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 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 1-20 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. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea 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 method and system, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
The claims recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites a system, comprising:
a processor; and
computer memory coupled with the processor, the computer memory comprising data stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
determine that a player of a game of chance has earned an opportunity to redeem a first Non-Fungible Token (NFT), wherein the first NFT comprises a first NFT tier;
receive an input from the player indicating a desire to redeem the first NFT;
provide the player with an option to stack the first NFT with a second NFT stored in a digital wallet of the player, wherein the second NFT comprises a second NFT tier;
receive a positive response to the option;
combine the first NFT and the second NFT into a third NFT having a third NFT tier that is greater than both the first NFT tier and the second NFT tier; and
store the third NFT in the digital wallet of the player.
Claim 18 recites the steps of a method, comprising:
determining, with a processor, that a player of a game of chance has earned an opportunity to redeem a first Non-Fungible Token (NFT), wherein the first NFT comprises a first NFT tier;
receiving an input from the player indicating a desire to redeem the first NFT;
providing the player with an option to stack the first NFT with a second NFT stored in a digital wallet of the player, wherein the second NFT comprises a second NFT tier;
receiving, with the processor, a positive response to the option;
combining, with the processor, the first NFT and the second NFT into a third NFT having a third NFT tier that is greater than both the first NFT tier and the second NFT tier; and
storing the third NFT in the digital wallet of the player.
Claim 20 recites a mobile device, comprising:
a user interface;
a processor; and
computer memory coupled with the processor, the computer memory comprising data stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
receive an input from a player via the user interface, wherein the input indicates a desire of the player to redeem a first Non-Fungible Token (NFT), wherein the first NFT comprises a first NFT tier;
determine a digital wallet associated with the player comprises a second NFT stored therein, wherein the second NFT comprises a second NFT tier;
provide the player with an option to stack the first NFT with the second NFT;
receive a positive response to the option;
combine the first NFT and the second NFT into a third NFT having a third NFT tier that is greater than both the first NFT tier and the second NFT tier; and
store the third NFT in the digital wallet associated with the player.
The claim limitations (as underlined above) are steps of organizing human activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, organizing human activity includes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions, such as redeeming a financial Non-Fungible Token) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of a messaging application that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
The claim limitations (as underlined) recite that a gaming application is initiated and a communication interface with a player is received. The steps of playing a game and managing a transactional NFT appears to be a step of a fundamental economic principle or practice and also step of managing social activities. The abstract idea of organizing human activity includes managing interaction between people including social activities. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Step 2a2 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)
Claims 1-20 do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-20 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
The claim recite one or more processors to perform the abstract idea of managing a game. As indicated in Applicant’s specification, the user device is a general purpose computer. Although not positively claimed as part of the claimed system, the claim indicates that that system is connected to a server, and databases. The server, database, are also used to implement the abstract idea in a computer embodiment. The use of a computer generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
The claims recites additional limitation of a computer system. These limitations are not positively claimed to be part of the claimed system. Assuming that they were part of the claims system, these limitations in combination with the user terminal is used to transmit and storing (retrieving and providing steps, identify and display information (event information, location, selection options, prizes).
The courts have ruled that storing data in a database and retrieving data from a database is well-known conventional and routine functions of a computer as indicated below.
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
The steps of identifying events, identifying and displaying available outcomes, providing selection options, are steps of presenting offers. The courts have ruled that a computer to present offers is well-known, routine and convention, or insignificant extra solution activity.
Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Quigley et al (US 2023/0117135).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 11-20: Quigley et al discloses a system, comprising: a processor; and computer memory coupled with the processor, the computer memory comprising data stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: determine that a player of a game of chance has earned an opportunity to redeem a first Non-Fungible Token (NFT), wherein the first NFT comprises a first NFT tier (see paragraphs [0186], [0187], showing generating with a processor a set of digital tokens, wherein each digital token of the set of digital tokens is cryptographically linked to a respective virtual representation of a respective item. The method further includes updating with a processor a cryptographic ledger with the set of digital tokens and respective ownership data, wherein the activity associated with the set of digital tokens includes obtaining redemption fulfillment information for redeeming at least one digital token of the set of digital tokens); receive an input from the player indicating a desire to redeem the first NFT (see paragraph [0452], showing an owner of a token may redeem a token. In embodiments, a user may select a token to redeem from a digital wallet of the user. In response to the selection, the digital wallet may transmit a redeem request to the platform 100. The redeem request may include the token (or an identifier thereof) and a public address of the user (or any other suitable identifier of the user). The platform 100 receives the redeem request and verifies the validity of the token); provide the player with an option to stack the first NFT with a second NFT stored in a digital wallet of the player, wherein the second NFT comprises a second NFT tier (see paragraphs [0761], [0762], showing data structures may enable the collectible tokens to be generated programmatically using recipes, and to be combined with other tokens using various crafting recipes to level up the collectible tokens, create new tokens, wherein a first NFT can be stacked with a second NFT to create a new NFT); receive a positive response to the option; combine the first NFT and the second NFT into a third NFT having a third NFT tier that is greater than both the first NFT tier and the second NFT tier (see paragraphs [0761], [0762], showing data structures may enable the collectible tokens to be generated programmatically using recipes, and to be combined with other tokens using various crafting recipes to level up the collectible tokens, create new tokens, wherein a first NFT can be stacked with a second NFT to create a new NFT); and store the third NFT in the digital wallet of the player (see paragraph [0780], showing a user device may have access to a digital wallet 3104, which may be used to store a user's tokens).
Regarding claim 2: Quigley et al discloses wherein the data stored on the computer memory further causes the processor to: record information describing the third NFT to a blockchain (see paragraph [0447], showing the platform may update the distributed ledger to indicate the existence of a new token, wherein the distributed ledger is a blockchain).
Regarding claim 3: Quigley et al discloses wherein the data stored on the computer memory further causes the processor to: update the blockchain to indicate that the first NFT and the second NFT have been discarded by the player (see paragraph [0447], showing the platform may update the distributed ledger to indicate the existence of a new token, wherein the distributed ledger is a blockchain).
Regarding claim 5: Quigley et al discloses wherein the data stored on the computer memory further causes the processor to: update a display of NFTs in a view of the digital wallet such that the first NFT and the second NFT are no longer displayed (see paragraph [1109], showing he viewer device 9406 may display the NFT information and/or digital asset on a screen, playback the NFT information and/or digital asset using audio equipment, or otherwise output the NFT information and/or digital asset); and update the display of the NFTs in the view of the digital wallet such that the third NFT is displayed along with information describing the third NFT (see paragraph [1109], showing he viewer device 9406 may display the NFT information and/or digital asset on a screen, playback the NFT information and/or digital asset using audio equipment, or otherwise output the NFT information and/or digital asset).
Regarding claim 6: Quigley et al discloses wherein the first tier comprises a first award associated with the game of chance, wherein the second tier comprises a second award associated with the game of chance, wherein the third tier comprises a third award associated with the game of chance, and wherein the third award is more valuable within the game of chance than the first award and the second award (see paragraphs [0573], [0574], showing smart contract may define the different items or tiers of items, and for each respective item or tier of items, odds for winning the respective item).
Regarding claim 7: Quigley et al discloses wherein the third award comprises one of the following: a bonus game, a bonus spin, a different pay table, a payout, an adjusted reel spinning speed, a bonus, a new symbol, a new game behavior, and a new game rule (see paragraphs [0573], [0574], showing smart contract may define the different items or tiers of items, and for each respective item or tier of items, odds for winning the respective item).
Regarding claim 8: Quigley et al discloses wherein the digital wallet is stored in a mobile device of the player and wherein the option is provided to the player via a user interface of the mobile device (see paragraphs [0444], [0585], showing the platform 100 may support a digital wallet that stores the tokens of a user. The digital wallet may be a client application that is provided and/or supported by the platform 100. In embodiments, the digital wallet stores any tokens that are owned by the user associated with the digital wallet and provides an interface that allows the user to redeem, transfer, sell, exchange, or otherwise participate in transactions involving the token).
Regarding claim 10: Quigley et al discloses wherein the game of chance comprises one of the following: a slot game, a card game, a dice game, and a video casino game (see paragraph [0436], showing the tokenization platform supports casino-style gaming, whereby the mystery box game may be played at casinos and other brick and mortar locations).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dalmia et al discloses blockchain and multi-level non-fungible token solutions integrated in a gaming system; Dalmia et al discloses cross-channel blockchain solutions for gaming systems; Meyers et al discloses game platform using player token nfts and methods for use therewith; Mikulich et al discloses system and methods for operating a casino loyalty computer system to display images of non-fungible tokens associated with blockchain transactions on gaming devices.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADETOKUNBO OLUSEGUN TORIMIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8am - 4pm).
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, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571)270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715