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 abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising: determining a first matchmaking score associated with a first entity and a second matchmaking score associated with a second entity, the first entity associated with a first computing device and the second entity associated with a second computing device, the first computing device and the second computing device participating in an online game; causing, based on the first matchmaking score and the second matchmaking score, the first entity and the second entity to be matched in an instance of the online game; determining a first feature set associated with the first entity and a second feature set associated with the second entity; determining, based on performing an anomaly detection on the first feature set and the second feature set, that the first entity is an anomalous entity; and causing, based at least in part on the first entity being an anomalous entity, the first entity to be matched with a third entity.” (Claim 1); “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause a system to perform operations comprising: determining a first matchmaking score associated with a first entity and a second matchmaking score associated with a second entity, the first entity associated with a first computing device and the second entity associated with a second computing device, the first computing device and the second computing device participating in an online game; causing, based on the first matchmaking score and the second matchmaking score, the first entity and the second entity to be matched in an instance of the online game; determining a first feature set associated with the first entity and a second feature set associated with the second entity; determining, based on performing an anomaly detection on the first feature set and the second feature set, that the first entity is an anomalous entity; and causing, based at least in part on the first entity being an anomalous entity, the first entity to be matched with a third entity.” (Claim 6); and “A method comprising: determining a first matchmaking score associated with a first entity and a second matchmaking score associated with a second entity, the first entity associated with a first computing device and the second entity associated with a second computing device, the first computing device and the second computing device participating in an online game; causing, based on the first matchmaking score and the second matchmaking score, the first entity and the second entity to be matched in an instance of the online game; determining a first feature set associated with the first entity and a second feature set associated with the second entity; determining, based on performing an anomaly detection on the first feature set and the second feature set, that the first entity is an anomalous entity; and causing, based at least in part on the first entity being an anomalous entity, the first entity to be matched with a third entity.” (Claim 14). 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 and/or Mental Processes particularly cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the grouping of Mental Processes for determining a first matchmaking score associated with a first entity and a second matchmaking score associated with a second entity, causing, based on the first matchmaking score and the second matchmaking score, the first entity and the second entity to be matched in an instance of the online game; determining a first feature set associated with the first entity and a second feature set associated with the second entity; determining, based on performing an anomaly detection on the first feature set and the second feature set, that the first entity is an anomalous entity; and causing, based at least in part on the first entity being an anomalous entity, the first entity to be matched with a third entity. Such steps pertaining to organizing human activity and/or mental processes.
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. The recitations of utilization of a “system”, “processors”, “computer-readable media”, “first computing device”, and/or “second computing device” 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 system, media, and/or method to which a computer performs/implements the system, media, and/or method. 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.)
Furthermore, the applicant discloses that “The game client device(s) 120 may be any suitable device, including, but not limited to a Sony Playstation® line of systems, a Nintendo Switch® line of systems, a Microsoft Xbox® line of systems, any gaming device manufactured by Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sega, an Intel-Architecture (IA)® based system, an Apple Macintosh® system, a netbook computer, a notebook computer, a desktop computer system, a set-top box system, a handheld system, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant, combinations thereof, or the like” (¶ 32); “In some implementations, the processors(s) 500 may include a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), both CPU and GPU, a microprocessor, a digital signal processor or other processing units or components known in the art. Alternatively, or in addition, the functionally described herein can be performed, at least in part, by one or more hardware logic components. For example, and without limitation, illustrative types of hardware logic components that may be used include field- programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), application-specific standard products (ASSPs), system-on-a-chip system(s) (SOCs), complex programmable logic devices (CPLDs), etc. Additionally, each of the processor(s) 500 may possess its own local memory, which also may store program modules, program data, and/or one or more operating system(s). The one or more processor(s) 500 may include one or more cores” (¶ 78); “The I/O interface(s) 502 may include a combination of hardware, software, and/or firmware and may include software drivers for enabling the operation of any variety of I/O device(s) integrated on the high-skilled-low- level detection system(s) 140 or with which the high-skilled-low-level detection system(s) 140 interacts, such as displays, microphones, speakers, cameras, switches, and any other variety of sensors, or the like” (¶ 79); “The network interface(s) 504 may include a combination of hardware, software, and/or firmware and may include software drivers for enabling any variety of protocol-based communications, and any variety of wireline and/or wireless ports/antennas. For example, the network interface(s) 504 may comprise one or more of a cellular radio, a wireless (e.g., IEEE 802.1x-based) interface, a Bluetooth® interface, and the like” (¶ 80); “The computer-readable media 510 may include volatile and/or nonvolatile memory, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Such memory includes, but is not limited to, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile discs (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, RAID storage system(s), or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by a computing device. The computer-readable media 510 may be implemented as computer-readable storage media (CRSM), which may be any available physical media accessible by the processor(s) 500 to execute instructions stored on the computer readable media 510. In one basic implementation, CRSM may include RAM and Flash memory. In other implementations, CRSM may include, but is not limited to, ROM, EEPROM, or any other tangible medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by the processor(s) 500” (¶ 82). Such disclosure suggests that any components required by the claims are no more than generic components operating in their ordinary capacity.
Additionally, Geisner (US 2008/0242421) teaches it processors can be general purpose processor for implementing online games (¶ 24, 34, 52). The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well known components.
Nor do the dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, and 15-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9-11, 14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teng (2021/0138350).
Claims 1, 6, and 14: Teng discloses a system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (¶ 5, 7, 20, 43) to (includes computer-implemented method): determining a first matchmaking score (rank level) associated with a first entity and a second matchmaking score (rank level) associated with a second entity, the first entity associated with a first computing device and the second entity associated with a second computing device, the first computing device and the second computing device participating in an online game, causing, based on the first matchmaking score and the second matchmaking score, the first entity and the second entity to be matched in an instance of the online game (¶ 3, 23, 49-53, 59-60, Fig. 2, ¶ 51, “device 210 may pair user A with user D from the group of users based on the determined rank of user A and the determined rank of user D. As shown, a pairing of user A and user D may be sent to server 255. In some cases, server 255 may determine user A and user D are both ranked at level n. Accordingly, server 255 may generate a level n match between user A and user D. Similarly, server 255 may generate a level 1 match between user B and user C, or between user B and user E. or between user C and user E, or between user B, user C and user E.” ¶ 52, “During or after at least one match (e.g., at least one level 1 match, at least one level n match, etc.), server 255 may store the monitored match data from at least one match in match outcomes 230. In some cases, device 210 may use the updated match outcomes 230 to update the ranks of at least one of user A, user B, user C, user D, or user E, or any combination thereof.”), determining a first feature set (match data based on application data, peripheral data, and/or sensor data) associated with the first entity and a second feature set (match data based on application data, peripheral data, and/or sensor data) associated with the second entity (¶ 52-56, 60-64); determining, based on performing an anomaly detection on the first feature set and the second feature set, that the first entity is an anomalous entity (¶ 52-53, 60-67, changes in ranks do to outcomes of the match between the first and second entity, etc); and causing, based at least in part on the first entity being an anomalous entity, the first entity to be matched with a third entity (Fig. 3, see above, ¶ 67).
Claim 3, 9, and 17: Teng discloses wherein causing the first entity to be matched with the third entity is at a first time prior to a start of the instance of the online game or at a second time after the start of the instance of the online game (¶ 52-53, 63-67, matching with the third entity occurs at a second time after the start of the instance of the online game (match between the first entity and the second entity)).
Claim 4, 10, and 18: Teng discloses wherein determining that the first entity is the anomalous entity is based at least in part on at least one of: a modification of the online game, a start of a new season of the online game, or a release of an expansion of the online game (¶ 52-53, 63-67, a modification being an outcome of a match within the online game).
Claim 5, 11, and 19: Teng discloses wherein the first entity and the second entity are matched in a first category and the first entity and the third entity are matched in a second category, the second category being a higher skill level category (¶ 2, 27, 41-42, 44, 52-53, 63-67, Teng describes the first entity and second entity matched at a first category (level 3 ranking for example), after the match the first entity may matched to a third user based on the updated rank of the first user (a second category (level 4 ranking matchup))).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng (US 2021/0138350) in view of Shi (US 2009/0325709).
Claims 12 and 20: Teng teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the first entity is a team and the first matchmaking score is associated with the team. Teng at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 114) and a need drawn towards improvements on game matching that don’t unfairly penalize losing teams or unfairly awarding winning teams without consideration of user skill levels (¶ 23). Additionally, an analogous art of Shi teaches a similarly structured matchmaking system, wherein the entities that include teams, wherein matchmaking scores (weighted skill level) are associated with the team (Abstract, ¶ 7, 56-57, 70-72, 75-79, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified at the first entity and the first matchmaking score of Teng such that the first entity is a team and the first matchmaking score is associated with the team as taught by Shi because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing improvements to game matching that don’t unfairly penalize losing teams or unfairly awarding winning teams without consideration of user skill levels (Teng - ¶ 23). Such a modification provides a matchmaking means that provides opponent teams that shares generally similar skill levels and provide a good gaming experience (Shi - ¶ 6).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng (US 2021/0138350) in view of Postrel (US 2004/0097287).
Claim 13: Teng teaches the above, addition to determining the first feature set is based at least in part on: first data (application data) associated with one or more games played by the first entity (¶ 60) and/or second data (peripheral and/or sensor data) being associated with actions performed external to the one or more games (¶ 61-63), but lacks explicitly suggesting at least the second data being associated with an account of the first entity. Teng at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 114) and teaches updating ranking of users and maintaining/storing information including sensor information, sensor statistics, match outcomes, player rankings, user profiles, etc (¶ 26, 52-53, 67-66, 73). Additionally, an analogous art of Postrel teaches a similarly structured matchmaking system, wherein second data is stored in a player’s profile, the second data being associated with actions performed external to one or more games and used for purposes of matchmaking (Abstract, ¶ 3, 26-32, 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified at least the second data of Teng such that the second data is associated with a user profile of the first entity or gamer as taught by Postrel because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of storing data for matchmaking purposes in which at Teng is intended (Teng – see above). Such a modification provides a matchmaking means based on profiles and/or associated data thereof (Postrel – Abstract, ¶ 3, 5-7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached 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