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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy had been filed on 2/6/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-11 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.
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 1-5 are directed to a game-implementing server; claims 6-10 are directed to a method of implementing a game via a server and claim 11 is directed to a method of executing a game program on a server. As such, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice flowchart (i.e. an abstract idea). All the independent claims are directed to “service providing server which provides a tournament game service that enables a game battle online with other users using tickets, and supports NFTs, wherein in NFTs for a plurality of respective users, profile information of each user is recorded, and at the same time, user identification information for each user is recorded as holder information of the NFT, containing profile information, wherein the profile information of each of the plurality of users contains level information calculated based on a tournament participation record of each user and quantity information of tickets for participating in a tournament, which are held by each user, of each of the plurality of users for using the tournament game service, which is registered in a predetermined blockchain network to be transacted, comprising: a game information storage unit storing information on a required level and information on the number of required tickets for participating in tournaments of a plurality of predetermined respective games; a sales information database storing user identification information for each of the plurality of users and sales price information for the NFT of each user to correspond to each other; an information transmission unit extracting, when a sales information providing request command for a first NFT containing profile information of a second user which is any one of the plurality of users is received from a first electronic terminal of a first user, sales price information for the first NFT from the sales information database, and transmitting the extracted sales price information to the first electronic terminal; a payment processing unit requesting, when a purchase request command for the first NFT is received from the first electronic terminal, transmission of payment means information to the first electronic terminal, and performing, when first payment means 32information is received from the first electronic terminal, payment processing for an amount according to the sales price information for the first NFT based on the first payment means information; and a transaction registration processing unit requesting transmission of the user identification information for the first user to the first electronic terminal, and generating, when first user identification information is received as the user identification information for the first user from the first electronic terminal, a first transaction containing ownership transfer information indicating changing the user identification information for the second user included in the first NFT as the holder information to the first user identification information, and registering the first transaction in the blockchain network to process the user identification information included in the first NFT registered in the blockchain network to be changed to the first user identification information.”
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 of enabling NFT (non-fungible token) transactions in a tournament game. 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 utilize an auction marketplace (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 user with an offer to bid (purchase) a service (service providers time). 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 gaming tournament for users to participate in using NFT. Organizing human activity is used to describe concepts relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing transactions between people and sales activities (i.e. presenting information and NFT related financial service to users), 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)).
The concept of identifying and transmitting NFT transactional information to a user 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)).
Furthermore, claims 5 & 10 are also directed to mathematical algorithms (i.e. averaging, aggregating, adjusting, and mathematical formula of generating public key for virtual transaction of NFT)); Claims 5 & 10 state: “The service providing server of claim 3, wherein when the first transaction is registered in the blockchain network, the transaction registration processing unit transmits a purchase completion message indicating that the purchase of the first NFT is completed to the first electronic terminal, and then requests transmission of a public key for electronic signature verification and e-mail address information held by the first user to the first electronic terminal, and when a first public key corresponding to a first private key pre-stored in the first electronic terminal, and the information on a first e-mail address are received from the first electronic terminal, stores the first user identification information, and the first public key and the information on the first e-mail address in the member database to correspond to each other, and the confirmation unit includes an event generation unit generating a certification event for conducting e-mail based user certification for the first user when receiving the access request command to the tournament session opened for the first game from the first electronic terminal, a certification information generation unit randomly generating, when the certification event is generated, a n, wherein n is a natural number of 2 or more, digit first certification number, randomly generating a certification value constituted by a natural number having a size of 9 or less, and then, performing a modulo operation having the certification value as a divisor for respective digit numbers constituting the first certification number to generate an n-digit second certification number, an operating unit generating a column vector having respective digit numbers constituting the first certification number as components and a row vector having respective digit numbers constituting the second certification number as components, and operating a matrix multiplication between the column vector and the row vector to generate an operation matrix of an n x n size, and then operating Frobenius Norm of the operation matrix, a signature request unit requesting transmission of user identification information for the first user to the first electronic terminal, and when receiving the first user identification information from the first electronic terminal, confirming the first e-mail address stored to correspond to the first user identification information from the member database, sending a certification e-mail including the first certification number with the first e-mail address as a receiver, and then transmitting the certification value to the first electronic terminal, and at the same time, requesting the electronic signature based on the first certification number and the certification value, a certification processing unit extracting, when receiving a first electronic signature value, wherein the first electronic signature value is generated by performing, when the certification value is received in the first electronic terminal, and the first user inputs the first certification number included in the certification e-mail received by an account according to the first e-mail address into the first electronic terminal, by the first electronic terminal, the modulo operation having the certification value as the divisor for the respective digit numbers constituting the first certification number to generate the n-digit second certification number, and then generate a column vector having respective digit numbers constituting the first certification number as components and a row vector having respective digit numbers constituting the second certification number as components, and operating the matrix multiplication between the column vector and the row vector to generate the operation matrix 36of the n x n size, and then signing the Frobenius Norm of the operation matrix with the first private key stored in the first electronic terminal, from the first electronic terminal in response to the electronic signature request, the first public key stored to correspond to the first user identification information from the member database, and then comparing a value acquired by decoding the first electronic signature value based on the first public key and the Frobenius Norm of the operation matrix with each other, and when it is confirmed that both values coincide with each other, completing the certification for the first user, and a confirmation processing unit inquiring, when the certification for the first user is completed, the first NFT registered in the blockchain network based on the first user identification information to confirm the first level information and the first ticket quantity information included in the profile information recorded in the first NFT.”
In particular, the courts have found mathematical algorithms to be abstract ideas (i.e. a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another in Benson, or an algorithm for calculation parameters indication an abnormal condition in Grams). The courts have found that analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., (Fed. Cir. 2015) citing e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v.Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRFTech., Inc. v. Int'ITrade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319,1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589-90 (1978); Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
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).
Addressing the claims under Step 2A Prong Two: Claims 1-11 do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; MPEP § 2106.05(f). (2) generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, the blockchain; MPEP § 2106.05(h); (3) are insignificant extra solution activity; MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements are limited to generic computer components. The additional elements are: “a service providing server”, “a game information storage unit storing information…”, “a transaction registration processing unit”.
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/computer components and is not a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the examiner acknowledges the additional limitations (i.e. a gamer server with communication interface allowing interactions with users, and various forms of software for presenting NFT items to a user). However, 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 NFT transaction management in the game 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 1 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, these limitations (i.e. a gamer server with communication interface allowing interactions with users, and various forms of software for presenting NFT items to a user) 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 identifying and transmitting NFT information between users, and carrying out an transaction in a gaming tournament 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 of identifying and transmitting information to users.
Ultimately, the claimed “machine” function 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.
Thus, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi (US Patent Pub. 20240265781) refers to a service providing server that provides a tournament game service that supports participation in a game tournament through the setting of a non-fungible token (NFT)-based user profile and the operating method thereof to support users to enjoy a game while competing by a tournament scheme jointly with other users in an online environment.
Cella (US Patent Pub. 20220198562) refers to systems and methods for configuring and launching a marketplace are described. A method may include identifying an opportunity for a new marketplace, receiving marketplace opportunity data, determining configuration parameters, and determining a feasibility of implementing the new marketplace configuration. An architecture of the new marketplace may be determined, and marketplace objects configured. Data resources and their configuration in a model may be determined and the data resources connected to marketplace objects. The new marketplace may then be launched.
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