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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/21/25. Claims 1-21 are pending and Claims 3, 5-6, 13, 15-16 are generic claims as noted 8/25/25 and are considered in this office action.
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 7-10 and 17-20 are 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.
Particularly, Claims 7 and 17 include the limitation “whose matching degree with the first account based on attribute information of the at least one target account and the first account is greater than or equal to a second threshold”; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “a second threshold in the claim. There is no indication of a first threshold within the claims nor the claims from which it depends.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 inherit the deficiencies of Claims 7 and 17 from which they depend and are herein rejected.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A teammate matching method, performed by an electronic device, the method comprising: displaying a team forming interface associated with a first account of a player team of a virtual game; obtaining, among at least one second account, at least one target account whose account information meets a preset teammate matching condition, the account information comprising at least one of the following: a login state of the at least one target account, a game progress state of the at least one target account, and a matching degree of the at least one target account with the first account; displaying at least one invitation interface corresponding to the at least one target account for the first account to invite the target account to join the player team; and in response to the invitation interface being triggered by the first account, transmitting invitation information to the at least one target account to join the player team.” (Claim 1); “An electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program that, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to a perform a teammate matching method including: displaying a team forming interface associated with a first account of a player team of a virtual game; obtaining, among at least one second account, at least one target account whose account information meets a preset teammate matching condition, the account information comprising at least one of the following: a login state of the at least one target account, a game progress state of the at least one target account, and a matching degree of the at least one target account with the first account; displaying at least one invitation interface corresponding to the at least one target account for the first account to invite the target account to join the player team; and in response to the invitation interface being triggered by the first account, transmitting invitation information to the at least one target account to join the player team.” (Claim 11); and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising a stored computer program, the computer program, when executed by a processor of an electronic device, causing the electronic device to perform a teammate matching method including: displaying a team forming interface associated with a first account of a player team of a virtual game; obtaining, among at least one second account, at least one target account whose account information meets a preset teammate matching condition, the account information comprising at least one of the following: a login state of the at least one target account, a game progress state of the at least one target account, and a matching degree of the at least one target account with the first account; displaying at least one invitation interface corresponding to the at least one target account for the first account to invite the target account to join the player team; and in response to the invitation interface being triggered by the first account, transmitting invitation information to the at least one target account to join the player team.” (Claim 21). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity particularly managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for teammate matching for a game that includes steps of obtaining, among at least one second account, at least one target account whose account information meets a preset teammate matching condition, the account information comprising at least one of the following: a login state of the at least one target account, a game progress state of the at least one target account, and a matching degree of the at least one target account with the first account and based on user input sending an invitation to the at least one target account to join the player team). Obtaining information from users/accounts for purposes of teammate matching and sending user designated invitations based on such matching pertains to following rules or instructions pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). Additionally, “displaying a team forming interface associated with a first account of a player team of a virtual game; ….. displaying at least one invitation interface corresponding to the at least one target account for the first account to invite the target account to join the player team”, as found in Claims 1, 11, and 21, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere pre or post solution display, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. The recitations of utilization of a “electronic device”, “memory”, “processor”, “medium”, and/or “interface”) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the method, device, and/or medium to which a computer performs/implements the method, device, and/or medium. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 11, 16-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripathi (US 2022/0305390) in view of Lin (US 2015/0057084).
Claims 1, 11, and 21: Tripathi teaches an electronic device (Client device (104) and/or Server (120) of Fig. 1), comprising a memory and a processor, the memory (non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) storing a computer program that, when executed by the processor (¶ 23-32, 63-82), causes the electronic device to perform a teammate matching method comprising: displaying a team forming interface associated with a first account of a player team of a virtual game; obtaining, among at least one second account, at least one target account whose account information meets a preset teammate matching condition, the account information comprising at least one of the following:
Tripathi teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting displaying at least one invitation interface corresponding to the at least one target account for the first account to invite the target account to join the player team; and in response to the invitation interface being triggered by the first account, transmitting invitation information to the at least one target account to join the player team. Tripathi at least teaches providing the user of the first account with a ranked list of other user accounts to allow the user to individually select other user accounts the user would like to invite to the user’s team (¶ 34) and that the invention can be embodied in other ways and is not intended to limit the scope of the disclosure (¶ 85). Furthermore, an analogous art of Lin teaches a similarly structured team interface that includes displaying at least one invitation interface corresponding to the at least one target account (friend) for the first account to invite the target account to join the player team; and in response to the invitation interface being triggered by the first account, transmitting invitation information to the at least one target account to join the player team (Figs. 8a-10 , ¶ 45, 66-71). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have modified the at least one target account means of Tripathi to include the display of at least one invitation interface means and transmission of invitation information corresponding to the trigger of the invitation interface means of Lin because such a modification would have yield predictable results, namely, a means of allowing the user associated with the first account to individually select other user accounts the user would like to invite to the user’s team in which at least Tripathi is intended (see above). Such a modification would allow for customizable teams defined by the preference of the user (Lin – Abstract, ¶ 1).
Claims 6 and 16: Tripathi in view of Lin discloses wherein the displaying at least one invitation interface comprises: displaying the invitation interface when there is at least one vacant seat in the player team (Lin - ¶ 67-68).
Claims 7 and 17: Tripathi teaches wherein the obtaining, among at least one second account, at least one target account whose account information meets a preset teammate matching condition comprises: determining, from the at least one second account, the at least one target account whose matching degree with the first account based on attribute information of the at least one target account and the first account is greater than or equal to a second threshold (¶ 14, 18-19, 31, 34, 46-48, 54, 61).
Claims 8 and 18: Tripathi teaches wherein the attribute information of the at least one target account and the first account is based, at least in part, on historical operation information of the at least one target account and the first account, respectively (¶ 14, 18-19, 31, 34, 46-48, 54, 61).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripathi (US 2022/0305390) in view of Lin (US 2015/0057084), and in further view of Hu (WO 2022088790 A1) (https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=WO&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2022088790&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=zh&TRGLANG=en , and attached herein as a PDF).
Claims 3 and 13: Tripathi in view of Lin teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting stopping displaying the invitation interface when the invitation interface is not triggered within a preset time period after the at least one invitation interface is displayed. Tripathi at least teaches that the invention can be embodied in other ways and is not intended to limit the scope of the disclosure (¶ 85). Additionally, Tripathi in view of Lin teaches a first trigger event that triggers a function control (Lin - pressing the invite button (8010) of Fig. 1 triggers the display of the invitation interface (8210)(¶ 66-67)). Additionally, an analogous art of Hu teaches a similarly structured interface wherein a first trigger event includes at least triggering display of a function control (¶ 16, 58-60), wherein if an interface of the function control is not triggered within a preset time period after display thereof the interface disappears (Figs. 3-5c, ¶ 58-67, 83, emphasis on ¶ 67, 83). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invitation interface (function control) of Tripathi in view of Lin such that the interface stops being displayed when the interface is not triggered within a preset time period after being displayed as taught by Hu because such a modification would prevent accidental touches or operations thereof (Hu - ¶ 5). Such a modification would prevent unnecessary obscurity of the running interface (Hu - ¶ 2).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripathi (US 2022/0305390) in view of Lin (US 2015/0057084), and in further view of Marr (US 2016/0005270 A1).
Claims 9-10 and 19-20: Tripathi in view of Lin teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the attribute information of the at least one target account and the first account is based, at least in part, on current resources configured for the at least one target account and the first account, respectively or wherein the attribute information of the at least one target account and the first account is selected from at least one of the following: a virtual operational role, a virtual subordinate object, a virtual prop, a virtual attribute, and a virtual skill belonging to the virtual operational role. At least Tripathi matchmaking a first user account to at least one target account among at least one second account (see above, ¶ 14, 18-19, 31, 34, 46-48, 54, 61) and that the invention can be embodied in other ways and is not intended to limit the scope of the disclosure (¶ 85). Furthermore, an analogous art of Marr teaches wherein the attribute information for matchmaking of at least one target account and the first account is based, at least in part, on current resources configured for the at least one target account and the first account, respectively (¶ 10-11, 14, 32, 34-35, 37, 132, 183-184) or wherein the attribute information for matchmaking of at least one target account and the first account is selected from at least one of the following: a virtual operational role, a virtual subordinate object, a virtual prop, a virtual attribute, and a virtual skill belonging to the virtual operational role (¶ 10-11, 14, 32, 34-35, 37, 132, 214-217). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the attribute information of Tripathi in view of Lin to include the attribute information as taught by Marr because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of matching players in which at least Tripathi is intended (see above). Such a modification fine tunes the matchmaking processes (Marr - ¶ 7-8).
Response to Arguments
Restriction
Applicant argues that Claims 2, 4, and 7 are three closely associated scenarios that do no trigger any of the reasons alleged in the office action.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously noted these are different distinct conditions for teammate matching of user accounts that are not obvious variants of each other that would case a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: (a) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; (b) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); (c) the prior art applicable to one species or groupings of patentably indistinct species would not likely be applicable to another species or groupings of patentably indistinct species; and/or (d) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. At least based on the above, the restriction is herein maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715