
Re claims 2, 12, and 17: Zhang discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the game engine request modifies game state for the electronic game, prior to transmitting the game engine request to the at least one of the plurality of software programs maintained in the blockchain (see paragraph [0125, 0272, 0273]: the mating request input is different than other requests such as “a selling button, a life of cat button, a block information button, generation information, nickname information, identification information, genetic feature information, parental information, filial information, or genealogy information.”)
Re claims 3, 13, and 18: Zhang discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein modifying graphical presentation of the electronic game based on the updated game state on the blockchain comprises:
retrieving the updated game state by accessing at least one of the plurality of software programs maintained in the blockchain (see paragraph [0307]: in order for information to displayed, such information needs to be transmitted from the blockchain to the display. Here, Examiner interprets this process as retrieving information); and modifying the graphical presentation of the electronic game based on the retrieved updated game state (see paragraph [0307]).
Re claims 4, 14, and 19: Zhang discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the game engine request comprises a request for movement of an item in the electronic game, the method further comprising:
identifying, using the plurality of software programs maintained in the blockchain, one or more characteristics of the item (see paragraph [0278]: the gender of the cat is identified);
determining, based on the one or more characteristics of the item and using the plurality of software programs maintained in the blockchain, that movement of the item is permitted (see paragraph [0278]: “and determines that the release parameter is valid if the first user account is the owner account of the male cat; otherwise, determines that the release parameter is invalid”); and
updating game state for the electronic game to complete movement of the item, using the plurality of software programs maintained in the blockchain (see paragraph [0283]: the virtual pet is locked and the release request is granted).
Re claims 8 and 9: Zhang discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a second game engine request for the electronic game based on a second user interaction with the graphical game engine for the electronic game (a user can select a second virtual pet to mate, i.e. place in the pet breeding screen);
determining that the second game engine request does not modify game state for the electronic game (see paragraph [0282]: “If each of release parameters of the current release is valid, step 13 is performed; and if at least one of the release parameters of the current release is invalid, the current release process is ended.”); and declining to update game state for the electronic game on the blockchain, based on the determining that the second game engine request does not modify game state for the electronic game (see paragraph [0282]).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0406149) in view Gunning (U.S. Patent No. 11,398,911).
Re claim 5: Zhang fails to disclose with respect to the method of claim 4, wherein the item comprises a token maintained in the blockchain. Gunning teaches a digital pet combining process to produce child pets similar to said process in Zhang, however the digital pets of Gunning are tokens that are stored on a blockchain ledger (column 12, lines 43-48). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, to simply substitute the non-tokenized blockchain digital pets of Zhang for the tokenized blockchain digital pets of Gunning, as such would have produced the predictable results of tokenized digital pets stored on a blockchain.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 10, 15, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715