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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: typically dependent claims begin with “The method” rather than using the article “A” as applicant has done. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 5, 7, and 8 and 14-15 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.
With regard to claim 4, there is no antecedent basis for “the digital currency.”
With regard to claim 5, “a real-life counterpart of the good or service,” (emphasis added) appears to be related to “a virtual good or service,” (emphasis added) from earlier in the claim. However, it does not match up strictly speaking and thus needs to be clarified for proper antecedent purposes.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected based upon their dependency to claim 5.
With regard to claim 14, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “substantially the same way” would be. That is how close does it have to be to be “substantially the same way?” How many limitations can be different and still be substantially the same?
Claim 15 has similar issues to those already mentioned above in that claim 15 is merely a compilations of most of the previous claims and thus has the same problems.
Claim 16 has “a good or service” however there is already a good or service previously mentioned and thus it is unclear if this is to be viewed differently or the same. Additionally claim 16 depends from a previously rejected claim.
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 1-5, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0288666 to Cheng.
With regard to claim 1, Cheng discloses a computer implemented method of collecting and processing electronic information concerning a player of a game, comprising the steps of: a) electronically monitoring the activity of the player in the course of computerized gameplay to determined game preferences of the player (0016); b) generating electronic data indicative of the game preferences to create game data (0015-0015; 0026-0028); and c) computer processing the game data to determine what messages to target at the player in gameplay, and/or in real-life of the player, commensurate with the game preferences of the player (0026-0028).
With regard to claim 2, Cheng discloses a) electronically monitoring the activity of the player in the real-life of the player by way of mobile communications devices used by the player, to determine real-life preferences of the player (0015-0016; 0047; 0061); b) generating electronic data indicating of the real-life preferences to create real-life data (0015-0016); and c) computer processing the real-life data to determine what messages to target at the player in gameplay, and/or in real-life of the player, commensurate with the real-life preferences of the player (0015-0016; 0026-0028).
With regard to claim 3¸Cheng discloses the use of game data or real-life data combined with third-party data about the player to determine what messages to target at the player in gameplay and /or in real-life, commensurate with the real-life preferences or gameplay preferences of the player (0016).
With regard to claim 4, Cheng discloses wherein the third-party data is data concerning the digital currency of the player and financial transaction activity (0018; 0026-0028).
With regard to claim 5¸Cheng discloses wherein step a) of claim 1 comprises determining that a virtual good or service has been purchased by the player in gameplay, and step c) of claim 1 comprises presenting the player with an advertisement or an offer to purchase a real-life counterpart of the good or service (0026-0028).
With regard to claim 8, Cheng discloses that the advertisement or offer is sent via one or more electronic messaging methods (0026-0028; since the game is an electronic game it would therefore be an electronic message).
With regard to claim 9, Cheng discloses that the targeted message comprises a personalized digital token to purchase a virtual good or service (0041-0042).
With regard to claim 10, Cheng discloses that the targeted message comprises a connection to another game player in real-life or in gameplay (0042 wherein a team wins).
With regard to claim 11, Cheng discloses maintaining a data account for the player which records purchasing preference information for said player based on their selection of virtual goods and/or services during gameplay (0026-0028).
With regard to claim 13¸Cheng discloses that the player controls an avatar during the course of gameplay and the preferences of the player are determined, at least in part, based on choices made by the player for the avatar during gameplay (0033).
With regard to claim 14, Cheng discloses that the method operates in substantially the same way for multiple game players, simultaneously (0042 wherein a team is rewarded).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0114263 to Vange.
With regard to claim 6, Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose tracking of a real-world good or service. However, the combination of Cheng and Vange teaches monitoring a real-world good or service purchase transaction by the player and presenting the player with an advertisement or an offer to purchase a virtual counterpart of the real-world good or service (Vange at 0022; Cheng at 0026-0028; wherein Cheng clearly shows a relationship between virtual and real-world goods and Vange teaches the monitoring of real-world purchases).
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Cheng and Vange teaches the data account records purchasing preference information for the player based on their purchases of real-life goods and/or services (Cheng at 0015-0016; 0026-0028; Vange at 0022).
Claim 15 is a combination of various other dependent claims previously rejected and is rejected in like manner (See Cheng at 0015-0016; 0026-0028; 0033; 0041; 0047; 0061; Vange at 0022).
With regard to claim 16, Cheng discloses presenting each of the players with an offer, comprising a personalized digital token, for them to purchase a good or service commensurate with the game preferences of each of the player (0041-0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of monitoring real-world purchases as taught by Vange with the disclosure of Cheng as it would be obvious to try the reverse of what is being done in Cheng. That is Cheng allows users to buy options that they had purchased in the video game to be bought in the real-world. With the monitoring of real-world purchases as taught by Vange it would be obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art to offer them to buy that in the virtual world.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng.
With regard to claim 7, Cheng discloses sending an offer to a player (0026-0028), however it is not explicitly clear that that offer comes via a social media account. However, in another part Cheng acknowledges that social media accounts exist (0016 where Facebook is discussed). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the social media aspect (0016) with the offer aspect (0026-0028) in order to use known communication methods to convey a good; additionally so that the player will have access to the offer outside of the gaming area (e.g. they will have the offer available to them via Facebook).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, 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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715