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 filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding the §102 rejection over Harmon: Applicant argues that Harmon does not disclose rewards defined as in-game assets configured for use within gameplay, as Harmon involves a separate redemption process for items obtained with points. However, the claims do not preclude a redemption step as part of the reward process. Harmon discloses that achievements lead to reward points, which are directly redeemable for in-game assets such as "computer game expansions, specialty character skins, and in-game items" (Harmon, [0049]). These items are explicitly configured for use within gameplay of the game platform (e.g., skins and items used during play). The SDK module's configuration to define rewards "in a form of one or more in-game assets" is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as encompassing Harmon's system, where rewards (points) are defined to correspond to assets usable in gameplay. The determination of rewards via the SDK (as combined with Webb in the alternative §103 rejection) aligns with Harmon's achievement signal and reward allocation.
Regarding the §103 rejection over Harmon in view of Webb: Applicant argues that the combination does not teach defining rewards as in-game assets configured for use within gameplay. However, Harmon teaches the rewards leading to gameplay-usable assets, as noted above, and Webb teaches SDK and API integration for defining and reporting in-game events and achievements (Webb, [0028]-[0030], describing SDK for third-party platform integration and event reporting, including achievement-related data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Harmon's reward system with Webb's SDK to enable seamless definition and integration of rewards across platforms, as this provides standardized tools for developers to define achievements and associated rewards (Webb, [0018]). The motivation is to ensure compatibility and consistency, as both references address multi-platform gaming rewards. The combination teaches the claimed configuration, as the SDK defines the rewards in the form of assets for gameplay use.
Regarding the §103 rejection over Harmon in view of Aronowitz for dependent claims 4-7 and 14-17: Applicant argues that Aronowitz does not remedy the deficiencies of Harmon. However, as the base combination of Harmon and Webb (as applied to the independents) teaches the amended limitations, Aronowitz is relied upon solely for subscription-based customization of rewards/assets (Aronowitz, [0025]-[0028], describing membership tiers affecting digital benefits and rewards). The combination remains valid for the reasons above.
The rejections are maintained, with clarifications to address the amendments.
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, 3, 8-11, 13, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harmon (US 2018/0108218 Al) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Harmon (US 2018/0108218 Al) in view of Webb (US 2018/0075701 A1).
1. Harmon discloses a system for providing rewards to a user for in-game achievements across multiple third-party game platforms (Abstract), the system comprising:
a user account module configured to store a user profile for the user (620: Fig. 6);
a Software Development Kit (SDK) module independently integrated with each one of the multiple third-party game platforms, the SDK module configured to define one or more in-game achievements and one or more rewards associated with completing each of the one or more in-game achievements for the corresponding one of the multiple third-party game platforms, and an Application Programming Interface (API) module independently integrated with each one of the multiple third-party game platforms and in communication with the SDK module to receive information about the defined in-game achievements, the API module configured to generate an achievement signal in response to and including information related to the user completing at least one of the defined one or more in-game achievements for the corresponding one of the multiple third-party game platforms [0018], [0042], [0065]; and
a processing module in communication with the user account module, the SDK module and the API module of each one of the multiple third-party game platforms, the processing module configured to: receive, via the API module, the achievement signal from the API module of each one of the multiple third-party game platforms; determine, via the SDK module, the one or more rewards correspondingly associated with the at least one of the defined one or more completed in-game achievements based on the information in the received achievement signal, wherein the SDK module is configured to define the one or more rewards in a form of one or more in-game assets configured for use within gameplay of the corresponding one of the multiple third-party game platforms; and configure the user account module to add the determined one or more rewards to the user profile for the corresponding one of the multiple third-party game platforms (i.e. processing achievement signals to determine rewards as points redeemable for in-game assets like skins and items configured for gameplay; assets are defined as rewards usable in the game), [0015], [0018], [0020], [0040]-[0049], [0065].
Alternatively, if the SDK module is not inherent, then Webb is provided as evidenced that both an API and SDK are both used to allow third-party developers to generate gaming parameters for provide rewards to the player [0005], [0085]-[0087]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to utilize an SDK in Harman and would have been motivated to do so to provide third party game developers to configure the appropriate parameters for rewarding the player in accordance to in-game achievements.
3. Harmon discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the user account module is configured to allow the user to convert the one or more rewards available in the user profile thereof into one or more assets, from a list of available assets provided to the user, for utilization in the corresponding one of the multiple third-party game platforms [0015], [0044], [0055].
8. Harmon discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the SDK module is configured to provide an interface to be implemented for selecting one or more milestones in a game play in one of games of the corresponding one of the multiple third-party game platforms to be defined as the one or more in-game achievements therefor [0020], [0058].
9. Harmon discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the user account module is configured to allow the user to link the multiple third-party game platforms to the user profile thereof [0015], [0019].
10. Harmon discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the user account module is configured to provide a user interface for allowing the user to check the one or more rewards and one or more assets available in the user profile thereof [0062].
11, 13, 18-20. Harmon or Harmon and Webb discloses a method for providing rewards to a user for in-game achievements across multiple third-party game platforms, the method comprising: storing a user profile for the user in a user account module; defining, via a Software Development Kit (SDK) module integrated independently with each one of the multiple third-party game platforms, one or more in-game achievements and one or more rewards associated with completing each of the one or more in-game achievements for the corresponding one of the multiple third-party game platforms; generating, via an Application Programming Interface (API) module integrated independently with each one of the multiple third-party game platforms and in communication with the SDK module to receive information about the defined in-game achievements, an achievement signal in response to and including information related to the user completing at least one of the defined one or more in-game achievements for the corresponding one of the multiple third-party game platforms; determining, by a processing module via the SDK module, the one or more rewards correspondingly associated with the at least one of the defined one or more completed in-game achievement based on the information in the achievement signal, wherein the one or more rewards are defined, by the SDK module, in a form of one or more in-game assets configured for use within gameplay of the corresponding one of the multiple third-party game platforms; and adding the determined one or more rewards to the user profile, stored in the user account module, for the corresponding one of the multiple third-party game platforms as similarly discussed above.
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) 4-7, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon (US 2018/0108218 Al) as applied above and further in view of Aronowitz (US 2014/0274311 Al).
4-7, 14-17. Harmon discloses the invention above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the user account module comprises information about a subscription status of the user, wherein the SDK module is configured to define the one or more in-game achievements and/or the one or more rewards associated with completing each of the one or more in-game achievements for the corresponding one of the multiple third-party game platforms based on the subscription status of the user, wherein the user account module is configured to define the list of available assets provided to the user based on the subscription status of the user nor wherein the user account module is configured to define a conversion ratio for converting the one or more rewards into the one or more assets based on the subscription status of the user. However, such method of provide better benefits for a premium membership level or subscription level is notoriously well known in the art as evidenced by Aronowitz [0024]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Harmon with Aronowitz and would have been motivated to do so to implement a subscription model to generate more revenue.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Brown (US 2014/0278853 A1).
Brown teaches an SDK integrated into game platforms to define event types (e.g., achievements/adverse events) and associated rewards in the form of in-game assets (e.g., currency, lives, items) configured for use within gameplay ([0025]-[0030], [0045]-[0050]; incentive data defines rewards; SDK detects events and provides assets directly to modify gameplay, e.g., restoring lives or adding items upon event); processing to determine and add the rewards to the user's in-game state/profile ([0035]-[0040], rewards provided immediately for gameplay utilization). It would have been obvious to modify Harmon/Webb with Brown's direct SDK-defined in-game assets to provide immediate, gameplay-integrated rewards, motivating enhanced user retention by reducing frustration from events and enabling seamless asset utilization without intermediary steps (Brown, [0005]-[0010], [0055]). This combination ensures rewards are defined and added as claimed, with Brown's direct assets addressing any redemption gap in Harmon.
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
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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