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
This Action is in response to the Amendment filed July 7, 2025. Claims 22-29 are added. Claims 1-29 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In Claim 22 the limitation “wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to automatically update character profiles in real time in response to the outcomes of live events, such that changes in performance or status of the real-world individual are contemporaneously reflected in an associated virtual world character profile,” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification discloses a “human being in Step 510 working with the Character Service Center to complete a user profile, hold a photo shoot and create the avatar for uploading” [0121]. This does not describe that character profiles are automatically updated in real time in response to the outcomes of live events, such that changes in performance or status of individuals are contemporaneously reflected in an associated virtual world character profile. Accordingly, this is impermissible new matter.
In Claim 28 the limitation “wherein the character database further comprises a status field that is simultaneously influenced by both real-world live event results and virtual world achievements, and wherein adjustments to the status field are auditable and timestamped,” is not supported by the original disclosure. A review of the specification does not describe that the character database comprises a status field that is simultaneously influenced by real-world live event results and virtual world achievements, where adjustments to the status field are auditable and timestamped. Accordingly, this is impermissible new matter.
In Claim 29 the limitation “wherein automated communications generated by the character service center are selectively targeted to contacts associated with the real-world individual, and are based on either changes in virtual character performance, real-world event participation, or both,” is not supported by the original disclosure. A review of the specification does not describe that automated communications generated by the character service center are selectively targeted to contacts associated with the real-world individual, and are based on either changes in virtual character performance, real-world event participation, or both. Accordingly, this is impermissible new matter.
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.
Claim 24 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 24 recites the limitation “wherein the collaboration incentive platform is further configured to automatically compute and allocate virtual or real-world rewards to characters to both real-world and virtual world performance data.” This is indefinite because it is not clear if and how the rewards are allocated to both real-world and virtual world performance data. For examination purposes Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean allocate virtual or real-world rewards to characters based on both real-world and virtual world performance data.
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 1-29 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 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-29 are directed toward at least one abstract ideas without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below.
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim however, is directed towards an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea recites: store, character profiles for a set of characters associated with real-world individuals; receive data indicating outcomes of live events involving one or more of the real-world individuals; update respective ones of the character profiles based on the received data indicating the outcomes of the live events; and provide incentives to the one or more characters based on the received data indicating the outcomes of the live events. These limitations, describe commercial interactions including, marketing or sales activities or and business relations; as well as managing personal behavior or interaction between people including following rules or instructions. As such, the limitations are directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see 2019 MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In particular the claim recites the additional element: in a character database, which is recited at a high level of generality and is merely the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply applying the abstract idea by a generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation amounts to using a computer to apply the abstract idea. Viewing the limitation individually, the limitation referring to a database and the preamble generically, referring to one or more processors do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See at least, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[i]t is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”). Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 2-29, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above. The claims include further adding to the abstract idea, and insignificant extra-solution activities, with no elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. For instance, claims 2-4, 11-12, 17 are directed to tracking user and/or avatar activities, which is an abstract idea in and of itself and at most insignificant extra-solution activities. Claims 7 is directed to observations capable of being done in the human mind. Claims 9-10 comprise nonfunctional descriptive material. Claims 13-16, 24, 27 comprise commercial and/or marketing activities. Claim 26 directed to mental process which can be done by a human with pen and paper with additional elements linking to a particular technological environment. Claims 18-23, 25, 28-29 are directed to monitoring and managing personal behavior. Thus, while the dependent claims may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cargill (US Publication 2011/0086712) in view of Auterio (US Publication 2018/0043253).
A. In regards to Claim 1, Cargill teaches a computer implemented system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: Cargill [0073]
store, in a character database, character profiles for a set of characters associated with real-world individuals; Cargill [0027: data storage also used to store records; 0028: player record may also be used to store avatar information or game character information for the game, and this may include selected characteristics, fitness level (e.g., some embodiments vary the fitness of the avatar based on the amount of exercise or fitness activities participated in by the player as may be stored in record];
receive data indicating outcomes of live events involving one or more of the real-world individuals; Cargill [0013: communicate the offline activity data for the game player to the game server, which provides further verification that the activity was completed; 0054: game server may execute software to provide functionality that monitors the online games the player chooses to play and the completion of such games; e.g., the player may complete a memory retention online game, and the game server would run a program to check if the player's exercise meter or fitness/exercise data from offline activities/exercise includes a predetermined amount/level of exercise completed offline and vice versa];
update respective ones of the character profiles based on the received data indicating the outcomes of the live events; Cargill [0013: modifying of the online game data may include increasing/decreasing a health status of an avatar/character in the online game associated with the game player, e.g., make an avatar more muscular and/or thinner in response to exercise; 0029: system may be adapted for communicating with game server such as to update a player's game data; 0053: integrate offline activity with online gaming and otherwise a player to participate in an offline activity and also to more fully enjoy the online gaming experience, e.g., walking changes their online avatar's health and so on];
and provide incentives to the one or more characters based on the received data indicating the outcomes of the live events. Cargill [0025: track player data related to exercise, fitness, and health activities and translate this information into reward points/bucks and/or fitness levels of an avatar or game character associated with the player];
additionally and/or alternatively, Auterio discloses, and provide incentives to the one or more characters based on the received data indicating the outcomes of the live events. Auterio [0079: an incentive reward is an in-game asset in an online game that is offered to a user of the online game for completing one or more location-based actions; 0091: a particular user may play one or more of games and control one or more player characters in each game; 0186: once game networking system has confirmed that user has completed the location-based action, game networking system can then provide the incentive reward to the player’s character].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Cargill with the teachings from Auterio with the motivation to provide an appropriate incentive reward based on determining a game that a user is a player in and the level of that user player character. Auterio [0089].
B. In regards to Claim 2, Cargill discloses, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: track one or more real-world interactions involving the real-world individuals associated with the characters, wherein the real-world interactions include one or more of attending real world events, watching programs, viewing sponsor advertisements, signing autographs, issuing endorsements, or making public appearances. Cargill [0335: player may be encouraged via the game to visit a partner/sponsor store to perform an activity such as listen to a talk on the environment, view a screening of a wildlife movie, or exercise].
C. In regards to Claim 3, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to track one or more interactions between the characters and real-world fans of the characters. This is disclosed by Auterio [0180: game networking system may determine a players' level of influence based on various factors; achievements awarded to a player character of the player, a popularity of the player (e.g., a number or activity level of fans of the player); 0003: the term player may refer to the in-game player character controlled by that player, user, entity]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 1.
D. In regards to Claim 4, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more tracked interactions include performance by one or more of the characters in an instance of an online game, and the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to determine the characters that have at least a first level of performance in the instance of the online game. This is disclosed by Auterio [0089: determine that user is a player in Zynga Dragon Wars and that user player character is a 5th-level elf]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 1.
E. In regards to Claim 7, Cargill discloses, wherein the one or more tracked interactions include performance by one or more of the set of characters in an instance of an online game, and wherein identifying the one or more characters to be provided with an opportunity to participate in a first real-world event includes determining the one or more characters that have at least a first level of performance in the instance of the online game. Cargill [0025: track player data related to exercise, fitness, and health activities and translate this information into fitness levels of an avatar or game character associated with the player; 0039: game server operates to update the player's record such as to update the player's offline activity data; the fitness determination mechanism may operate to determine a fitness level of a player's avatar].
F. In regards to Claim 8, Cargill discloses, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to broadcast a first real-world event including participation of one or more of real-world individuals in a first real-world event. Cargill [0030: online games may be adapted to encourage players to participate in certain activities, to visit a particular location (such as a national park, a zoo, a store, or the like), to attend an educational or other event].
G. In regards to Claim 9, Cargill discloses, wherein the instance of the online game includes a first theme and a first real-world event includes the first theme. Cargill [0012: providing an online gaming method that includes providing a game server serving an online game, such as a game with environmental and health related themes, to client devices].
H. In regards to Claim 10, Cargill discloses, wherein the first theme includes one or more of a religious theme, a sports theme, an adult entertainment theme, a gambling theme, a charitable theme, or a comedy theme. Cargill [0026: rewards may be donations to charity or organization, e.g., a number of green bucks may be associated with a donation value to a charity selected by the game provider or player from a list of charities/groups associated with an online game; 0039: a video/image may be included to show (with or without accompanying audio streams/outputs) educational or entertainment content of the online game/website; 0042: game server may provide a list of sponsors or charities/non-profit groups that are associated with the online game].
I. In regards to Claim 13, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: provide incentives to one or more characters based on the received data indicating the outcomes of the live events and tracked interactions within a virtual world, wherein one or more of the incentives include a percentage of revenue generated from one or more of the live events, in-game activities, or virtual world activities participated in by one or more of the set of characters and fans of the set of characters. This is disclosed by Auterio [0180: a number or magnitude of experience points, levels, high scores, or other achievements awarded to the player character of the player, a popularity of the player, e.g., a number or activity level of fans of the player; 0186: entity associated with game networking system may receive a payment when user redeems the award; 0117: an incentive reward could be a specific percentage chance (e.g., 20%, 40%, 75%) to receive a particular in-game asset]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 1.
J. In regards to Claim 14, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein the revenue generated from one or more of the live events, the in-game activities, or the virtual world activities includes revenue generated from one or more of advertising, merchandise sales, online micro-transactions, sponsorship receipts, subscription fees, gate fees, pay-per-view charges, or content distribution charges associated with one or more of the live events, an instance of an online game, or the virtual world. This is disclosed by Auterio [0119: incentive offer search system may generate an incentive reward for 90% chance of receiving a free coffee at Starbucks for purchasing a coffee at Starbucks; 00186: receive a payment for each performed location based action]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 1.
K. In regards to Claim 16, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: provide incentives to the one or more characters within a virtual world based on the received data indicating the outcomes of the live events and tracked interactions within the virtual world, wherein one or more of the incentives include redeemable points that are redeemable within one or both of the virtual world or an instance of an online game. This is disclosed by Auterio [0082: an incentive reward may be a plastic ring corresponding to a virtual ring purchased by a player character of a user within a virtual world of a computer-implemented game]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 1.
L. In regards to Claim 18, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein the character profile for a first character includes a list of contacts of a first real-world individual and wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to generate, on behalf of the first character, communications to at least some of the contacts. This is disclosed by Auterio [0130: incentive rewards may be unique to the person to whom it is offered, e.g., based on profile information retrieved about the person from a social networking system; 0003: the term player may refer to the in-game player character controlled by that player, user, entity; 0252: user interface may include a user interface element (e.g., an “Add Mafia” button) by which a player may invite his friends (e.g., in-game friends or out-of-game friends) to join his mafia]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 1.
M. In regards to Claim 20, Cargill discloses, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to implement a collaboration incentive platform, wherein the collaboration incentive platform is configured to compute and allocate rewards to characters based on their tracked interactions and game play. Cargill [0025: earnings monitoring/determination mechanism that may cause the CPU to monitor or determine reward points or virtual currency a player avatar earned via online activities and/or offline activities].
N. In regards to Claim 22, Cargill discloses, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to automatically update character profiles in real time in response to the outcomes of live events, such that changes in performance or status of the real-world individual are contemporaneously reflected in an associated virtual world character profile. Cargill [0013: modifying of the online game data may include increasing/decreasing a health status of an avatar/character in the online game associated with the game player, e.g., make an avatar more muscular and/or thinner in response to exercise; 0029: system may be adapted for communicating with game server such as to update a player's game data; 0053: integrate offline activity with online gaming and otherwise a player to participate in an offline activity and also to more fully enjoy the online gaming experience, e.g., walking changes their online avatar's health and so on].
O. In regards to Claim 24, Cargill discloses, wherein the collaboration incentive platform is further configured to automatically compute and allocate virtual or real-world rewards to characters to both real-world and virtual world performance data. Cargill [0025: earnings monitoring/determination mechanism that may cause the CPU to monitor or determine reward points or virtual currency a player avatar earned via online activities and/or offline activities].
P. In regards to Claim 27, Cargill discloses, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to:
collect and store real-time activity data from users, fans, and avatars interacting via mobile devices, desktop computers, or at live venues; Cargill [0012: storing in memory/data storage a player record for the game player and then receiving data indicating performance of an offline activity by the game player; game server may then act to modify the online game based on this received offline activity data such that performance of the offline activity is integrated into play of the online game; 0025: track player data related to exercise, fitness, and health activities and to translate this information into reward points/bucks and/or fitness levels of an avatar or game character associated with the player];
Cargill does not specifically disclose, and continually update incentive calculations using information obtained through cookies and user input associated with the collected real-time activity data. This is disclosed by Auterio [0116: incentive offer search system may determine levels of negative feelings associated with types of locations based on input from users. Then, when a user performs a location-based action the incentive offer search system may provide an incentive reward having a value that is correlated to the level of negative feeling; 0134: the incentive offer search system may generate an incentive reward based on input received from an operator at a location; 0183: variety of methods can be used to determine and present incentive reward offers to a user; for example, game networking system could access data stored in a cookie on client system that is appended to messages transmitted from client system to game networking system].. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 1.
Claims 5-6, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cargill (US Publication 2011/0086712) in view of Auterio (US Publication 2018/0043253) in further view of Siddique (US Publication 2016/0210602).
A. In regards to Claim 5, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to generate communications on behalf of at least one of the characters. This is disclosed by Siddique [0117: community module allows users to interact with other users through real-time communication. The user can interact with other users through their virtual character model; 0303: a virtual character may greet a caller via the visual interface and inform the caller of the receiver's status].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Cargill with the teachings from Siddique with the motivation to animate a user’s character model's expressions/movements/actions and/or change their model's look, where the expressions/actions/dialogue/movements of the character model can be synchronized with the user's own expressions/actions/dialogue/movements and can be thus manipulated even when the user uses it to communicate and interact with other users in a virtual chat session. Siddique [0224]
B. In regards to Claim 6, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein generating one or more communications on behalf of the characters includes generating one or more communications via one or more of blogging, web-casting, email-blasting, or social media. This is disclosed by Siddique [0303: a virtual character may greet a caller via the visual interface and inform the caller of the receiver's status; this conversion may be utilized when users opts to see email/chat/text/SMS messages via the visual interface]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 5.
C. In regards to Claim 28, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein the character database further comprises a status field that is simultaneously influenced by both real-world live event results and virtual world achievements, and wherein adjustments to the status field are auditable and timestamped. This is disclosed by Siddique [0384: state, and other data are recorded up to the current time in an event; this data is synchronized using timestamps]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 5.
Claims 11-12, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cargill (US Publication 2011/0086712) in view of Auterio (US Publication 2018/0043253) in further view of Dury (US Publication 2017/0006322).
A. In regards to Claim 11, Cargill discloses creating an avatar [0043: gamer may construct an avatar to represent them as they navigate the website]; but does not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to track interactions between an avatar and fans of the character represented by the avatar. This is disclosed by Dury [0183: spectator audio output of the cheers or boos may be provided by the game spectating system to at least some of the spectators, e.g., to the fans of a particular team; game system may use this input in various ways, e.g., rewarding at least some of the players by providing boosts, gear, or other in-game benefits to the players' in-game characters or avatars based on their fan base's current level of enthusiasm].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Cargill with the teachings from Dury with the motivation to provide a game system that uses fan input in various ways, for example by rewarding at least some of the players by providing in-game benefits to the players' in-game characters or avatars based on their fan base. Dury [0181].
B. In regards to Claim 12, Cargill discloses wherein the interactions between the avatar and the fans of the character represented by the avatar increase a popularity of the character and upon determination of a predetermined level of popularity, the system generates an invitation for the real-world individual associated with the character to participate in a real-world event. Cargill [0013: a player's saving account having more than a set amount of Green Bucks may be detected or tracked and result in the player being sent a digital invitation to visit Green Mall; 0030: online games encourage players to participate in certain activities, to visit a particular location (such as a national park, a zoo, a store, or the like), to attend an educational or other event].
C. In regards to Claim 17, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein to track one or more interactions between an avatar, the corresponding character and fans of the character, the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: collect data indicating interactions between the avatar and the fans of the character represented by the avatars. This is disclosed by Dury [0183: spectator audio output of the cheers or boos may be provided by the game spectating system to at least some of the spectators, e.g., to the fans of a particular team; game system may use this input in various ways, e.g., rewarding at least some of the players by providing boosts, gear, or other in-game benefits to the players' in-game characters or avatars based on their fan base's current level of enthusiasm]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 11.
D. In regards to Claim 19, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to implement a character service center, wherein the character service center is configured to enhance a character's profile, control interactive communications of the character, the real-world individual associated with the character and the character's fans. This is disclosed by Dury [0060: the game metadata for a given game system may include one or more of data describing or representing objects, players/characters; 0055: character or game character is generally used to refer to a player's in-game presence or avatar that the player may control via a game client on a client device to interact with other game characters, other game entities, and other objects within the game environment; 0183: spectator audio output of the cheers or boos may be provided by the game spectating system to at least some of the spectators, e.g., to the fans of a particular team; game system may use this input in various ways, e.g., rewarding at least some of the players by providing boosts, gear, or other in-game benefits to the players' in-game characters or avatars based on their fan base's current level of enthusiasm; 0059: content may be targeted to particular spectators or groups of spectators, for example according to the spectators' current selections, profiles, or preferences]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 11.
E. In regards to Claim 21, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein the characters are represented by real-world individuals who have signed up to be avatars of characters supported by a Character Service Center configured to create and enhance a character's profile and control interactive communications of the character, the real-world individuals behind the character and the character's fans; and are rewarded by a Collaboration Incentive Platform configured to compute and allocate rewards to the characters based on character activities. This is disclosed by Dury [0060: the game metadata for a given game system may include one or more of data describing or representing objects, players/characters; 0055: player generally refer to an actual human that actively participates in an online game, the term broadcaster generally refer to a player who broadcasts a stream of their game play via the game spectating system, the term participant generally refer to players (active participants) and spectators (passive participants), and the term character or game character is generally used to refer to a player's in-game presence or avatar that the player may control via a game client on a client device to interact with other game characters, other game entities, and other objects within the game environment; 0183: spectator audio output of the cheers or boos may be provided by the game spectating system to at least some of the spectators, e.g., to the fans of a particular team; game system may use this input in various ways, e.g., rewarding at least some of the players by providing boosts, gear, or other in-game benefits to the players' in-game characters or avatars based on their fan base's current level of enthusiasm; 0059: content may be targeted to particular spectators or groups of spectators, for example according to the spectators' current selections, profiles, or preferences; 0177: detecting and applying broadcast-related analysis information within a game spectating system, the analysis information for spectators may be leveraged to affect the game characters and game play of the broadcasters; eg, analysis of the audio and/or text chat inputs for spectators viewing a particular player's broadcast may be used to generate inputs to the game system engine via the game system API of the spectating system that positively affect or reward the player's avatar or character within the game]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 11.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cargill (US Publication 2011/0086712) in view of Auterio (US Publication 2018/0043253) in further view of Van Luchene (US Publication 2008/0200253).
A. In regards to Claim 15, Cargill discloses above, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: provide incentives to the one or more characters within a virtual world based on the received data indicating the outcomes of the live events and tracked interactions within the virtual world; but does not specifically disclose, wherein one or more of the incentives include ranking points such that a quantity of the ranking points is used to determine a rank position of an individual user character compared to other user characters. This is disclosed by Van Luchene [0555: a player character can be affiliated with other player characters by, for example: 0558: being the player character with the highest level or rank].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Cargill with the teachings from Van Luchene with the motivation to provide access to a massive multi player online game in exchange for monthly virtual cash payments that are secured with a real world credit card. For example, player characters produce attributes that, when sold (or traded, disposed of or modified), can be taxed by the game environment and player characters may also receive income from services or as otherwise provide by or generated within the game. Van Luchene [0274]
Claims 23, 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cargill (US Publication 2011/0086712) in view of Auterio (US Publication 2018/0043253) in further view of Dury (US Publication 2017/0006322) and Siddique (US Publication 2016/0210602).
A. In regards to Claim 23, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein the character service center is further configured to generate and manage communications on behalf of a character, comprising automated blog posts, social media updates, emails, or targeted digital promotions based on events occurring in either the live event or virtual world. This is disclosed by Siddique [0303: a virtual character may greet a caller via the visual interface and inform the caller of the receiver's status; this conversion may be utilized when users opts to see email/chat/text/SMS messages via the visual interface]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 5.
B. In regards to Claim 25, Cargill discloses wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: identify characters achieving a predefined threshold of performance in the virtual world; Cargill [0013: a player's saving account having more than a set amount of Green Bucks may be detected or tracked and result in the player being sent a digital invitation to visit Green Mall];
and automatically generate invitations for associated real-world individuals to participate in a live event. Cargill [0013: player being sent a digital invitation to visit Green Mall; 0030: online games encourage players to participate in certain activities, to visit a particular location (such as a national park, a zoo, a store, or the like), to attend an educational or other event].
C. In regards to Claim 29, Cargill discloses, wherein automated communications generated by the character service center are selectively targeted to contacts associated with the real-world individual, and are based on either changes in virtual character performance, real-world event participation, or both. Cargill [0053: at the completion of the walk or other activity, the player may have their personal ID scanned or read to show that they attended the event and completed the offline activity such as a walk or other activity. This offline activity may then be downloaded to or credited to their online account by communication of the data from the sponsor system or client device to the game server over a wired and/or wireless network].
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cargill (US Publication 2011/0086712) in view of Auterio (US Publication 2018/0043253) in further view of Lutnick (US Publication 2008/0207296).
A. In regards to Claim 26, Cargill does not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to create, verify, and transmit a secure digital autograph associated with a character or avatar, wherein the digital autograph includes embedded metadata specifying a date, time, target recipient, and authenticity verification information, and wherein the digital autograph is locked from subsequent alteration. Lutnick [0180-83: if a sender has applied a digital signature to a message, or portion of a message, then the sender will not later be able to claim he did not send the message; guarantee a time/data sent; hashing; guarantee receipt by recipient; hashing; verify that a message has not been altered after being sent by the sender (locked).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Cargill with the teachings from Lutnick with the motivation to timestamp a document through a time-stamping service that then determine the hash value of the document, append the current date and time to a hash value of the document and apply a digital signature to the result, so that the digitally signed hash value plus date and time may then be published. Lutnick [0189].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the Office Action fails to evaluate the whole claim or consulting the technical description in the specification and that the claims do not merely recite conventional business processes performed on a computer, instead, recite a specific technical solution rooted in computer technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite limitations that entail commercial interactions including marketing, advertising, sales activity, managing personal behavior or interactions between people, namely following rules or instructions, and are thus, directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not proffer a technological solution to a technical problem, nor does Applicant’s Specification provide any technical support/technical description towards resolving a technical issue. Indeed, the claims address an entrepreneurial problem rather than a technological one. As attested to by Applicant’s specification stating that “existing real sports leagues have NOT tapped the social gaming world in the way this invention drives athletes and fans to promote the Real World sports league, and then … both the Virtual World and the Real World sports leagues can simultaneously and synergistically create expanded growth for both leagues by capitalizing on new innovative promotional marketing via the CSC and CIP, including any, or all, available social media venues and technologies that could be employed.” [0009]. Merely using a technology to implement the abstract ideas, does not solve a technological problem nor improves the technology.
That the invention continuously and automatically receiving real-world event data and programmatically integrating this data into user-associated digital character profiles, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as this is no more than necessary data gathering. And, even if the claimed features represent specific advancements in digital profile management and interaction tracking that improve upon existing platforms which lack such integration and automation that does not automatically render them patent eligible. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 599–601 (2010) (concluding that claims fell outside § 101 notwithstanding the fact that they disclosed a very specific method of hedging against price increases); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978) (rejecting the argument “that if a process application implements a principle in some specific fashion, it automatically falls within the patentable subject matter of § 101”); and Alice v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358–60 (2014) (claims fell outside of 35 U.S.C. 101 even though they described a very specific method for conducting intermediated settlement).
Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims are dissimilar to DDR, as they have different claim sets, different fact patterns and do not offer a technological improvement as was provided in DDR. As such, Applicant’s claims are not analogous to the claims in DDR, nor is there technical disclosure for any steps that could be considered remotely rooted in technology similar to DDR.
That the claims require specialized computer-based technologies such as dedicated databases, processors, and network infrastructure to carry out real-time updates and synchronization between live events and virtual profiles, is merely the use of computer components, not a particular machine, to apply the abstract idea, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Character Service Center & Collaboration Incentive Platform: These are not generic computer components, but are specifically claimed modules for profile management, communication control, and incentive computation-all operating in a coordinated, automated fashion. See claims 11-21. These are merely the use of computer components to apply the abstract ideas, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Secure Digital Autograph Mechanism: The system provides for the creation, control, and verification of digital autographs using implemented processes such as metadata embedding, file-locking, and cryptographic signature verification. This amounts to an attempt to limit the abstract ideas (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity) to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Multi-Layered Synchronization and Automated Communication: The claims implement real-time, bi-directional data flows to merge and reconcile event outcomes, user interactions, and incentive distribution across disparate platforms. This is merely the use of computer components to apply the abstract ideas, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the Character Service Center and the Collaboration Incentive Platform are programmed and configured to perform functions not achievable by routine or conventional means. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above, these functions are directed to abstract idea, applied by generic computer components, which is never enough to provide an inventive concept. See at least, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”). Additionally, claims performing functions not achievable by routine or conventional means are not necessarily significantly more. As even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. For example, the mathematical formula in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591-92, 198 USPQ 193, 198 (1978), the laws of nature in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73-74, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012), and the isolated DNA in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1978 (2013) were all novel, but were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions. See MPEP 2106.04.I.
Applicant submits that the claims do not preempt any basic building blocks or generic uses of computers; rather, they are specifically limited to innovative improvements within the realm of computer-implemented gaming and entertainment platforms. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As preemption is not used as a stand‐alone test for eligibility; instead questions of preemption are inherent in the two‐part analysis of the 101 rejection. Keeping in mind that while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not guarantee that a claim is eligible. MPEP 2106.04(I) provides that questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp and Mayo and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and “those that integrate the building blocks into something more…the latter pose no comparable risk of preemption, and therefore remain eligible.”2 Therefore, “[w]here 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.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also OIP Tech., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed Cir. 2015).
Applicant contends that the dependent claims were not specifically addressed for additional subject matter. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no requirement, either by statute or case law, that the Examiner details in writing an element by element analysis of the dependent claims in order to establish that the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N A, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Notwithstanding, claims 2-4, 11-12, 17 are directed to tracking user and/or avatar activities, which is an abstract idea in and of itself and at most insignificant extra-solution activities. Claims 7 is directed to observations capable of being done in the human mind. Claims 9-10 comprise nonfunctional descriptive material. Claims 13-16 comprise commercial and/or marketing activities. Claims 18-21 are directed to monitoring and managing personal behavior.
Based on the foregoing, the claims, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
B. In regards to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest real-time, automated integration of actual live event outcomes into persistent digital character data. However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., real-time, automated integration of actual live event outcomes into persistent digital character data) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the references fail to teach or suggest a system that provides incentives to characters based on live event data. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Auterio discloses that an incentive reward is an asset provided in an online game that is offered to a user of the online game for completing one or more location-based (live) actions; Auterio [0079], that: a particular user may play one or more of games and control one or more player characters in each game; Auterio [0091]; and once game networking system has confirmed that user has completed the location-based action, game networking system can then provide the incentive reward to the player’s character. Auterio [0186].
Applicant argues that dynamic, automated updating of a character database based on live events and incentive allocation on that basis is not taught or suggested by the references. However, the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., dynamic, automated updating of a character database based on live events and incentive allocation) is not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
C. Newly added claim 22-29, have been responded to in response to the pending claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571- 270-7537. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
2 Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355‐56
Prosecution Insights