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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-9 recite, a system comprising:
a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of a plurality of leaderboards, wherein each leaderboard is associated with a different tracked event and each leaderboard comprises a plurality of ranked positions and a plurality of player identifiers that are associated, based on a ranked quantity of occurrences of the tracked event associated with that leaderboard, with the plurality of ranked positions, and
responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event:
select a quantity of leaderboards from the plurality of leaderboards,
for each of the selected quantity of leaderboards, select a quantity of players associated with a quantity of player identifiers of the plurality of player identifiers associated with that selected leaderboard,
enable each of the selected quantity of players of each of the selected quantity of leaderboards to participate in a competition,
determine a winning player of the competition, and
communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of an award being made available to the winning player of the competition.
Claims 10-20 recite similar limitations to claim 1 above.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claim limitations recite steps of organizing a game by following rules.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-20 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
The additional elements of “communicate data that results in a display” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional elements of, “communicate data that results in a display by the display device, of an award” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The system comprising a processor, a memory” is recited at a high level of generality and therefore acts as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-20 recite at additional limitations of communicate data that results in a display which is a step of communicating, transmitting data over a network is well known, routine and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Furthermore, the steps of displaying information is well known, routine and conventional. The Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
Claims 1-20 also recite a processor, a display device, a memory. Chen (US 2006/0116208 discloses it is well known of electronic gaming machine to comprise a display, processor, and memory device (paragraph 5).
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims further recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent clams merely include limitations that further define the abstract idea and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 5-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (2021/0110666) in view of Guinn (US 2013/0144412).
Claim 1. Thomas discloses a system (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (paragraphs 6, 57-59):
communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of a plurality of leaderboards (Leaderboard for each of a plurality of games/tournaments; paragraphs 173, 197, 201, 213; i.e. 1012 in Fig. 10. See paragraphs 115 and 162 for different tournaments.), wherein each leaderboard is associated with a different tracked event and each leaderboard comprises a plurality of ranked positions based on a ranked quantity of occurrences of the tracked event associated with that leaderboard, with the plurality of ranked positions (Different tracked event/tournaments; paragraphs 173, 197, 201, 213; i.e. 1012 in Fig. 10. See paragraphs 115 and 162 for different tournaments), and responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event (end of a particular tournament, paragraph 211. Award is provided based on player’s ranking, or tournament outcomes; paragraphs 78, 90, 100-116):
select a quantity of leaderboards from the plurality of leaderboards, for each of the selected quantity of leaderboards, select a quantity of players, enable each of the selected quantity of players of each of the selected quantity of leaderboards to participate in a competition (X top-ranked player of each tournament session within that tournament round may be allowed to participate in the subsequent tournament round, paragraph 211), determine a winning player of the competition, and communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of an award being made available to the winning player of the competition (Award is provided based on player’s ranking, or tournament outcomes; paragraphs 78, 90, 100-116),
Thomas discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach a plurality of player identifiers that are associated with the leaderboards, select a quantity of players associated with a quantity of player identifiers of the plurality of player identifiers associated with that selected leaderboard. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to gaming systems, Guinn discloses a system that tracks player’s game play with leaderboards. Guinn discloses a plurality of leaderboards are associated with different tracked event and comprises a plurality of ranked position and player of player identifiers (player names, 302, 304, 308 in Fig. 3). This allows players to identify the players on the leaderboard. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Thomas’ invention and incorporate player identifiers in order to provide the predictable result of identifying the players with player identifiers/names.
Claim 2. Thomas discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the quantity of selected leaderboards comprises at least two (Thomas discloses a plurality of tournament sessions, and therefore at least comprises at least two; paragraph 211. In addition, Thomas discloses a plurality of different tournaments; paragraphs 115 and 162.).
Claim 3. Thomas discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the quantity of selected players per leaderboard is at least one (X top raked players of each tournament session .e. 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.; paragraph 211).
Claim 5. Thomas in view of Guinn discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the selected players are determined based the ranked position of each player identifier associated with each player (Guinn discloses players on the leaderboards are identified by player identifiers (player names, 302, 304, 308 in Fig. 3))).
Claim 6. Thomas discloses the at least one of the tracked events occurs independent of any play of any game Thomas discloses a plurality of different tournaments and therefore independent of the other games; paragraphs 115 and 162. In addition, tournaments may be scheduled and therefore occurs independently of when other games occur, paragraphs 80, 96-97.)
Claim 7. Thomas discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the competition comprises a head-to-head competition between each of the selected quantity of players of each of the selected quantity of leaderboards (players compete against each other, paragraphs 36, 78, 197, 201. Player go head to head against other player groups, paragraphs 196, 210.).
Claim 8. Thomas discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the head-to-head competition comprises at least one of a random determination and a skill-based determination (poker league, players play head to head for individual wins; paragraphs 210. Poker is inherently random and skill based).
Claim 9. Thomas discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the award comprises a progressive award (paragraphs 52, 55).
Claim 10. See rejection for claim 1 above. In addition, Thomas discloses that player in the proceeding round may start at an advantage in a subsequent round, paragraphs 78).
Claims 11-14, 16-20. See rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715