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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter, i.e. a machine and process.
Step 2A:
Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of managing a tournament game and mathematical functions.
While complex, the claims recite a tournament game that includes recommending tournament games, issuing tickets to play the game, and performing the tournament game. This reflects the claimed invention in Planet Bingo where the claimed invention was an electronic Bingo game played using a server and a plurality of electronic game devices wherein the system issued game tickets, and determined a winner based on Bingo rules. The Court determined that the claims were abstract under managing game rules and this includes authenticating players, determining number of player tickets, issuing tickets a particular price, etc. Thus, the same designation applies to the instant application. The instant application includes other limitations such as recommending games to play using player history and player selections regarding genre selection, however such is a reflection of the holding in Electric Power Grid which states that “collecting, analyzing, and outputting information” is reflective of a mental process. Here the same is occurring, wherein player history and player game selections are collected, analyzed, and a recommendation is outputted. Thus, the recommendation steps present a series of mental steps. This includes the steps listed in claims 2 and 3, which use mathematical calculations to determine said recommendations that closest match a player’s collected data, i.e. a player’s profile. Lastly, the authenticating mechanisms described in the instant application includes authenticating using a public/private key code generated through mathematical formulas. However, the Court in Secured Mail held that communicating information about an object through the use of an identifier is an abstract idea. (“creating a unique identifier that can be used to make a processor more efficient, however does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.” Furthermore, in discussing verification the Court stated “In addition, sending a personalized URL to a recipient was not an unconventional use of the Internet in 2001, for example, in emails that contained a personalized response URL. Nor is the "bi-directional communication line" inventive; the idea of responding to or inquiring about mail using a personalized identifier through the use of a marking (such as an account number printed on a utility bill, or a check number printed on a check) has long been a conventional concept.” Thus, the idea of verifying a user account with a private key/public key, i.e. a code, is abstract and conventional. Furthermore, because the key is generated using a series of mathematical operations, the code is merely using an abstract process to generate said code. For these reasons the claims represent an abstract idea.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. The claims present a method of managing a ticket based game, and such is not a problem longstanding in computer history. Furthermore, other elements such as the verification process described in the claims are also not longstanding in computer history. The Secured Mail Court further stated “In contrast, the claims of Secured Mail's patents are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, the claims are not directed to a new barcode format, an improved method of generating or scanning barcodes, or similar improvements in computer functionality.” Thus, the use of a private/public key is merely an abstract idea that does not offer improvements in computer functionality. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
7. Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive-concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more than storage, memory, a server, and user computing devices which are all well-known, conventional and understood within the art. The claim is directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715