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 .
Corrected Final
This Final Office action replaces the action mailed on 06/16/2026.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A detailed analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Claim 1 (method):
“storing a reward for a user performing an event of a game program as a first blockchain of a user account of the user in a connected blockchain network;”
“receiving, from a client accessed by the user account, a request signal for changing the game program including information about the reward of the user account deducted as a price for changing a parameter of the game program and information about the changed parameter of the game program”
“extracting information from the request signal about the reward of the user account deducted as the price for changing the parameter of the game program;”
“distributing a second blockchain including information about the deducted reward to the connected blockchain network.”
Step 1: Statutory category determination.
The claim is drawn to a “method,” i.e., a process under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, they fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Identify judicial exception(s) with citations to PEG groupings; quote offending clauses.
The claim “recites” abstract ideas within the 2019 PEG groupings:
Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic practices and commercial/legal interactions (reward accounting, pricing, token/cryptocurrency transactions, account-based ledger updates): • “receiving a request” (offer/acceptance of a purchase) • “extracting information about a reward of the user account deducted as a price for changing a parameter of the game program” (pricing and payment);• “storing a reward … as a first blockchain of a user account” (account-based recordkeeping of economic value);• “distributing a second blockchain including information about the deducted reward” (transaction/ledger distribution);
These limitations are paradigmatic of abstract data-only steps and economic activity per the PEG (Abstract Idea groupings: commercial/legal interactions and mental processes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Analyze integration into a practical application; discuss any claimed technological improvement; address whether extra-solution activity or field-of-use limitations are present.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
No improvement to computer functionality or another technology is recited. The claim uses generic components (“client,” “blockchain node,” “connected blockchain network”) and high-level operations (“generating a source code,” “converting … into an EVM byte code,” “generating a transaction,” “distributing …”) without any specific technical mechanisms (e.g., novel consensus, data structures, gas optimization, opcode-specific compilation strategies, or latency/throughput improvements).
Merely applying the abstract idea on a particular platform (Ethereum/EVM/“blockchain”) is a field-of-use limitation that, under the PEG, does not constitute integration. The specification itself describes Ethereum, nodes, EVM, and transactions as conventional infrastructure used to execute smart contracts and distribute transactions (see spec ¶¶ [31], [47]–[49], [86]–[87]).
The “game parameter” context is a non-technical field-of-use. Adjusting a game “difficulty” via token payments is an economic/game governance concept, not a technological improvement to the operation of the computer, the network, or the blockchain itself.
The recited steps amount to data gathering (“storing … reward,” “extracting information”), data processing/recordation (“generating source code,” “converting to EVM byte code,” “generating a transaction”), and dissemination (“distributing … to the network”), which the PEG treats as extra-solution activity when not tied to a specific technical enhancement.
Accordingly, the claims fail Prong 2.
Step 2B: Assess whether additional elements are significantly more; discuss WURC with evidentiary considerations.
The claims do not recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea:
The use of a “blockchain node,” “connected blockchain network,” Ethereum, EVM bytecode generation, and transaction distribution are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the art of blockchain-based applications. The specification confirms these are standard operations (spec ¶¶ [31]–[33], [47]–[49], [71]–[75], [86]–[87]), and no unconventional architecture, protocol, or data structure is asserted. Additionally, use of Blockchain technology is considered conventional per 20180276626, paragraph 91.
The steps are result-oriented without particularized implementation details—e.g., no recitation of specific EVM opcodes, compiler passes, gas accounting strategies, consensus modifications, sharding schemas, memory models, or security primitives that would depart from routine smart contract handling.
Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept that would transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
Conclusion: Eligible/ineligible under § 101.
Ineligible. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (economic management of rewards and pricing for altering game parameters; data extraction/recording/distribution) and do not integrate that idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
All dependent claims have been analyzed but either are additional abstract ideas and/or are merely applying the abstract idea into a particular field of use which is not enough to bring the claim into patent eligibility.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,872,494. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘494 are narrower than the present claims and as such read on the present claims.
Response to Arguments
The rejection based upon non-statutory double patenting has been maintained. Even though Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer, that terminal disclaimer was not approved. See noticed mailed on 05/07/2026.
With regard to the rejection based upon 35 USC 101, Applicant argues “claim 1 has been amended to require a specific blockchain-based implementation in which a request signal for changing the game program includes both changed-parameter information an deducted-reward information,” (Arguments, page 5). However, this merely transactional information such as what would be done in selling/buying an item and as such fall within certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant has further amended the claims regarding a transaction generated from an EVM byte code. However, this is merely how blockchain works, or in other words, applying the abstract idea into a technological area which is not enough to bring the abstract idea into patent eligibility (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the rejection based upon 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights