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 .
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, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S.___(2014).
Claims 1-10 are directed to a computer implemented method and claims 11-20 are also directed to a computer implemented system implementing the aforementioned method. As such, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice flowchart as, claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Addressing the claims under Step 2A, the claims are held to be directed to concepts similar to those found to be abstract, either as outlined in the 2014 lEG/July 2015 Update to Subject matter eligibility, or, as compared to certain decisions rendered by the courts. The claims describe the steps providing interaction in a virtual video game environment. The addition of the limitations that narrow the idea merely aide in the description of the abstract idea and therefore do not render the claims any less abstract.
This concept is considered a fundamental economic practice inasmuch as allowing users to facilitate interactions between video game environment and blockchain environment (i.e., creating a contractual relationship, and providing features that are fundamental aspects of the economy) and is considered a foundational and basic principle in the realm of commerce (see July 2015 Update: Section III (A) and buySAFE v. Google, Inc. 765 F.3d 1350, 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additional fundamental economic practices have also been discussed in precedential case law and closely parallel the currently claimed economic practice of providing a player with in-game transactions related to virtual items. Examples include the concepts of price determination for saleable goods (OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Versata Development Group v. SAP America, Inc. 793 F.3d. 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)), rules/terms of the transaction (In re Smith 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), and analyzing the financial instruments available to complete a transaction (Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services Inc. 811 F.3d. (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Additionally, this concept is considered a method of organizing human activity by providing a transaction of in-game virtual items related to the player/users. Organizing human activity is used to describe concepts relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing transactions between people and sales activities, advertising, marketing, pricing, resource management, and sales activities or behaviors (see July 2015 Update: Section III (B)). Several precedential cases have found concepts relating to advertising, marketing, pricing, and sales activities or behaviors abstract. One such example is the use of advertising as an exchange or currency (Ultramercial v. Hulu 772 F.3d 709, 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additional precedential courts have found abstract examples of organizing human activity to include structuring a sales force or marketing company (in re Ferguson 558 F.3d 1359, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2009)), automatic optimization of pricing in an ecommerce environment or pricing products in organization groups (OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Versata Development Group v. SAP America, Inc. 793 F.3d. 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and managing tasks and sales force activities and resources (Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).
Finally, the concept of identifying and transmitting in-game transactions related to virtual items further represents ‘an idea itself’ (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)) inasmuch as it is related to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data. Several precedential cases have found concepts relating to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data to be mere ideas in themselves. One example includes selecting/identifying displayed data, manipulating the data through encoding and decoding processes, and generating new outputs/displays (Recognicorp, LLC, v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01873-RAJ (2017)). The courts have addressed other computerized processes for of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data including data collecting and comparing known information (Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC 659 F.3d 1057(Fed. Cir. 2011)), collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016))] extracting, organizing, storing and transmitting data (Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass'n. 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc. 654 F.3d 1366, 99 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)).
Therefore, while it is understood that the claims in the current application are not verbatim recitations of the guidelines or case law, the detailed analysis provided above shows how the current claim limitations at issue closely parallel the concepts provided by the guidelines and the precedential case law, and are therefore considered to be directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Under Step 2B, the examiner acknowledges the additional limitations (i.e. gaming application, wallet management application, transmitting application and processors and similar computing hardware devices for presenting items to players).
Under Step 2B, no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. For example, the computer components generically claimed to enable the management virtual in-game items by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, and (ii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized these functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Particularly, In re TLI Communications LLC (Fed Cir, 2016) held that adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible. As such, the recitation of the computer limitations in Claims 1 to 20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
These limitations however are used for data gathering and presentation and as such merely represents insignificant pre and post solution activity. Even assuming arguendo that the claims are not insignificant pre and post solution activities or mental activities, each of the functions performed by the machinery are well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving and processing data, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data (see July 2015 Update: Section IV)).
Additionally, these limitations (i.e. various forms of software for presenting items to a player) are merely generic recitations of computers and networks performing basic functions and the claims amount to nothing more than implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The limitations taken as a whole amount to nothing more than implementing the concept of facilitating interactions between video game environment and blockchain environment with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claims as a whole do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Ultimately, the claimed system functions solely as an obvious mechanism to achieve the claimed result, failing to impart a meaningful limit on the claim scope [see SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2010)]. The claims at issue here do not rise to overriding the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily performed by the computer, nor do they set forth with any specificity the interactions of the machine itself. Conversely, the claims are only specific in how the computer is used to facilitate the abstract idea itself using routine and conventional operations of the generic machinery, and are silent as to any detail or property that would transform the otherwise generic machinery into a specialized or special purpose machine. Even when considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of applicant's method add nothing that is not already present when they are considered individually. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply convey the idea itself facilitated by generic computing components.
Thus, under Step 2B, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims provide minimal technical structure or components for further consideration either individually or as ordered combinations with the independent claims. As such, additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the identified abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13, 15-16 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch (US Patent Pub. 20220323866; referred to hereinafter as Koch), and further in view of Meilich et al. (US Patent 10,946,283; referred to hereinafter as Meilich).
Claims 1 & 11: Koch disclose a method comprising, authenticating, by a gaming application having an integrated blockchain software development kit (SDK) being executed on a gaming system, a first user associated with a first user in-game account (0012, registering user), detecting, by the gaming application, a user action involving an in-game item within the game application, wherein the in-game item is associated with a blockchain token stored on a blockchain (0013-0019), a connection function of the integrated blockchain SDK, wherein the connection function connects the first user in-game account to a blockchain application that manages a blockchain account of the first user (0031-0034 & 0073), retrieving, by the gaming application, a public blockchain address for the connected blockchain account of the first user (0022-0025), calling, by the gaming application, a blockchain transaction function of the integrated blockchain SDK, wherein the blockchain transaction function generates a blockchain transaction signature request that requests a digital signature of a blockchain transaction using credentials of the blockchain account of the first user (0019-0025, transactions and verification), wherein the blockchain transaction comprises a plurality of transaction parameters including the public blockchain address of the blockchain account of the first user (0025-0036), transmitting, by the gaming application, the blockchain transaction signature request to the blockchain wallet application, receiving, by the gaming application, an indication from the integrated blockchain SDK that the blockchain transaction has been cryptographically signed by the blockchain wallet application using the credentials of the blockchain account of the first user and the blockchain transaction has been added to the blockchain and in response to the indication, performing, by the gaming application, the user action involving the in-game item within the gaming application (0038-0050). Koch, however, does not explicitly disclose a wallet connection function, wherein the wallet connection function connects the first user in-game account to a blockchain wallet application that manages a blockchain account of the first user. In an analogous art, Meilich teach connection with tokenized game assets where an ERC-721 token represents ownership of a game asset and the game assets are managed via an in-game asset management system (col. 2: 40-58). Meilich, further teach, a wallet connection function of the integrated blockchain SDK, wherein the wallet connection function connects the first user in-game account to a blockchain wallet application that manages a blockchain account of the first user (cols. 8-9: 51-30). It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention to modify the system disclosed by Koch to include a wallet connection, wherein the wallet connection function connects the first user in-game account to a blockchain wallet application that manages a blockchain account of the first user, as taught by Meilich to allow players to use wallet connection to easily move token for faster transactions (col. 3: 25-54).
Claims 2 & 12: The combination of Koch and Meilich teach wherein the user action involving the in-game item comprises the user purchasing the in-game item using a purchase amount of cryptocurrency assigned to the blockchain account, wherein the blockchain transaction is configured to transfer the purchase amount of cryptocurrency from the blockchain account to a smart contract managed by the blockchain SDK (0059-0063).
Claims 3 & 13: The combination of Koch and Meilich teach wherein the blockchain transaction is configured to transfer the blockchain token from the blockchain account to a second blockchain account that is linked to the second user (0036-0038, trade to multiple users)
Claims 5 & 15: The combination of Koch and Meilich teach the user updating an attribute of the in-game item, wherein the blockchain transaction is configured to update a corresponding attribute of the blockchain token (0043).
Claims 6 & 16: The combination of Koch and Meilich teach wherein the attribute of the in-game item and the corresponding attribute specify a level value (0043 & 0052).
Claims 8 & 18: The combination of Koch and Meilich teach wherein the user action involving the in-game item comprises the user joining an in-game event, wherein the blockchain transaction is configured to stake the blockchain token a smart contract associated with the event (0047-0048).
Claims 9 & 19: The combination of Koch and Meilich teach wherein the user action involving the in-game item comprises the user consuming the in-game item, wherein the blockchain transaction is configured to burn the blockchain token (obvious, if no asset exists, no storage to store the asset exists).
Claims 10 & 20: The combination of Koch and Meilich teach the user removing the in-game item from the game, wherein the blockchain transaction is configured to transfer the blockchain token to the blockchain account (0044).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 14 & 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stephens (20220355208) refers to system and method for tracking digital assets associated with video games. The digital assets may be in-game digital assets, such as in-game items or characters. The digital assets may be video game digital media assets representing moments of gameplay of a video game, such as video clips or images. The digital asset is created, and a distributed ledger tracking a history of the digital asset is created and stored across devices. A unique token for the digital asset can include a unique identifier and metadata identifying properties of the digital asset. Changes to properties of the digital asset, such as ownership, visual appearance, or metadata, can be identified in a request to update the history. A new block can be generated for, and appended to, the distributed ledger identifying the changes to the history of the digital asset. The new block can include hashes of previous blocks.
Yang (11,883,748) refers to methods and systems for fractionalizing non-fungible token (NFT) shares for digital game assets. The method includes generating a digital asset depicting a gaming event associated with a game. The method includes obtaining a non-fungible token (NFT) for the digital asset. The NFT is stored in a block chain with a reference to a storage location of said digital asset. The obtaining of the NFT includes instructions or parameters for fractionalizing said NFT. The fractionalizing of the NFT creates a set of shares of the NFT. The method includes assigning a share the NFT to a user of the online gaming system. The share is exchangeable among a community of users. The method includes tracking use of each of the set of shares of the NFT and applying a value indicator to each share by the online gaming system.
Yong (11,951,400) refers to multiple video game consoles each store a blockchain ledger with multiple blocks, which is either associated with a particular video game or with the particular type of video game console that the video game consoles are each characterized by. One of the consoles receives a message identifying an intended transaction corresponding to transfer of an identified quantity of an in-game virtual asset from a transferor account to a transferee account. The console verifies that the intended transaction is valid and generates a new block that includes the transaction, optionally one or more additional verified intended transactions, and a block header that includes a hash of a most recent block in the blockchain ledger. The console appends the new block to the blockchain ledger and transmits it to the other consoles, which each also append the new block to their copy of the blockchain ledger, thereby completing the transaction.
The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...." In re Fulton, 391F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/SUNIT PANDYA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715