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 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 – 8 are directed towards a method, (process), and claims 9 – 20 are directed towards a system, which are a 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, comprising: storing, by one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, respective metadata associated with each non-fungible token of a plurality of non-fungible tokens, the plurality of non-fungible tokens maintained via a blockchain of a blockchain network, the respective metadata stored in a storage system separate from the blockchain network; determining, by the one or more processors, that an outcome of a contest that identifies each of the plurality of non-fungible tokens indicates a tie; responsive to determining that the outcome of the contest indicates the tie, generating, by the one or more processors, based on the respective metadata of each non-fungible token of a first subset of the plurality of non-fungible tokens identified in the contest, a tie- breaker value for the contest; and modifying, by the one or more processors, by accessing the storage system separate from the blockchain network, the respective metadata of the first subset of the plurality of non-fungible tokens to indicate the first subset is selected to break the tie, the first subset selected based on the tie-breaker value.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 9 and 17. Dependent claims 2 – 8, 10 – 16, and 18 - 20, 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 system that executes a contest where players form lineups, (see claim 17), to compete against each other. Controlling a contest that allows players to form to compete represents managing interactions between people. This also represents following rules/instructions that define how the contest 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 is drawn towards players forming teams to compete against each other and determining an outcome. The claims recite instructions for controlling a contest with these features. Here, a human can observe players forming teams and competing. A human can also observe the outcome of the contest of the competing players and then determine whether the contest indicates a tie or a tie breaker value. 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 processor and memory along with instructions that generate and present a contest to a plurality of players, wherein said players are instructed to create to compete against each other, 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 a processor, memory, , and an entrant lineups that are associated with participating of players. The claim language also recites non-fungible tokens that are maintained via a blockchain, wherein merely invoking a blockchain maintaining non-fungible tokens, does not, as claimed, improve the computers, networks, or blockchain technology. The claim simply maintains non-fungible tokens. the claims do not recite how the client leverages or performs any consensus/cryptographic verification to improve performance, security, or reliability, which reflects conventional data capture and storage without a technical improvement, wherein, 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.
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