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 .
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of a series of mental steps to match players for a virtual game. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Please see recent Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International for guidance.
Claims 1 and 6 are independent claims directed to a method and system to match players for a virtual game. Products and Processes fall within statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to an exception. In this case, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of a mental process or a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). In particular, the process of matching users to an application can be done mentally.
matching players requesting to play a virtual game, (just the request, not playing a virtual game.)
receiving a plurality of matchmaking requests, (the mere receiving of data can be verbal and listen to.)
each matchmaking request signaling an intent of one player to play the virtual game; (just further defines the data)
for each matchmaking request, identifying a participating entity ID making the said matchmaking request; (combining data, request data with ID data, can be done mentally)
for each participant entity ID, accessing a collusion profile; (access more data)
processing the plurality of collusion profiles to identify at least one cluster of participant entity IDs; (combining more data)
accessing a plurality of player profiles corresponding to each of a first plurality of the participant entity IDs; (access more data)
processing the plurality of player profiles to identify a first subset of participant entity IDs, which are proposed to participate in an instance of the game, (create a group within the data)
wherein: the first subset of participant entity IDs contains no more than one participant entity ID corresponding to the at least one cluster of participant entity IDs (just further defines the data)
The matching steps cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing modules” or “data storage modules”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
(Step 2A, prong one: YES)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether there are additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this case, the claims recite that the steps are performed by “processing modules” or “data storage modules”.
The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2A, prong two: NO)
Viewing the limitations individually,
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
The additional element, by “processing modules” or “data storage modules”, in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as a combination, the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the concept of an electronic method of matching 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 claim as a whole does not add significantly more to the abstract idea of an electronic method of matching.
(Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5 have been considered each as whole claim as to the abstract idea and the “significantly more” criterion. While being more specific, the limitations did not make the claims less abstract nor provide “significantly more” to the claims to make them patent eligible.
Applicant may want to incorporate a limitation that cannot be performed mentally. Such as, -- for each participant entity ID, collecting virtual game play data, during game play, to develop a collusion profile --. Collecting virtual game play data during virtual game play cannot be performed mentally.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Simons et al. (US patent 10,720,009).
Simons et al. shows,
In regards to claims 1 and 6,
receiving a plurality of matchmaking requests, each matchmaking request signaling an intent of one player to play the virtual game; (See figure 5 and column 13, lines 43-49, each player is presented with gaming options 1100. “Once the player has made a selection from the list of player gaming options, the system collects that selection 1200. The system then matches the player with a competitor 1300 and collects a bet from the player 1400.” The selection of game options prompting the matching for each player is considered to be a plurality of matchmaking requests.)
for each matchmaking request, identifying a participating entity ID making the said matchmaking request; (column 11, lines 17-20, “Data collection module 230 can collect various data about individual game player and the players. This data can be used to create player and gaming profiles, generate analytics, and as criteria for game presentation.”)
for each participant entity ID, accessing a collusion profile; (column 12, lines 36-42, “Risk management module 185 can monitor player activity in order to prevent collusion or other prohibited or illegal behavior. For example, risk management module 185 may use account information in order to determine if some players are violating rules of the system. In one embodiment, risk management module 185 could monitor playing behaviors of users to detect possible collusion.” The assembled data from the monitoring of each player are considered collusion profiles.)
processing the plurality of collusion profiles to identify at least one cluster of participant entity IDs; (column 12, lines 48-52, by example, “Similarly, in car racing games for more than two players, the module could monitor to ensure that a certain group of players are not consistently competing in the same races in order to work together and reach an unfair advantage.” The “a certain group of players” is considered to be a cluster.)
accessing a plurality of player profiles corresponding to each of a first plurality of the participant entity IDs; (See above, Data collection module 230)
processing the plurality of player profiles to identify a first subset of participant entity IDs, which are proposed to participate in an instance of the game, (from above, “in car racing games for more than two players” The “more than two players” in the car race is considered to be the first subset.) wherein:
the first subset of participant entity IDs contains no more than one participant entity ID corresponding to the at least one cluster of participant entity IDs. (From above, “the module could monitor to ensure that a certain group of players are not consistently competing in the same races.”)
In regards to claim 2,
the method comprises processing the plurality of collusion profiles to identify a plurality of clusters of participant entity IDs. (Risk management module 185)
In regards to claim 3,
the method comprises processing the plurality of collusion profiles to identify a plurality of participant entity IDs which are not categorized in any of the plurality of clusters of participant entity IDs. (In the car racing example, those in the race are not categorized in a cluster or the certain group of players.)
In regards to claim 4,
the first subset of participant entity IDs contains at least one participant ID which is not categorized in any of the plurality of clusters of participant entity IDs. (In the car racing example, those in the race are not categorized in a cluster or the certain group of players.)
In regards to part of claim 5,
restricting the at least one participant entity ID from participating in an instance of the game. (From above, “ensure that a certain group of players are not consistently competing in the same races.”)
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simons et al. (US patent 10,720,009) in view of Aikin et al. (US patent 7,604,541).
Simons et al. shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying identifying a collusion score for at least one participant entity ID in the at least one cluster of participant entity IDs; comparing the collusion score with a threshold score.
Aikin et al. teaches, column 11, line 16-21, “comparing the computed score of a collusional model with that of a non-collusional model; after comparing the computed scores, performing a collusion threshold analysis using a thresholding scheme to determine whether the collusional model indicates collusion for the pair of online poker players”
Based on the teaching of Aikin et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Simons et al. invention to incorporate identifying a collusion score for at least one participant entity ID in the at least one cluster of participant entity IDs; comparing the collusion score with a threshold score in order to help quantify collusion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571 272-7147. 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.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715