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 Office-Action acknowledges the Request for Continued Examination filed on 7/30/2026 and is a response to said Request.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Office Action on 7/3/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/10/2024 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US U.S. Patent No. 9,962,605, U.S. Patent No. 10,987,582, U.S. Patent No. 10,258,883, and U.S. Patent No. 11,779,840 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-8 recite a system, while Claims 9-16 recite a series of steps, all of which are directed towards providing awards to users of an online game. Thus, these groups of claims are directed to a machine and process respectively, both of which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 9) recite:
A system/method for incentivizing players of an online game by providing the players with information regarding potential awards that are available in a set of secondary online games that are presented while participating in the online game, wherein the set of secondary online games includes a second game and a third game, wherein the players include a first player, the system comprising:
one or more physical computer processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
execute an instance of the online game, wherein at least part of the execution of the online game is performed on a server;
facilitate presentation of the online game to the players via client computing devices, wherein the client computing devices include a first client computing device associated with the first player, wherein the first player participates in the online game through entering user input into a game interface on the first client computing device, and wherein the first client computing device is configured to communicate electronically via an electronic communications network to the server;
provide access for the players to the set of secondary online games that includes different games than the online game by facilitating a second presentation of the second game, wherein the first player is presented with the second game through the game interface on the first client computing device while participating in the online game, and wherein participation in the second game through entering secondary user input into the game interface potentially results in awarding the players with a set of potential awards; and
provide information to the first player through a user interface on the first client computing device regarding a subset of the set of potential awards that corresponds to a particular gameplay metric that is beyond current achievements by the first player in the online game, wherein the subset of the set of potential awards would be available to the first player through particular participation by the first player in the third game in the set of secondary games, subsequent to the first player achieving a particular level of progress in the online game that corresponds to the particular gameplay metric in advance of initiation of the third game, thereby incentivizing the first player to make progress in the online game before the first player is presented with the third game while participating in the online game, and wherein the particular participation by the first player includes entering particular user input into the game interface.
[the examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, and following rules or instructions)]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a gaming machine such as a client computing device) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: presenting to a player potential awards that corresponds to a particular gameplay metric.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 1 and 9 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: one or more physical computer processors and client computing device.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: “execute an instance of the online game…” and “facilitate presentation of the online game to the players via client computing devices…” because these elements are analogous to limitations that amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use such as online gaming.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example, the Examiner would also like to point out that Wu, US 20120083343 (Wu) discloses that that it is conventional that online games in which multiple players can play can comprise client computing devices that can communicate with an online game server for allowing players to play online [0006]-[0007].
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
No arguments had been filed.
Closest Applicable Prior Art
The closest applicable prior art, Santini, US 8777754, is interpreted as teaching: A system/method for incentivizing players of an online game by providing the players
with information regarding potential awards that are available in a set of secondary online games that are presented while participating in the online game, wherein the set of secondary online games includes a second game and a third game, wherein the players include a first player, the system comprising: one or more physical computer processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: execute an instance of the online game, wherein at least part of the execution of the online game is performed on a server; facilitate presentation of the online game to the players via client computing devices, wherein the client computing devices include a first client computing device associated with the first player, wherein the first player participates in the online game through entering user input into a game interface on the first client computing device, and wherein the first client computing device is configured to communicate electronically via an electronic communications network to the server.
However, the prior art failed to teach: provide access for the players to the set of secondary online games that includes different games than the online game by facilitating a second presentation of the second game, wherein the first player is presented with the second game through the game interface on the first client computing device while participating in the online game, and wherein participation in the second game through entering secondary user input into the game interface potentially results in awarding the players with a set of potential awards; and provide information to the first player through a user interface on the first client computing device regarding a subset of the set of potential awards that corresponds to a particular gameplay metric that is beyond current achievements by the first player in the online game, wherein the subset of the set of potential awards would be available to the first player through particular participation by the first player in the third game in the set of secondary games, subsequent to the first player achieving a particular level of progress in the online game that corresponds to the particular gameplay metric in advance of initiation of the third game, thereby incentivizing the first player to make progress in the online game before the first player is presented with the third game while participating in the online game, and wherein the particular participation by the first player includes entering particular user input into the game interface.
Claims 1-16 have no prior art rejection but currently stands rejected under USC § 101.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights