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 Status
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “request signalling an intent of one player” at lines 4-5 which contains a typographical error. Specifically, the word “signaling” is misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recites, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, limitations that are directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. A method of matching players requesting to play a virtual game, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of matchmaking requests, each matchmaking request signaling an intent of one player to play the virtual game;
for each matchmaking request, identifying a game ID and a player ID making the said matchmaking request -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
for a first game ID, identifying a first plurality of game outcomes -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
for a first player ID, identifying a first entry amount – certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
corresponding to each of the first plurality of game outcomes and the first entry amount, identifying a first plurality of payout amounts for the first player ID, identifying a second player ID corresponding to the first entry amount wherein a second entry amount associated with the second player ID is same as the first entry amount; - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
computing a potential match comprising of the first player ID and the second player ID -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mathematical relationship;
identifying a third player ID corresponding to the first entry amount wherein a third entry amount associated with the third player ID is different than the first entry amount – certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process; and
computing a potential match comprising of the first player ID and the third player ID – certain method of organizing human activity.
The limitations, as underlined above, indicate limitations that are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas such as a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite steps and/or instructions for managing a match for a virtual game. Additionally, certain limitations are found to recite mental processes because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind. Furthermore, certain limitations recite a mathematical relationship. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of independent Claim 1, such as: “receiving a plurality of matchmaking requests, each matchmaking request signaling an intent of one player to play the virtual game” recite mere data gathering which is analogous to insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, independent Claim 5 further recites additional limitations such as: “one or more processing modules; one or more data storage modules, operatively coupled to one or more processing modules, wherein one or more data storage modules are configured to store at least one of: player profile; game ID; a plurality of game outcomes corresponding to a game ID; at least one memory module operatively coupled to one or more processing modules, wherein the at least one memory module stores instructions which, when executed by one or more processing modules, causes one or more processing modules to,” which amounts to instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, Claim 5 which includes additional element such as: “one or more processing modules”, “one or more data storage modules”, when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are similar to the case in Alice v. CLS, in which highly generalized computer components when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements amount to instructions to apply the exception, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or providing a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
With respect to dependent claims 2-4, the additional limitations have been analyzed and reviewed that were directed to at least one of: additional limitations of a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-5 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715