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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received on March 9, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 16. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Further, claims 2 and 4 are substantially the same as the amendment to claim 1, claims 16 and 18 are substantially the same as the amendment to claim 14, and claim 19 is substantially the same as the amendment to claim 15.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, claim 14 is directed to a method, and claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium. Thus, claims 1, 14, and 15 are directed to statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
At step 2A, prong 1, the independent claims recite, "store achievement data specifying one or more target properties to be achieved for a video game; store progress data, the progress data being indicative of a combined user progress with respect to one or more of the target properties and a plurality of individual user progresses, wherein each of the plurality of individual user progresses corresponds to a progress of a respective user and the combined user progress corresponds to a combination of the plurality of individual user progresses; update the progress data in response to game session data for respective game sessions of the video game by respective users; and in response to the combined user progress being indicative of meeting or exceeding one or more of the target properties, associate indicator data with each respective user whose individual user progress contributes at least a threshold contribution with respect to the combined user progress, wherein the threshold contribution is a determined portion of a value associated with the target property or the combined user progress." These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed invention stores data, updates data, and associates indicator data about users playing video games which are steps for managing personal behavior or relationships, or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
At step 2A, prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of one or more processors, one or more memory storing computer-readable instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the data processing apparatus, a non-transitory machine readable storage medium, and a computer. These additional elements are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application the additional elements of one or more processors, one or more memory storing computer-readable instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the data processing apparatus, a non-transitory machine readable storage medium, and a computer are generic computing elements as supported by the specification. These additional elements are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 16-20, 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 the same abstract idea of claims 1, 14, and 15 without significantly more. Dependent claims 2-12 and 16-20 further limit the abstract idea of the claims 1, 14, and 15 and as such as also ineligible when considered individually and in combination.
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 1-4, 6-8, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cudak (US 2015/0273340) in view of Walker (US 9,412,218).
With reference to claims 1, 14, and 15, Cudak teaches
1. A data processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory storing computer-readable instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the data processing apparatus to:
14. A computer implemented method comprising:
15. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium which stores computer software which, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a computer implemented method comprising ([0009]-[0013]):
store achievement data specifying one or more target properties to be achieved for a video game ([0023] "Game service 160 receives user game actions [achievement data specifying target properties] collected by games 150 and stores the information in user profile database 166. Within game service 160, game reward program 165 may retrieve the user's game actions from user profile database 166. In an exemplary embodiment, game service 160 receives and sends data regarding user game actions and game challenges or achievements to games 150 on server 120." [0007] "online
video and computer games".);
store progress data, the progress data being indicative of a combined user progress with respect to one or more of the target properties and a plurality of individual user progresses, wherein each of the plurality of individual user progresses corresponds to a progress of a respective user and the combined
user progress corresponds to a combination of the plurality of individual user progresses ([0056] "In some embodiments, game reward program 165 may identify users with a similar level of achievement in one area or a specific game element, to determine a possible level of achievement to apply in other areas or elements of the game based on other user's progression. For example, in an educational multiplayer online game, a number of users may be excelling in the algebra section or area of the game, and many of the users in the algebra section are also participating with success in the calculus section of the game. Game reward program 165 can retrieve and analyze the game actions for the educational multiplayer online game, and create an achievement related to the calculus section for the group of users succeeding in the algebra section but, not currently participating in the calculus section." See also [0057].);
update the progress data in response to game session data for respective game sessions of the video game by respective users ([0060] "In step 214, game reward program 165 sends achievement data, along with any rewards and reward names associated with the achievement to the specified game, for example, game 150A, for the group of users. Game reward program 165 can send the userids for the identified members of the gaming group to which the new achievement was tailored. In an embodiment, game 150A automatically updates and installs the achievement and any associated rewards received from game reward program 165 and sends notification of the achievement level to the group of users. In some embodiments, game reward program 165 may send notification of the new achievements directly to the userids of the gaming group members." See also [0061].); and
in response to the combined user progress being indicative of meeting or exceeding one or more of the target properties, associate indicator data with each respective user whose individual user progress contributes to the combined user progress ([0064] "Upon the gaming group attaining the level of achievement, game reward program 165 may track statistics and objectives relating the new achievement completion. Game reward program 165 may measure the attained achievement in terms of gaming group total playing time in the activity related to the achievement, the time to complete the achievement, the average percent completion of the achievement level within the gaming group, the number of players to complete the achievement when timed or a set time may be included in the achievement, an increase or decrease in the gaming group participation by number of users or playing time per user [individual user progress] for example." See also [0052] and [0060].).
Cudak fails to teach associate indicator data with each respective user whose individual user progress contributes at least a threshold contribution with respect to the combined user progress, wherein the threshold contribution is a determined portion of a value associated with the target property or the combined user progress.
Walker teaches associate indicator data with each respective user whose individual user progress contributes at least a threshold contribution with respect to the combined user progress, wherein the threshold contribution is a determined portion of a value associated with the target property or the combined user progress (see column 7, lines 54-67 “The term “group objective” may refer to a prize and a set of criteria a group may be required to meet in order to win the prize. The group objective may include a specification of some or all of the group format. Examples of the criteria may include: having the group's aggregate net winnings exceeding a certain threshold, having two or more group members attain an outcome simultaneously, having each person in the group win a certain amount, etc.” wherein indicator data can be the prize, and the certain amount corresponds to the claimed threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the threshold features of Walker with the gaming achievement indicator system of Cudak as both are directed to the same field of endeavor, and setting thresholds and requirements for achieving the objective as taught by Walker would allow a group of users to work together equally toward achieving objectives while promoting both group enjoyment and increased game play (Walker, column 3 lines 41-63).
With reference to claims 2, 16, 18, and 19, Cudak and Walker teach all that is required with reference to claims 1, 14, and 15, and Walker further teaches wherein the one or more memory store additional computer-readable instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the data processing apparatus to associate the indicator data with a respective user according to whether an individual user progress associated with that respective user provides at least a threshold contribution with respect to the combined user progress (see column 7, lines 54-67 “The term “group objective” may refer to a prize and a set of criteria a group may be required to meet in order to win the prize. The group objective may include a specification of some or all of the group format. Examples of the criteria may include: having the group's aggregate net winnings exceeding a certain threshold, having two or more group members attain an outcome simultaneously, having each person in the group win a certain amount, etc.” wherein indicator data can be the prize, and the certain amount corresponds to the claimed threshold.)
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claims 3, 17, and 20, Cudak and Walker teach all that is required with reference to claims 1, 14, and 15, and Cudak teaches wherein the one or more memory store additional computer-readable instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the data processing apparatus to continue to update the progress data in response to game session data for respective game sessions of the video game by respective users after the combined user progress is indicative of meeting or exceeding one or more of the target properties ([0064] "Upon the gaming group attaining the level of achievement, game reward program 165 may track statistics and objectives relating the new achievement completion. Game reward program 165 may measure the attained achievement in terms of gaming group total playing time in the activity related to the achievement, the time to complete the achievement, the average percent completion of the achievement level within the gaming group, the number of players to complete the achievement when timed or a set time may be included in the achievement, an increase or decrease in the gaming group participation by number of users or playing time per user [individual user progress] for example." See also [0052] and [0060].).
With reference to claim 4, Cudak and Walker teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, and Walker further teaches to selectively associate the indicator data with a respective user according to whether an individual user progress associated with that respective user provides at least a threshold contribution with respect to the combined user progress (see column 7, lines 54-67 “The term “group objective” may refer to a prize and a set of criteria a group may be required to meet in order to win the prize. The group objective may include a specification of some or all of the group format. Examples of the criteria may include: having the group's aggregate net winnings exceeding a certain threshold, having two or more group members attain an outcome simultaneously, having each person in the group win a certain amount, etc.” wherein indicator data can be the prize, and the certain amount corresponds to the claimed threshold.)
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claim 6, Cudak and Walker teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, and Cudak further teaches to associate the indicator data with a plurality of respective users and the indicator data is indicative of an identity of each of the plurality of respective users ([0027] "User profile database 166 receives and stores game actions for each user of each multiplayer online game of games 150. The user game actions may be sent by games 150 to user profile database 166 where they may be stored by game, user identity (userid), or user name. User profile database 166 may receive data from games 150 and may provide data on a user or specified userid as queried by game reward program 165." See also [0060].).
With reference to claim 7, Cudak and Walker teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, and Cudak further teaches wherein the indicator data comprises contribution data indicative of a respective contribution of at least some of the plurality of respective users ([0060] "In step 214, game reward program 165 sends achievement data, along with any rewards and reward names associated with the achievement to the specified game, for example, game 150A, for the group of users. Game reward program 165 can send the userids for the identified members of the gaming group to which the new achievement was tailored. In an embodiment, game 150A automatically updates and installs the achievement and any associated rewards received from game reward program 165 and sends notification of the achievement level to the group of users. In some embodiments, game reward program 165 may send notification of the new achievements directly to the userids of the gaming group members." See also[0054] and [0061].).
With reference to claim 8, Cudak and Walker teach all that is required with reference to claim 6, and Cudak further teaches to associate the indicator data with a respective user account of each of the plurality of respective users ([0061] "In step 216, game reward program 165 receives notification of achievement completion and updates the user profile in user profile database 166. Game reward program 165 may receive notification of achievement completion dynamically as it occurs or when the user signs-off or exits the game. When the achievement is attained by the gaming group, game reward program 165 may automatically update game actions for each user for the game (step 202)." Since the user "signs-off", the user has a user account.).
With reference to claim 12, Cudak and Walker teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, and Cudak further teaches wherein the achievement data specifies one or more target properties to be achieved for one selected from a list consisting of: a video game set associated with a plurality of respective video game titles; a respective video game title; and a portion of the video game ([0058] "In another embodiment, game reward program 165 may be programmed to target a time objective for user play. Based on the game actions retrieved by game reward program 165 from user profile database 166, game reward program 165 can estimate a new achievement with an expected period of time to attain the achievement. For example, an objective of two weeks playing time to attain a new achievement may be set for a gaming group in game reward program 165. In analyzing the retrieved data from user profile database 166, game reward program 165 identifies three users who have built a village and stockade in eight days in game 150A. The new achievement level for the gaming group may be to build two villages with stockades in game [portion of the video game] 150A. In some embodiments, the criteria or objectives set for new achievement levels could be randomized or alternate between new achievements for various activities, for example, the most popular activity by time of play and the fastest growing activity in terms of new users.")
With reference to claim 13, Cudak and Walker teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, and Cudak further teaches wherein the combined user progress comprises at least one cumulative value, and the data processing apparatus is further configured to update the cumulative value in dependence on the plurality of individual user progresses ([0060] "In step 214, game reward program 165 sends achievement data, along with any rewards and reward names associated with the achievement to the specified game, for example, game 150A, for the group of users. Game reward program 165 can send the userids for the identified members of the gaming group to which the new achievement was tailored. In an embodiment, game 150A automatically updates and installs the achievement and any associated rewards received from game reward program 165 and sends notification of the achievement level [cumulative value] to the group of users. In some embodiments, game reward program 165 may send notification of the new achievements directly to the userids of the gaming group members." See also [0061].).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cudak and Walker as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yerli (US 2014/0148247).
With reference to claim 5, Cudak and Walker do not specifically teach wherein for at least one other respective user that is not associated with the indicator data in response to the combined user progress being indicative of meeting or exceeding one or more of the target properties, the control circuitry is configured to associate the indicator data with the at least one other respective user in response to an individual user progress associated with that respective user subsequently being updated to provide at least the threshold contribution with respect to the combined user progress.
However, Yerli teaches wherein for at least one other respective user that is not associated with the indicator data in response to the combined user progress being indicative of meeting or exceeding one or more of the target properties, the control circuitry is configured to associate the indicator data with the at least one other respective user in response to an individual user progress associated with that respective user subsequently being updated to provide at least the threshold contribution with respect to the combined user progress ([0011] "In some instances, the first predefined achievement or action may even be available to the user when the one or more other users, e.g., his friends, have completed the lower level achievements or actions without him. However, this may require that the user and/or the one or more other users have agreed to cooperate, e.g., by indicating that they are friends within the computer-implemented environment. In some instances, an achievement or action completed by the one or more other users is only considered completed for the user when the user and/or the one or more other users have recognized each other as friends in the computer-implemented environment before the achievement or action is completed.").
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Cudak and Walker by adding wherein for at least one other respective user that is not associated with the indicator data in response to the combined user progress being indicative of meeting or exceeding one or more of the target properties, the control circuitry is configured to associate the indicator data with the at least one other respective user in response to an individual user progress associated with that respective user subsequently being updated to provide at least the threshold contribution with respect to the combined user progress, as taught by Yerli, since Cudak, Walker, and Yerli are analogous art, and in order log actions and achievements of multiple users (Yerli, [0003]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cudak and Walker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suwa (US 2017/0225082).
With reference to claim 9, Cudak and Walker do not specifically teach wherein the indicator data associated with each user comprises a link for accessing a same group chat.
However, Suwa teaches wherein the indicator data associated with each user comprises a link for accessing a same group chat (Fig. 8, [0085] "chat icon" [link for accessing a same group chat]. See also [0090] and [0091].).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Cudak and Walker by adding wherein the indicator data associated with each user comprises a link for accessing a same group chat, as taught by Suwa, since Cudak, Walker, and Suwa are analogous art, and in order establish a chat room or to participate in a chat room (Suwa, [0085]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cudak and Walker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gillo (US 2011/0269540).
With reference to claim 10, Cudak and Walker do not specifically teach wherein the data processing apparatus is configured to output trophy data indicative of a group of users each associated with the indicator data.
However, Gillo teaches wherein the data processing apparatus is configured to output trophy data indicative of a group of users each associated with the indicator data ([0108] "Alternatively it may be an aggregate trophy room, showing the best, or a selection of, trophies from some or all of the users in that instance of the Home environment, together with the ID of the user. Thus, for example, a user could spot a trophy from a game they are having difficulty with, identify who in the Home environment won it, and then go and talk to them about how they won it. Alternatively, a public trophy room could contain the best trophies across a plurality of Home environments, identifying the best gamers within a geographical, age specific or game specific group, or even world wide. Alternatively or in addition, a leader board of the best scoring garners can be provided and updated live.").
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Cudak and Walker by adding wherein the data processing apparatus is configured to output trophy data indicative of a group of users each associated with the indicator data, as taught by Gillo, since Cudak, Walker, and Gillo are analogous art, and so that a user could spot a trophy from a game they are having difficulty with, identify who in the Home environment won it, and then go and talk to them about how they won it (Gillo, [0108]).
With reference to claim 11, Cudak and Walker do not specifically teach wherein the data processing apparatus is configured to share the trophy data to one or more one or more social gaming networks for sharing the trophy with other users not part of the group of users.
However, Gillo teaches wherein the data processing apparatus is configured to share the trophy data to one or more one or more social gaming networks for sharing the trophy with other users not part of the group of users ([0180] "Once on the user's phone, the user may elect to send the image of the trophy to a friend [other users] via the Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) so as to brag about their accomplishments.").
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Cudak and Walker by adding wherein the data processing apparatus is configured to share the trophy data to one or more one or more social gaming networks for sharing the trophy with other users not part of the group of users, as taught by Gillo, since Cudak, Walker, and Gillo are analogous art, and so that a user can brag about their accomplishments (Gillo, [0180]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea. However, the technical problem that applicant identifies, of assigning identifiers to users based on their abilities to meet thresholds, is not a technical problem but an abstract problem of tracking user progress within a game. There is nothing technical in the claims other than generic computing components amounting to the words “apply it” with the abstract idea. Applicant’s reference to Desjardins is not persuasive, because the instant claims and specification do not contain the level of technical detail of Desjardins and are therefore not analogous. Applicant further argues that at step 2B, the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the claimed features are not generic or conventional. However, applicant has only pointed to features in the abstract idea rather than additional elements to demonstrate non-generic or non-conventionality, and improvements to the abstract idea are not enough to show that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, as the claims have been rejected under prior art, there is no showing of an inventive step in the claims that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the claimed features are not taught by Cudak and Yerli. However, in light of the Walker reference and the new grounds of rejection applied above, this argument is moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILANA L SPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7537. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights