DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 8-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: lines 24-29 in Claim 8 and lines 25-30 in Claim 15 are an exact repetition of the immediately preceding limitations of the claims and fail to further limit the claims in any manner. As best understood these duplicate limitations should be deleted. 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1, 8, and 15 each recite the limitation "a non-fungible token (NFT) blockchain system" followed by repeated reference to “the NFT Blockchain System.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although applicant is allowed to include parenthetical limitations in the claims for the purpose of clarity the contents of the parentheses are generally not given patentable weight. As such, in order to ensure proper antecedent basis examiner suggests changing the initial limitation in each claim to “an NFT (non-fungible token) blockchain system.” Alternatively applicant could change each reference to “the NFT blockchain system” to “the non-fungible token blockchain system.”
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. Specifically the claims are directed to Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, particularly “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationship or Interactions Between People.” Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “receiving a request by a player…to play the trading card game”, “populating a hero trading card deck associated with the player including the…hero trading cards currently owned by the player; conducting a squad selection sequence by: rendering a hero selection board…including a plurality of cells arranged in a grid, each cell populated with a…hero trading card selected from the hero trading card deck; randomly selecting a squad selection shape including a predefined arrangement of cells; and selecting a squad of…hero trading cards by selecting a group of…hero trading cards from the hero selection board based on the squad selection shape”. This judicial exception recites a series of abstract rules for a card game constituting preparations steps of selecting card game pieces for play. Furthermore, review of applicant’s specification suggests that this card game is intended for play between players (See for example Fig. 17) as such in the examiner’s opinion the recited limitations constitute the abstract idea of “rules for playing games” which constitute Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a plurality of computing devices, non-transitory computer readable medium, computer system, and web 3.0 cloud platform represent mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f), or generally linking the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of computer games, web 3.0, and cloud computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Recitation of a NFT blockchain system, and querying an NFT wallet for NFT trading cards amounts to insignificant extra solution data gathering activity as claimed in the examiner’s opinion, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Specifically, as claimed, a player would need to determine the set of cards owned by the player prior to playing the game and selecting their squad for play during the game. That the cards used are NFT cards from an NFT Wallet on an NFT system rather than standard physical or electronic game cards does not change the manner in which the steps of the abstract idea are to be performed. It simply constitutes an alternative manner of gathering data of what set of cards a player owns. Finally, with regard to recitation of “animated sequences of computer generated images” and “animating a battle board” these elements are claimed so generically and at such a high level that they amount to little more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of computer games, or at best insignificant extra solution display activity. As such, in the examiner’s opinion these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite additional abstract features of the rules for playing the game and as such fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because recitation of plurality of computing devices, non-transitory computer readable medium, computer system, and web 3.0 cloud platform represent recitation of well-understood, routine and conventional computer functionality. See Boshmaf et al., US 2020/0372014, Par. 13 which teaches conventionality of blockchain, i.e. Web 3.0, cloud systems. With regard to recitation of a NFT blockchain system and wallet to determine ownership of game cards, Frix, US 2023/0376938 (Par. 23 and 48) and Khalfan, US 2023/0127351 both teach use of a blockchain and NFT wallet to determine player ownership of virtual game cards. Further, nftnow.com webpage titled “8 Dynamic NFT Card Games You Can Play Today” teaches 8 different commercially available card games as of 2022 that use a Web3 blockchain and NFTs for determination of ownership of digital game cards. As such, simple recitation of an NFT Blockchain for ownership of digital cards represents routine, well-understood and conventional computer activity. Finally, with regard to animated sequences and animating a battle board, Hasebe et al., US 2002/0187837 (Par. 224) and Lin, US 2006/0211495 (Par. 3) teaches where it is conventional to use animation for computer games involving combat or battle scenes. As such, these limitations, amount to well-understood, routine and conventional computer activity when claimed generically at such a high level. As such, even when considering the claims as a whole, the additional elements fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite additional abstract features of the rules for playing the game and as such fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Luckypaper.co webpage “Grid Draft” teaches rules for playing a game where players select game pieces for play by choosing shapes from a grid of cards.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL V LARSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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.
/CARL V LARSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights