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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 7-8 there are duplicate “and”s. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 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.
The limitation of “legitimate communication of game attributes” in claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are indefinite. Particularly, “legitimate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “legitimate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Particularly, it is unclear in regards to what makes a communication of game attributes a legitimate communication or formed as legitimate communication.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 inherit the deficiencies, noted above, of the corresponding independent claims form which they depend; therefore, are herein rejected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A method of bypassing competitive game integrity server functionality comprising: providing a first game platform that includes a rendering of a virtual environment and a first virtual character, the first game platform communicatively connected to: a second game platform including a user interface that presents modifiable game attributes, a game integrity server that governs the virtual environment of the first game platform, and one or more client users, wherein the one or more client users are similarly communicatively connected to the second game platform but not the game integrity server; receiving, by the first game platform from the second game platform, user input originating from the one or more client users that modifies a game attribute associated with a game instance executing via the first game platform and governed by the game integrity server; and passing the user input from the first game platform to the game integrity server wherein delivery of the user input to the game integrity server is formed as a legitimate communication of game attributes that causes the game integrity server to govern the game instance based on the modification of the game attribute directed by the user input.” (Claim 1); “A system of bypassing competitive game integrity server functionality comprising: a processor; and a memory including instructions that when executed cause the processor to: provide a first game platform and a second game platform that execute independently of one another, wherein the first game platform includes a user interface that presents modifiable game attributes, and the second game platform includes a rendering of a virtual environment and a first virtual character; receive, by the first game platform, user input from one or more client users that modifies a game attribute associated with a game instance executing via the second game platform and governed by a game integrity server; and pass the user input from the first game platform to the second game platform and subsequently to the game integrity server wherein delivery of the user input to the game integrity server is formed as a legitimate communication of game attributes that causes the game integrity server to govern the game instance based on the modification of the game attribute directed by the user input.” (Claim 8); and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium of bypassing competitive game integrity server functionality, the computer-readable medium contains a plurality of instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to: provide a first game platform and a second game platform that execute independently of one another, wherein the first game platform includes a user interface that presents modifiable game attributes, and the second game platform includes a rendering of a virtual environment and a first virtual character; receive, by the first game platform, user input from one or more client users that modifies a game attribute associated with a game instance executing via the second game platform and governed by a game integrity server; and pass the user input from the first game platform to the second game platform and subsequently to the game integrity server wherein delivery of the user input to the game integrity server is formed as a legitimate communication of game attributes that causes the game integrity server to govern the game instance based on the modification of the game attribute directed by the user input.” (Claim 15). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity particularly managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for a game). Such rules or instructions pertaining to receive user input that modifies a game attribute associated with a game instance and governed; and pass the user input to govern the game instance based on the modification of the game attribute directed by the user input.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of a “a first game platform”, “a second game platform”, “a game integrity server”, “a user interface”, “system”, “processor”, “memory”, and/or “medium” are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the method, system, and/or medium and/or the extent to which a computer performs/implements the method, system, and/or medium. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Best Applicable Prior Art
In regards to Claims 1, 8, and 15, Ikenaga (US 2016/0250553) teaches a computer system comprising a processor coupled to a memory (non-transitory computer-readable medium contains a plurality of instructions) that when executed by a processor cause the processor (¶ 35) to (perform a method): provide a first game platform that includes a rendering of a virtual environment and a first virtual character (¶ 35-40), the first game platform communicatively connected to: a second game platform including a user interface that presents modifiable game attributes, and one or more client users, wherein the one or more client users are similarly communicatively connected to the second game platform (¶ 50-60); receiving, by the first game platform from the second game platform, user input originating from the one or more client users that modifies a game attribute associated with a game instance executing via the first game platform (¶ 35-40).
Ikenaga fails to teach a game integrity server that governs the virtual environment of the first game platform and game instance thereof, the one or more clients not connected to the game integrity server, passing the user input from the first game platform to the game integrity server wherein delivery of the user input to the game integrity server is formed as a legitimate communication of game attributes that causes the game integrity server to govern the game instance based on the modification of the game attribute directed by the user input. Such limitations not being obvious without undue hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights