DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/1/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 6/1/26. Claims 1, 3, 5, 1, 14, 16, and 20 have been amended and claims 2, 7, 13, and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3 – 6, 8 – 12, 14 -17, 19, and 20 are now pending in the current application.
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, 3 – 6, 8 – 12, 14 -17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1, 3 – 6, and 8 – 11 are directed towards a method, (process), and claims 12, 14 – 17, 19, and 20 are directed towards a device and medium, (machine), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A method for displaying event pop-ups, executed by a terminal, the method comprising: displaying an application interface in a target application, the target application having an association with a target event, the target application having a target account logged in; displaying an event pop-up in the application interface in response to the target event being in a livestreaming status, contestants of the target event comprising a target contestant, wherein the displaying, in response to the target event being in the livestreaming status, the event pop-up in the application interface comprises: acquiring team information about at least two teams participating in the target event and event data corresponding to a current event matchup in response to detecting that the target event is in the livestreaming status; generating the event pop- up based on the team information and the event data through data processing performed collaboratively by the terminal and a server; and displaying the event pop-up in the application interface; before displaying contestant information about the target contestant in the event pop-up, acquiring historical account data of the target account, the historical account data indicating a historical matchup of the target account; determining the target contestant from the contestants of the target event based on the historical account data; and displaying the contestant information about the target contestant in the event pop-up, the target contestant having an interest association with the target account.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 12 and 20. Dependent claims 3 – 6, 8 – 11, 14 – 17, and 19 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing interactions between people)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that generates and presents a gaming event to teams represented by players by displaying pop-up events to said players in an application interface. Controlling a game that allows teams represent by players to participate in play of the game, represents managing interactions between people, (See Bilski V. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank). This also represents following rules/instructions that define how the game is conducted.
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that displays pop-up events to players in an application interface and also displays contestant information, (player information), in the application interface, wherein the pop-up event is displayed in response to a target event being in a livestreaming status. The claims recite instructions for controlling a video game with these features. Here, a human can observe that a pop-up event and contestant information has been displayed and determine the association between the pop-up event and contestants.
Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic terminal, server, and an interface along with instructions that generate and present a gaming event, (pop-up event), to players, wherein said players are instructed to respond to pop-event in order to participate in the game, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite an interface, a terminal, a server, and teams that are associated with players. The claims further discloses presenting target events, (gaming events), in a livestreaming status, wherein live streaming games are known in the art, (See 10,898,809 col. 6, lines 15 – 19 regarding streaming live gameplay as known in the art). Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. . Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 3 – 6, 8 – 12, 14 -17, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Webb (U.S. 2016/0310843).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20, Webb discloses a method, device, and a medium for displaying event pop-ups, (“Notifications received while on the gaming console may pop up”, par. 0056), executing by a terminal, (“gaming console”, par. 0056), the method comprising displaying an application interface, in a target application, the target application having an association with a target event, (“the pop up notification may forward the user to the detailed event interface for the specific in-game event referenced in the notification”, par. 0056 and fig. 5), wherein the Examiner views the event interface and the in-game event as being equivalent to an application interface and a target event. Webb further discloses the target application having a target account logged in, (“the user's account could be listed as being registered for the event”, par. 0049), displaying an event pop-up in the application interface in response to the target event being in a livestreaming status, (“FIG. 5 illustrates a live broadcast interface 500. In an embodiment of the present invention, where an in-game event includes live broadcast (e.g., discussion with developers, on-going tournament), the start/launch option may bring up a live broadcast interface”, par. 0057), wherein the Examiner views the live broadcast as being equivalent displaying a pop-event in a livestreaming status. Webb further discloses contestants of the target event comprising a target contestant, (“some events may include tournaments that includes competition between users or teams of users”, par. 0030), wherein the Examiner views tournaments as being equivalent to a target event and users or teams of users as being equivalent target contestants. Webb further discloses the event pop-up comprises acquiring team information about at least two teams participating in the target event and event data corresponding to a current event matchup, (“For example (and as described in further detail below), some events may include tournaments that includes competition between users or teams of users. Tournaments may typically have set matches that need to be completed. The detailed information can include information about upcoming matches and would be updated based on results from completed matches”, par. 0030), in response to detecting that the target event is in the livestreaming status, (“Notifications received while on the gaming console may pop up and indicate to the user that the in-game event is about to begin or has begun”, par. 0056), wherein the Examiner views the pop-up notification indicating that the event has begun as being equivalent to the target event being in a livestreaming status. Webb further discloses generating the event pop-up based on the team information, (“the user's account could be listed as being registered for the event, be eligible to participate in the event (if registration is required) once the in-game event begins and receive notifications, reminders and updates regarding the in-game event”, par. 0049), wherein the Examiner views registered users receiving notifications, reminders, and updates about the in-game event as being equivalent the event pop-up being generated based on player/team information. Webb further discloses the event data being generated through data processing performed collaboratively by the terminal and a server, (“The system 600 includes one or more game computing devices (i.e. servers) 610 associated with carrying out the particular game, one or more client computing devices 620 from where users will be participating in the in-games events from, and one or more network computing devices 630 for facilitating the game experience for the user between the gaming computing devices 610 and client computing devices”, par. 0061 and fig. 6), displaying the event pop-up in the application interface, (“the pop up notification may forward the user to the detailed event interface for the specific in-game event referenced in the notification”, par. 0056), wherein before displaying contestant information about the target contestant in the event pop-up, acquiring historical account data of the target account, the historical account data indicating a historical matchup of the target account and determining the target contestant of the target event based on the historical account data, (“For example, information may include the game the tournament is for, who is participating in the tournament (e.g., team) as well as what time the match will occur. It should be noted that start/launch options can be included with the tournament interface 710 that would streamline the match making/pairing of the players or teams within the tournament”, par. 0078), wherein the Examiner views the match making of players as being equivalent to acquiring historical account data indicating a historical matchup and determining the target contestant of the target event based said historical account data, wherein it is known that matchmaking in gaming is based on past match data to pair players of equal ability. Webb further discloses displaying the contestant information about the target contestant in the event pop-up, the target contestant having an interest association with the target account, (“Discovery for current in-game events can also be provided to the user via notification of other user participation and/or registration with an in-game event. Other users (e.g., friends) associated with the user can provide status updates for the user to view”, par. 0045), wherein the Examiner views the user receiving notifications of other users participating in the in-game event, wherein said other users may be friends with the user as being equivalent to displaying contestant information having an interest association, (user’s friends), with the target account, (user).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Webb discloses the historical account data comprises team duty data of the target account in a virtual matchup in which the target account has participated, the team duty data recording a duty selected by the target account in the virtual matchup, the target event comprising at least two teams; the determining the target contestant from the contestants of the target event based on the historical account data comprises: determining a target duty of interest of the target account based on the team duty data in the historical account data; and determining the target contestant matching the target duty of interest from the at least two teams respectively, (“A third tournament interface 720, can be provided to allow users to view past or ongoing matches. This tournament interface 720 may include a past recording or live stream of the match 725. Additional information 728 may also include the participants within the match as well as any game-related information of interest (e.g., statistics, status of each player)”, par. 0079).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Webb discloses the determining a target duty of interest of the target account based on the team duty data in the historical account data comprises: using the duty with a highest selection rate as indicated by the team duty data as the target duty of interest of the target account; alternatively, using a desired duty set by the target account as indicated by the team duty data as the target duty of interest of the target account, (“This tournament interface 720 may include a past recording or live stream of the match 725. Additional information 728 may also include the participants within the match as well as any game-related information of interest (e.g., statistics, status of each player)”, par. 0079).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Webb discloses historical account data comprises role selection data of the target account in a virtual matchup in which the target account has participated, the role selection data recording a virtual role controlled by the target account in the virtual matchup, the target event comprising at least two teams; and the determining the target contestant from the contestants of the target event based on the historical account data comprises: acquiring role selection information of the contestants in the at least two teams; and determining the target contestant from the contestants of the at least two teams respectively based on the role selection data and the role selection information of the contestant, (“As an embodiment of the present invention, the interactive events platform is usable with respect to E-sports and tournaments. Generally, e-sports are organized multiplayer video game competitions between players involving one or more games of various genres such as FPS (first person shooters), MOBAs (multiplayer online battle arena), strategy and fighting games”, par. 0073), wherein the Examiner views Webb’s teaching that the gaming may be a multiplayer online battle arena, (MOBA), as being equivalent at least two teams comprising role selections, since MOBAs are known to have defined player roles.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Webb discloses the determining the target contestant from the contestants of the at least two teams respectively based on the role selection data and the role selection information of the contestant comprises: sorting virtual roles selected for the contestants in the at least two teams respectively based on a role selection frequency in the role selection data to obtain a role order corresponding to the at least two teams respectively; and determining the target contestant corresponding to the team from the at least two teams based on the role order, (“As an embodiment of the present invention, the interactive events platform is usable with respect to E-sports and tournaments. Generally, e-sports are organized multiplayer video game competitions between players involving one or more games of various genres such as FPS (first person shooters), MOBAs (multiplayer online battle arena), strategy and fighting games”, par. 0073), wherein the Examiner views Webb’s teaching that the gaming may be a multiplayer online battle arena, (MOBA), as being equivalent at least two teams comprising role selections, since MOBAs are known to have defined player roles.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Webb discloses wherein the displaying contestant information about the target contestant in the event pop-up comprises displaying first contestant information of the target contestant in the event pop-up in response to the event data being empty, (“ The information regarding various in-game events may be removed or deleted from the events destination interface and/or the interactive events platform once the particular in-game event has expired”, par. 0040), the first contestant information comprising an image identification of the target contestant and a team logo of the corresponding team of the target contestant, (“Once the user has registered for an event using the registration screen, the system may identify the user as being registered (e.g., via a special mark/symbol)”, par. 0052), wherein the Examiner views the symbol as being equivalent to a logo.
Regarding claim 9, Webb discloses wherein the displaying contestant information about the target contestant in the event pop-up comprises: displaying, in response to the at least two teams generating the event data in the target event, second contestant information of the target contestant in the event pop-up, (fig. 4, part 430), the second contestant information comprising an image identification of the target contestant and event information corresponding to the target contestant, the event information being generated by the event data, (“Once the user has registered for an event using the registration screen, the system may identify the user as being registered (e.g., via a special mark/symbol)”, par. 0052), the event information comprising at least one of role selection information, equipment selection information, and key event information, (“As an embodiment of the present invention, the interactive events platform is usable with respect to E-sports and tournaments. Generally, e-sports are organized multiplayer video game competitions between players involving one or more games of various genres such as FPS (first person shooters), MOBAs (multiplayer online battle arena), strategy and fighting games”, par. 0073), wherein the Examiner views Webb’s teaching that the gaming may be a multiplayer online battle arena, (MOBA), as being equivalent at least two teams comprising role selections, since MOBAs are known to have defined player roles.
Regarding claim 10, Webb discloses displaying a preview live stream screen of the target event in the event pop-up, (“FIG. 5 illustrates a live broadcast interface 500. In an embodiment of the present invention, where an in-game event includes live broadcast (e.g., discussion with developers, on-going tournament), the start/launch option may bring up a live broadcast interface”, par. 0057), wherein the Examiner views the live broadcast as being equivalent to a live stream preview.
Regarding claim 11, displaying, in response to a livestreaming room entry control on the event pop-up receiving a trigger operation, a livestreaming room interface of the event, the livestreaming room interface of the event displaying a live stream screen of the target event, (“an in-game event includes live broadcast (e.g., discussion with developers, on-going tournament), the start/launch option may bring up a live broadcast interface 500. The live broadcast interface 500 may include a list of games 510 that currently have live broadcasts 520 available for the user to view. These broadcasts may include developers talking about the particular game or players currently playing the game (i.e. streamers) who elect to share their in-game gameplay experience for other users to view”, par. 0057).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that “amended claim 1 is patent-eligible under 35 USC § 101”. More specifically, it is argued that amended claim 1 now recites a solution and addresses a technical problem with inclusion of the data processing being performed by a terminal and a server collaboratively. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim language merely reciting that data processing being done by a terminal and a server is viewed computer components performing routine and ordinary functions. The courts have determined that claims that are directed to data collection and recognition are abstract ideas and is a well-known practice, (See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank (776 F.3d 1343). While the Examiner does acknowledge that Applicant’s specification may disclose a practical application, as discussed in the Applicant’s arguments, however, the current claim language does not recite steps that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field nor do the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of processing data, because the additional elements, terminal and server, are recited generically. Merely disclosing that data processing is performed by a terminal and a server does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. Their collective functions provide conventional computer implementation of an abstract process.
Regarding step 2B, Applicants argue, with respect to the terminal and server collaboration, “the recited combination amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the claims recite a terminal, server, and an interface along with instructions that generate and present a gaming event to players. With respect to the Berkheimer decision, reference is made for example, (Lo et al. 2009/0094242), which shows the conventionality of computing devices including the collaboration of server and processing components, (see par. 0041 of Lo). Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception.
For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1, 3 – 6, 8 – 12, 14 -17, 19, and 20 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/E.M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights