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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/19/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because there are no valid reference numbers listed. That is no US Patent document starts with a 0 as listed by Applicants. It would appear that Applicant might be referring to Patent Application Publication documents but those documents always begin with a year which is not done here. However, the even if that were the case not all the numbers match up correctly with the other information provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for conducting a multiplayer tournament, the method comprising: (A) establishing a pool of eligible players wherein players of the pool of eligible players may have multiple win streaks simultaneously associated to them; (B) searching the pool of eligible players to match a set of players meeting a matching criteria; (C) establishing a win streak at stake for each matched player of the set of players; (D) conducting a game between the set of players; (E) determining at least one winning player of the set of players as a winner of the game; and (F) incrementing the win streak at stake for each of the at least one winning player. The above limitations are directed to either a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. With regard to a mental process each of these items could be done by simply gathering data and then presenting data to players with a conversation, and at best would only require a pen and paper to accomplish the method. With regard to certain methods of organizing human activity these claims are directly related to organizing humans in match-ups based up on criteria. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no elements to the claims beyond the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements to the claims. The other independent claims, while not identical, fall under the same analysis and are rejected under the same reasoning. All dependent claims have been analyzed but do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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 XXXXX are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0362679 to Meckel.
With regard to claim 1, Meckel discloses a method for conducting a multiplayer tournament, the method comprising: (A) establishing a pool of eligible players wherein players of the pool of eligible players may have multiple win streaks simultaneously associated to them (0038); (B) searching the pool of eligible players to match a set of players meeting a matching criteria (0038); (C) establishing a win streak at stake for each matched player of the set of players (0038); (D) conducting a game between the set of players (0038); (E) determining at least one winning player of the set of players as a winner of the game (0038-0039 this is understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that after the match happens a game would occur with a winner declared); and (F) incrementing the win streak at stake for each of the at least one winning player (0039 one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that win streaks relate to how many wins in a row and thus would have to update based on a win).
With regard to claim 2, Meckel discloses that the matching criteria comprises that each of the players have an equal win streak, wherein the equal win streak is established as the stake for the game (0038 wherein one would understand that a streak would end for one player and continue for another based on the results of the game and thus would be at stake when the players play each other).
With regard to claim 3, Meckel discloses that the set of players comprises two players (0038).
With regard to claim 4, Meckel discloses that searching the pool of eligible players comprises determining the highest common win streak between at least two players and matching the at least two players with the highest common win streak (0038).
With regard to claim 5, Meckel discloses deleting the win streak at stake from any players of the set of players that are not the at least one winner of the game (0038; one of ordinary skill in the art understands the term win streak and therefore if there is a loss it would no longer be a win streak).
With regard to claim 6, Meckel discloses when no common win streak exists for the set of players setting zero win streaks as the stake for the game (0038).
With regard to claim 7¸Meckel discloses that when the set of players comprises less than a minimum number of players for the game and a highest common win streak of the set of players is less than a threshold maximum win streak: (A) incorporating at least one automated bot into the set of players; and (B) controlling the bot so that the bot loses the game (0038).
With regard to claim 8, Meckel discloses conducting steps (B) to (F) repeatedly to form a tournament comprising multiple games, wherein steps (B) to (F) are conducted repeatedly for at least one of a predetermined period of time or a predetermined number of games (0039).
With regard to claims 9-13 while these claims not identical to claims 1-8 they are similar enough that the same rejection applies and are all read on by paragraphs 0038 and 0039 of Meckel.
With regard to claims 10-20 and 22, these claims are not identical to claims 1-8 they are similar enough that the same rejection applies and are all read on by paragraphs 0038 and 0039 of Meckel.
With regard to claim 23, Meckel discloses redeeming a win streak of at least a threshold minim number for a reward (0041-0042; 0045).
With regard to claim 25¸Meckel discloses the redeeming win streak consists of only consecutive plays in a battle royale style tournament (0038-0039).
With regard to claim 26, Meckel discloses redeeming a collection of win streaks of a collection of player instances for a reward if the collection of win streaks meets a minimum requirement (0041-0042; 0045).
With regard to claim 27, Meckel discloses that the minimum requirement comprises that the collection of win streaks comprises only consecutive plays in a battle royale style tournament (0038-0039).
With regard to claims 28-30 each of these claims mirrors claim 1 and while not identical is rejected under the same reasoning presented there with Meckel specifically paragraphs 0038-0039.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meckel.
With regard to claim 21, Meckel does not appear to explicitly disclose a height of a tower related to a win streak. However, this appears to be merely a design choice by the Applicant as there is no criticality shown within the specification why a tower would work any better than the method disclosed by Meckel.
With regard to claim 24, Meckel does not appear to explicitly disclose that a reward is entry into tournaments. However, Meckel does disclose both awards (0041-0042; 0045) and tournaments (0039). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide an entry into a tournament as an award to the player essentially allowing the player to waive an entry fee. Thus allowing the manager to not have to pay out an award but simply provide entry into an already existing tournament, thus rewarding the player as well as a lesser cost to those managing the game.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, 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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715