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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 5/6/26.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 10, 13-14.
Currently, claim(s) 1-18 is/are pending.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 10,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “a primary online game, virtual items available for use within the primary online game, and event-specific virtual items available during an event that includes a secondary game, wherein the event ends upon expiration of a temporal event period of the event, wherein the users include a first user; facilitate interaction of the first user with other users during the primary online game and/or during the event; based on actions performed by the first user during the event, automatically determine event progress of the first user with respect to one or more event objectives that are associated with the event; automatically select a first event reward to be awarded to the first user based on the event progress, wherein the first event reward is available for use in the primary online game, and wherein the first event reward is not available for use to the first user during the event; facilitate distribution of the first event reward to the first user such that the first event reward is available for use to the first user in the primary online game but not available for use during the event; and facilitate a presentation of reward information to the first user, wherein the reward information is regarding the first event reward”, are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, rules). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 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 are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “client computing platforms, wherein the client computing platforms include a first client computing platform, and wherein the first client computing platform is associated with the first user, the system comprising: one or more processors configured to execute machine-readable instructions to: establish electronic communication links between the server and client computing platforms associated with the users, wherein a first electronic communication link between the server and the first client computing platform is established; wherein facilitating interaction of the first user includes performing operations by the server responsive to commands received from the first client computing platform via the first electronic communication link”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Ocko et al. (2012/0015714) teaches the recited additional elements (Fig 2, 13, ¶¶0025, 0036).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-18, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and rules in In re Smith.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-18 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of terminal disclaimer filed 5/6/26.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection,
Applicant argues that the claims do not fall within the abstract group because they describe a technical data-management protocol by reciting programmatic algorithmic constraints. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As identified above, the claimed invention describes providing an event space where the player is encouraged to achieve one or more objectives in order to receive an event reward, further, the player is provided with incentive to utilize the event reward associated with the event space. As result, the identified limitations fall within certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The computer elements recited in the claims merely narrow the idea to the online environment is an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. For examples, in Gametek LLC v. Zynga Inc., 597 Fed. Appx. 644 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the claims described methods which use a programmed computer to effect twelve specific concrete steps. The Court found that the claims in Gametek nonetheless recited a judicial exception. Similarly, here, Examiner finds that despite being specific, the claims are still fall within an abstract grouping.
Applicant further argues that the claims are directed to the backend technical architecture for the synchronization between a technically isolated event account and a persistent primary account. This argument is not persuasive. The recitation of generic computer elements (e.g., electronic communication between computer platforms, a server performing game operations) is not enough by itself to transform the exception into a patentable invention, because these limitations are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Merely using these generic computer components to perform the identified basic functions does not constitute meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., No. 2015-1778, slip op. 12 (“[T]he essentially result-focused, functional character of claim language has been a frequent feature of claims held ineligible under § 101.”).
Applicant further argues that dependent claims 4 and 13 integrate the concept into a practical application because they provide automatic removal of event specific virtual items from inventor information upon the expiration of a temporal period. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “…removal of the event-specific virtual item upon the expiration of the temporal event period” recites rules for managing game asset, i.e., part of playing the game. Applicant further argues that dependent claims 4 and 13 provide a specific technical solution such as an enforcement of a data lifecycle (para 0043) and optimizing server-side memory and ensures the technical integrity of the isolated event account (para 0048). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Applicant’s specification, both paragraphs describe an event space module and an event account module, each module is a computer program module that performs a computational task (para 0026). The specification describes a generic gaming environment (para 0030, 0034-0040). There is no recited improvement to the functioning of the computer itself (e.g., optimizing memory resources management). The claims do not specify a particular technical data structure or algorithm that improves computer performance. The removal of the event-specific virtual item upon expiration is game-state variable. In other words, the removal of an expired virtual item does not provide computer-function improvement.
Applicant further argues that dependent claims 5 and 14 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they impose a specific, non-routine technical constraint on the server’s state machine. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to the response above, Applicant’s specification does not describe any technical improvement in data modification. In paragraph [0073], the specification merely provides more game details in one or more instances of an event space may be executed and implemented. The specification describes computer memory at a high level of generality (para 0038-0041, 0058-0060). At best, dependent claims 5 and 14 are written in largely functional terms, claiming “a collection of instructions” that perform the functions of “updating a player’s inventory information”. The claims thus do not go beyond “stating [the relevant] functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology.” Elec. Power Grp., slip op. at 2. Therefore, for the reasons as set forth above, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights