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 Interpretations under 35 USC §112(f)
The following is a non-exhaustive list of claim limitations that have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, because they use a non-structural term, which is not preceded by a structural modifier, coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the respective functions:
A game information storage unit;
A ticket information storage unit;
A wallet address storage unit;
A record information storage unit;
A confirmation unit;
A reduction processing unit;
An opening unit;
An information transmission unit;
A table generation unit;
A reward processing unit;
A correction value storage unit;
A winning rate computation unit;
A correction unit;
A transmission processing unit;
A transaction generation unit;
A registration request unit;
An e-mail storage unit;
A public key storage unit;
A certification event generation unit;
A certification information generation unit;
A Norm operating unit;
A certification request unit;
A certification processing unit;
A price information storage unit;
A payment processing unit; and
An increment processing unit;
Claims 1-11 recite or refer to at least one of the above limitations. Since these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, the claims are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph.
For more information, see Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 recite or refer to at least one of the above limitations interpreted under §112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite the limitation "wherein the tournament session means a session opened for allowing members accessing to the tournament session through the electronic terminal to play the first game online jointly" in lines 15-17 of claim 1, for example. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 2-5 and 7-10 are rejected as they depend from rejected claims 1 and 6.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-11 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of […] storing information on the number of required tickets for participating in tournaments of a plurality of predetermined respective games; […] storing information on the quantity of holding tickets held by each of a plurality of members which subscribes to the game service; […] storing information on a wallet address for accumulating cryptocurrency held by each of the plurality of members; […] storing record information of each of the plurality of members for each of the plurality of games, wherein the record information for each of the plurality of games is information in which victory/defeat records in the match for each of the plurality of games of each member are divided and recorded for each game; […] conducting, when an access request instruction to a tournament session, wherein the tournament session means a session opened for allowing members accessing to the tournament session through […] to play the first game […] jointly, opened for a first game which is any one of the plurality of games is received […] of a first member which is any one of the plurality of members, certification for the first member, and then confirming a first required number which is the number of required tickets for participating in the tournament of the first game […], and confirming the quantity of holding tickets held by the first member […]; […] allowing, when it is confirmed that the quantity of holding tickets held by the first member is equal to or more than the first required number, […] to access the tournament session, and then reducing the quantity of holding tickets for the first member […] by the first required number; […], after the access […] to the tournament session is allowed, when there is a situation in which the first member is matched with a second member who accesses the tournament session to perform a battle for the first game, a betting session for betting on a member who is predicted to win the game between the first member and the second member; […] confirming, when a providing request instruction for requesting providing match prediction information in a battle for the first game is received from […] a plurality of betting participation members who access the betting session among the plurality of members after the betting session is opened, record information of each of the first member and the second member for the first game […], and then computing a winning rate of each of the first member and the second member for the first game, and generating the match prediction information based on the winning rate of each of the first member and the second member for the first game, and […]; […] generating, […], and then a betting request instruction for any one member of the first member and the second member is received from […] the plurality of betting participation members, a betting table in which selection information for a member which each of the plurality of betting participation members selects as a betting target is recorded; and […] confirming, after the betting table is generated, when it is determined that the first member wins as a result of performing the battle for the first game, first betting members who bets on the first member among the plurality of betting participation members by referring to the betting table, and then confirming a wallet address of each of the first betting members […], and transferring cryptocurrency corresponding to a predetermined dividend payment amount to the wallet address of each of the first betting members to complete reward processing for the first betting members, and confirming, when it is determined that the second member wins, second betting members who bets on the second member among the plurality of betting participation members by referring to the betting table, and then confirming a wallet address of each of the second betting members […], and then transferring cryptocurrency of the dividend payment amount to the wallet address of each of the second betting members to complete reward processing for the second betting members. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1 (substantially similar claims are also in claims 6 and 11). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recites limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of “A service providing server for providing a game service that supports participation in a tournament for a game using a ticket and enables match prediction and betting on members participating in the tournament, comprising: […] electronic terminal, electronic terminals, when the match prediction information is transmitted to the electronic terminals […], and then a betting request instruction […] is received from the electronic terminals […], and […]. These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to take data, compute a result, and return the result to a user amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
Additionally, the specification makes it clear that the service providing server for providing a game service that supports participation in a tournament for a game using a ticket and enables match prediction and betting on members participating in the tournament can be implemented on a generic computer.
[0003] Recently, as various electronic terminals including desktop PCs, smart phones, tablet PCs, console game machines, etc., have been released, the number of persons who play games through the electronic terminals has increased.
As such, the service providing server providing a tournament game, for implementing the abstract idea, may require no more than generic, conventional, and well-known computer devices such as a general purpose computer (as evidenced in Para. 3).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Thus, Claims 1, 6, and 11 are rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 2-5 and 7-10 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 1 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-5 and 7-10 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1, Claims 2-5 and 7-10 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on the claims, the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Andrews et al. (US 2021/0090404 A1) discloses the concept of a bonus game server including game-logic circuitry that monitors a plurality of bonus ticket balances associated with a plurality of players and a bonus jackpot associated with a bonus tournament game, transmits, in response to an amount of the bonus jackpot exceeding an eligibility threshold, participation requests to player devices of eligible players for the bonus tournament game, initiates a participation timer, enters, in response to at least one of the eligible players accepting the participation request, the accepting eligible player into the bonus tournament game.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. 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, David Lewis can be reached at (571)272-7673. 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715