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.
Step 1:
I. The claims are drawn to apparatus, process and CRM categories.
II. Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2a:
III. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
1. A system comprising one or more processors and: a database configured to store a plurality of player profiles, wherein each player profile (a) comprises a plurality of match result datasets and is uniquely associated with a player; and a software interface configured to communicate with a game platform, wherein the game (b)
platform comprises one or both of: a game software configured on a plurality of game devices; and (i)
a game server configured to manage multiplayer matches for the game software; (ii) wherein the one or more processors are configured to: for each of the plurality of player profiles, create a player signature based on the plurality (i) of match result datasets for that profile, wherein the player signature describes for the player associated with that profile: a skill level for the game software; and (A) patterns of activities performed with the game software; (B) (ii) receive a plurality of queue requests associated with the plurality of player profiles, wherein each queue request comprises a match experience type, wherein the plurality of queue requests comprises at least a first queue request from a first player and a second queue request from a second player; (iii) pair the first queue request with the second queue request based on a correspondence between the skill level of the first player and the match experience type of the second queue request, and a correspondence between the skill level of the second player and the match experience type of the first queue request; and using the software interface, provide a match initiation dataset to initiate a match between (iv) the first player and the second player and, during the match, receive a match dataset; and using an authentication function and based on the match dataset and the player profile of (v) any player, flag the match for manipulation if: the authentication function determines that a player substitution has occurred; or (A) the authentication function determines that an input manipulation has occurred.
The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Fundamental economic principles or practices
Commercial or legal interactions
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims are directed towards incentivizing the behavior of users playing a game via group agreements or contract. This is viewed by the Examiner as a fundamental economic practice, an agreement in the form of contracts, and managing personal behavior or relationships between people, which are all considered to be abstract ideas according to the 2019 guidelines.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
iii. Although the claims recite additional limitations, such as random generator, the said additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations such as display components.
iv. These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claim language does recite additional elements such as a database, processor, and a server, however, viewed as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional
elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 – 15 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11975269 . This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1: A system comprising one or more processors and: a database configured to store a plurality of player profiles, wherein each player profile (a) comprises a plurality of match result datasets and is uniquely associated with a player; and a software interface configured to communicate with a game platform, wherein the game (b)
platform comprises one or both of: a game software configured on a plurality of game devices; and (i)
a game server configured to manage multiplayer matches for the game software; (ii) wherein the one or more processors are configured to: for each of the plurality of player profiles, create a player signature based on the plurality (i) of match result datasets for that profile, wherein the player signature describes for the player associated with that profile: a skill level for the game software; and (A) patterns of activities performed with the game software; (B) (ii) receive a plurality of queue requests associated with the plurality of player profiles, wherein each queue request comprises a match experience type, wherein the plurality of queue requests comprises at least a first queue request from a first player and a second queue request from a second player; (iii) pair the first queue request with the second queue request based on a correspondence between the skill level of the first player and the match experience type of the second queue request, and a correspondence between the skill level of the second player and the match experience type of the first queue request; and using the software interface, provide a match initiation dataset to initiate a match between (iv) the first player and the second player and, during the match, receive a match dataset; and using an authentication function and based on the match dataset and the player profile of (v) any player, flag the match for manipulation if: the authentication function determines that a player substitution has occurred; or (A) the authentication function determines that an input manipulation has occurred, (claim 1).
Claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, after pairing the first queue request with the second queue request, cause a pre-match interface to display on a display of a first user device associated with the first player and a display of a second user device associated with the second player, (claim 2).
Claim 3: The system of claim 2, wherein the pre-match interface is configured to receive a set of match configuration inputs from the first player and the second player, and the one or more processors are configured to provide the set of match configuration inputs to the game platform as part of the match initiation dataset, wherein the set of match configuration inputs are configured to alter an initial state of the match from a pre-configured default state, (claim 3).
Claim 4: The system of claim 2, wherein: (a) the pre-match interface is configured to receive a pool submission from each player, and to display and update a match pool based on received pool submissions, wherein each pool submission describes one or more digital assets; and (b) the one or more processors are configured to: (i) receive a match result dataset, wherein the match result dataset describes the outcome of the match; and (ii) distribute the match pool to one or more player profiles based on the match result dataset, (claim 4).
Claim 5: The system of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: (a) receive a match manipulation dataset, wherein the match manipulation dataset describes a match manipulation detected by the authentication function; and (b) reverse the pool submission to one or more player profiles based on the match manipulation dataset, (claim 5).
Claim 6: The system of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: (a) determine a match pool requirement for each of the first player and the second player based on the skill level of the first player and the second player, wherein the match pool requirement: (i) describes the one or more digital assets that are required in the pool submission of that player; and (ii) corresponds to a difference in the skill level of that player and the other player; (b) cause the pre-match interface update the display of the match pool based on the match pool requirement for each of the first player and the second player; and (c) only provide the match initiation dataset to initiate the match after the match pool requirement for each player has been met, (claim 6).
Claim 7: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause a queuing interface to display on a display of a first user device associated with the first player, wherein the queuing interface is configured to: (a) display a plurality of match experience types, comprising an equal skill match type, a player skill disadvantage match type, and a player skill advantage match type; and (b) receive a user selection of one of the plurality of match experience types, and provide the match experience type of the first queue request based on the user selection, (claim 7).
Claim 8: The system of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are configured to, where the match experience type of the first queue request is: (a) the equal skill match type, pair the first queue request with the second queue request based on the skill level of the first player being within a pre-configured threshold of the skill level of the second player; (b) the player skill disadvantage match type, pair the first queue request with the second queue request based on the skill level of the first player being outside the pre-configured threshold and less than the skill level of the second player; and (c) the player skill advantage match type, pair the first queue request with the second queue request based on the skill level of the first player being outside the pre-configured threshold and greater than the skill level of the second player, (claim 8).
Claim 9: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to, prior to providing the match initiation dataset to initiate the match: (a) provide a player authentication request to a first user device associated with a first player profile of the plurality of player profiles that is associated with the first player; (b) receive a player authentication response from the first user device and, where the player authentication response is valid, provide the match initiation dataset to initiate the match, (claim 9).
Claim 10: The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to, after the authentication function determines that the player substitution has occurred: (a) provide a mid-match player authentication request to the first user device associated with the first player profile; (b) receive a mid-match player authentication response from the first user device and, where the mid-match player authentication response is valid, determine that the player substitution did not occur, and do not flag the match for manipulation, (claim 10).
Claim 11. The system of claim 9, wherein: (a) the player authentication request comprises one or both of a two-factor authentication request and a biometric authentication request; (b) the first user device is uniquely associated with the first player profile, such that the first user device is the only device to which the player authentication request can be provided, and the only device from which the player authentication response can be received; and (c) the first user device is one of a smartphone associated with the first player profile, or a game device associated with the first player profile, (claim 11).
Claim 12: The system of claim 1, wherein: (a) the authentication function comprises a machine learning function that is configured to compare the player profile for that player to the match dataset to identify irregularities in that player's skill level or performed activities in the match; (b) the machine learning function is configured based upon one or more training datasets; (c) the one or more processors are configured to update the one or more training datasets to include automatically annotated positive and negative examples selected from historic match datasets that are received during prior matches, (claim 12).
Claim 13: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: (a) identify a player input dataset in the match dataset, wherein the player input dataset comprises a time indexed sequence of raw inputs received from a game device on which the first player is participating in the match; (b) use the authentication function to compare the time indexed sequence of raw inputs to historic raw inputs associated with the player profile for that player to identify irregularities in the timing, sequence, and precision of the time-indexed sequence of raw inputs; and (c) where irregularities are identified, determine that the input manipulation has occurred, (claim 13).
Claim 14: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: (a) identify a game event skill dataset in the match dataset, wherein the game event skill dataset comprises a time indexed sequence of game events that resulted from activities of the first player during the match; (b) use the authentication function to compare the time indexed sequence of game events to historic game events associated with the player profile for that player to identify irregularities in the occurrence of game events; and (c) where irregularities are identified, determine that the player substitution has occurred, (claim 14).
Claim 15: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors comprise a first processor of a matchmaking server and a second processor of a game device on which the first player is participating in the match, and wherein: (a) the second processor is configured to: (i) receive the match dataset during the match; (ii) receive a first player profile associated with the first player from the matchmaking server; (iii) use the authentication function to determine whether the player substitution or the input manipulation has occurred; (iv) provide an indication of the results of the authentication function to the matchmaking server; and (v) provide the match result dataset to the matchmaking server; (b) the first processor is configured to: (i) flag the match for manipulation based on the indication of the results of the authentication function; (ii) update the first player profile and the authentication function based on the match result dataset; and (iii) provide an updated first player profile and an updated authentication function to the game device, (claim 15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715