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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claims as being dependent on claims 1-10. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 11-13 are not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-14 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 1-14 are directed to a method of gaming and claim 14 is directed to a processing system to implement a game, thus the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice flowchart as directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
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 interacting between a player and spectator of a virtual 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 method of organizing human activity by providing communication/interaction between a player and a spectator of a virtual game. Organizing human activity is used to describe concepts relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing transactions between people and activities, 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 transaction management between people and activities, advertising, marketing, pricing, resource management, 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 “collecting, tabulating and verifying information” as fundamental social or administrative process that existed long before computer (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International 2014).
Finally, the concept of identifying and transmitting information to users 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)). As noted above, the courts have found that automation of manual process does not render a claim patentable.
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).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claims 1-14 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are generic hardware to apply the abstract idea exception; MPEP §2106.05(f); (2) generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment; 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: “an electronic device”, “processor and a memory storing” and “processing system” which are generic device for data receiving and transmitting (i.e. servers), and generic “computing devices”.
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, all the Claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the examiner acknowledges the additional limitations (i.e. an online interfaces, interactions with server, and various forms of software for presenting interaction); however, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application.
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 the management of the data 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 1-14 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
These limitations however are used for data gathering and presentation and as such merely represents insignificant pre and post solution activity. Even assuming arguendo that the claims are not insignificant pre and post solution activities or mental activities, each of the functions performed by the machinery are well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving and processing data, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data (see July 2015 Update: Section IV)).
Additionally, these limitations (an online interfaces, interactions with server, and various forms of software), 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 information to users 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(s) 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kern et al. (US Patent Pub. 20140004951; referred to hereinafter as Kern).
Claims 1 & 14: Kern disclose a task processing method for a game session (abstract), comprising, an obtaining step, receiving a game spectating request from a first game terminal, obtaining a game screen of a spectated character corresponding to the game spectating request, and sending the game screen to the first game terminal (figures 1-3 & 0018-0024), a receiving step, receiving request information from the first game terminal, wherein the request information comprises at least one predetermined task (0032 & 0045, presenting the active player with challenges), a sending step, sending the predetermined task to at least one game terminal in the game session (0045) a determination step, in response to a determination operation received by any game terminal for the predetermined task, determining that a game character meeting a predetermined condition is an executor of the predetermined task, and a settlement step, allocating a game resource reward to a game account corresponding to the executor based on an execution result of the predetermined task (0034-0035, wherein spectator is provides award/rewards to the player for completing the challenge).
Claim 2: Kern disclose an updating step, receiving update information from the first game terminal or a second game terminal, wherein the update information is used to update the predetermined task, wherein the sending step comprises sending the updated predetermined task to at least one game terminal in the game session (0032-0035 & 0045, inherent to the challenge step, as the award is only provided upon completion of the challenge).
Claim 3: Kern disclose wherein the update information comprises: any one or a combination of two or more among a difficulty level of the predetermined task, a quantity requirement for kills, limited completion time, and the game resource reward (0034-0035).
Claim 4: Kern disclose deducting the game resource reward from a game account corresponding to the first game terminal and temporarily storing the game resource reward; and the settlement step comprises, based on the execution result of the predetermined task, adding the game resource reward into a game account corresponding to the executor (0034-0035).
Claim 5: Kern disclose wherein the game resource reward is generated and settled by a game system (0034-0035, inherent).
Claim 6: Kern disclose wherein the request information comprises information that is about the predetermined task and the game resource reward, and both the predetermined task and the game resource reward are customized by the first game terminal (0032-0035, spectator selects rewards and challenge).
Claim 7: Kern disclose receiving a refresh information request from any game terminal, wherein the refresh information request is used to refresh a list of predetermined tasks displayed on a game interface of any game terminal (0018-0024).
Claim 8: Kern disclose determining a degree of contribution of the executor to completion of the predetermined task, and distributing the game resource reward based on the degree of contribution (0032-0035).
Claim 9: Kern disclose determining that a game character meeting the predetermined condition is an executor of the predetermined task, a state of the executor is set to be a damage immunity state or a damage reduction state (0035).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kern (20140018157) refers to Reward-based features for videogame observers are provided herein. Exemplary methods for providing reward-based features for videogame observers may include receiving, via a networked gaming system, a request from a videogame observer to provide a virtual reward to a player within the gaming environment, the videogame observer being a non-participant in a game occurring within the gaming environment; and providing, within the gaming environment, the virtual reward to the player.
Danieli (20060058103) refers to during an online event, a spectator process monitors a state of the event, updating a spectator model, so that spectator data streams can be generated and provided to spectators. The spectator data streams can be formatted and provided with content appropriate for use by different types of spectator devices used by the spectators. The spectator process can also automatically generate virtual commentary appropriate for the action occurring in the event for inclusion in the spectator data streams. A media server receives the rendered data streams and distributes them to the electronic devices being used by the spectators. The distribution can be delayed to avoid a spectator conveying information to a participant that would provide an unfair advantage. Executable code can be included in the spectator data stream to provide additional functionality and facilitate interaction between the spectators, and to enable a spectator to also "play" the game.
Allen (20100279764) refers to processes and devices that determine and assign rewards as a group in a wagering game system utilizing social contacts. One of the devices described herein, a wagering game system, determines a first player account associated with a wagering game and looks at the first player account to determine a second player account associated with the first player account as a social network contact. The first player account and the second player account comprise a group of members in a group game or challenge. The wagering game system determines a reward that can be assigned to the group members. The wagering game system determines one or more tasks that must be performed before assigning the reward. The wagering game system presents the one or more tasks to the group members. The wagering game system detects when the tasks are completed and assigns the reward to the group members.
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
Prosecution Insights