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 .
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed February 9, 2026. Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 12-13, 17-24, and 28-29 are amended. Claims 1-29 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/785,899, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application Nos. 17/461,011, 16/749,907, 14/924,350 and 13/815,345 at least do not disclose, track, via the collaboration incentive platform, (i) one or more interactions between an avatar of a character and fans of the character and (ii) activity of the real-world individual associated with the character at the live events; compute, by the collaboration incentive platform, incentive amounts for individual ones of the characters based on the tracked one or more interactions and the activity; and provide incentives to the one or more characters based on the incentive amounts.
Therefore, as the present application is a continuation of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 17/461,011, 16/749,907, 14/924,350, and division of Application No. 13/815,345; and the claims are not supported by the disclosure of the applications, the current claims, 1-29 of present application do not receive priority to the filing date of Application Nos. 17/461,011, 16/749,907, 14/924,350 and 13/815,345.
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 1-29 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 1 the limitation “receive via the collaboration incentive platform data indicating outcomes of live events involving competitions between one or more of the real-world individuals,” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification discloses that “the self-proclaimed “Holy Grail” of online gaming, broadcast shows and live entertainment (aka “The Perfect Storm”) merges (1) a Virtual World that contains a social network game (e.g., an online fantasy sports league), including an online gaming platform for avatars to interact with fans online; (2) Live Events that push a portion of the avatars to life in a Real World sports league, with real competition for real cash and improvisational drama” [0025]. This does not describe receiving via collaboration incentive platform data indicating outcomes of live events involving competitions between one or more of the real-world individuals. Accordingly, this is impermissible new matter. Claims 2-29 by being dependents of claim 1 are also rejected.
In Claim 1 the limitation “track, via the collaboration incentive platform, (i) one or more interactions between an avatar of a character and fans of the character and (ii) activity of the real-world individual associated with the character at the live events,” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification discloses that “the self-proclaimed “Holy Grail” of online gaming, broadcast shows and live entertainment (aka “The Perfect Storm”) merges (1) a Virtual World that contains a social network game (e.g., an online fantasy sports league), including an online gaming platform for avatars to interact with fans online;” [0025]; and “players participating in activities, such as game play, in-game purchases, watching programs, viewing sponsor advertisements, signing autographs, and/or performing a variety of other acts that generate redeemable points for the players that are tracked” [00120] This does not describe tracking, via a collaboration incentive platform, an interaction between an avatar of a character and fans of the character and activity of a real-world individual associated with the character at the live events. These are conflated notions, neither of which the specification describes. Accordingly, this is impermissible new matter. Claims 2-29 by being dependents of claim 1 are also rejected.
In Claim 1 the limitation “compute, by the collaboration incentive platform, incentive amounts for individual ones of the characters based on the tracked one or more interactions and the activity,” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification discloses that “Step 400 depicts the method of characters participating in activities, such as game playing, in-game purchasing, watching programs, viewing sponsor advertisements, signing autographs, issuing endorsements, making public appearances and/or performing a variety of other acts that generate revenues and ranking points for the characters that are tracked and scored, and then computed and allocated to the eligible characters via a “Collaboration Incentive Platform,” according to a preferred embodiment” [00120]. This does not describe that incentive amounts for individual characters are computed based on tracked interaction between an avatar of a character and fans of the character and the activity of a real-world individual associated with the character at the live events. Accordingly, this is impermissible new matter. Claims 2-29 by being dependents of claim 1 are also rejected.
In Claim 1 the limitation “provide incentives to the one or more characters based on the incentive amounts,” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification discloses that “there is an infrastructure for characters and players, who develop, share, communicate, collaborate and/or co-create to earn more, based on such measurable contributions, thus incentivizing them and thus mobilizing them to contribute more, because they will realize more. They are incentivized by computing, allocating and rewarding cash and/or game points (“Incentives”) based on data collected from the Internet via the “Collaboration Incentive Platform,” using a “Mathematical Formula” that resides within a computerized network” [00120]. This does not describe that incentive incentives are provided to one or more characters based on the incentive amounts. Accordingly, this is impermissible new matter. Claims 2-29 by being dependents of claim 1 are also rejected.
In Claim 22 the limitation “wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to update character profiles in response to the outcomes of live events, such that changes in performance or status of the real-world individual are 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” [00121]. This does not describe that character profiles are updated in response to the outcomes of live events, such that changes in performance or status of individuals are reflected in an associated virtual world character profile. Accordingly, this is impermissible new matter.
In Claim 28 the limitation “wherein the character database stores a status attribute that reflects a character ranking computed by the collaboration incentive platform based on online activity of the avatar and real-word activities of the associated individual,” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification discloses a “the Character Service Center's character database and entrance into the Social Game; at which time in Step 530 you see the human acting as a character and interacting with fans through the Character Service Center; then in Step 540 through increased popularity based on character statistics kept by the Character Service Center the character ranks up” [00121]. This does not describe that the character database stores a status attribute that reflects a character ranking. Accordingly, this is impermissible new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 3, and 11 only reiterate previously recited limitations, and fail to specify any further limitations of the claimed subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, where individual ones of the character profiles electronically store an association of one or more characters with a real-world individual the one or more characters having an associated avatar; receive data indicating outcomes of live events involving competitions between one or more of the real-world individuals; update respective ones of the stored character profiles based on the received data indicating the outcomes of the live events; track, (i) one or more interactions between an avatar of a character and fans of the character and (ii) activity of the real-world individual associated with the character at the live events; compute, incentive amounts for individual ones of the characters based on the tracked one or more interactions and the activity; and provide incentives to the one or more characters based on the incentive amounts. 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 and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. In particular the claim recites the additional element: a computer-implemented character service center including a character database; a collaboration incentive platform; one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to; in a character database of the character service center via the collaboration incentive platform; via the collaboration incentive platform; by the collaboration incentive platform, which are recited at a high level of generality and are merely the use of the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and instructions to implement 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 character service center, a database, collaboration incentive platform, 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.
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. § 112 rejection are moot in light of Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Applicant’s amendments of claims 1, 22 and 28.
B. Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection and states that the claims functionalities resolve concrete technical problems in identity management, real-time data synchronization, and secure asset verification. They amount to more than organizing human activity or conducting a conventional business practice on a computer. They represent specific technological advancements in digital profile management and interaction tracking that improve upon existing platforms which lack such integration and automation. 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].
Moreover, merely using a technology to implement the abstract ideas, or linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not solve a technological problem nor improves the technology. Applicant’s “character service center (CSC) including a character database,” is nothing more than a server (or any general computing device) with a database, as claimed. The specification states that 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” [00121]; See also Fig 3. The “collaboration incentive platform” (CIP), is a broad environment in which the Applicant’s system operates. Under this computer environment the invention receives data, tracks interactions and activity, and computes incentive amount, which are directed to an abstract idea. See 101 analysis above.
Furthermore, even if, the claimed features represented 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 claim 1 architecture and interplay between the CSC and CIP integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The CSC and CIP connection are merely the use of computer components and environment to apply the abstract ideas, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The use of a “character” database, processors, and network infrastructure to carry out real-time updates and incentive computation between fans and virtual profiles, and live events activity, 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). Unlike other cases that have been found eligible, Applicant’s specification does not provide any support for any technological or computer improvement. For instance, Applicant’s specification does not describe how it improves cross-domain synchronization, profile/state management, and real-time incentive computation.
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”). Applicant also states that the particular arrangement of a CSC character database (e.g., storing profile data for a set of characters associated with real-world individuals), coupled with a CIP that tracks two distinct interaction categories, ingests live-event outcomes, computes incentives from the combined dataset, and writes the computed results back into the system for provisioning, is not a conventional or routine use of generic computers. However, this would not be significantly more as these features are directed to abstract ideas. 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 the abstract idea and are confined to a specific claimed implementation. 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).
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.
Conclusion
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