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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 06/27/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 06/27/2024 are noted.
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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved. The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html).
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a computer-implemented method in claims 1-11, and a system in claims 12 to 20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Here, Independent Claim 1 (and similarly recited Claims 12) recites “1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a central service via an application on a mobile computing device, a first authorization indication to log a gamer profile in to a gaming console, wherein:
the gamer profile is logged in to the application and authenticated by the central service, and
the first authorization indication includes a first location indication of a physical location of the mobile computing device;
receiving, by the central service from the gaming console, a second authorization indication for a proximity-based login, wherein the second authorization indication includes a second location indication of a physical location of the gaming console;
pairing, by the central service, the first authorization indication and the second authorization indication in response to determining proof-of-presence of the mobile computing device and the gaming console based on the first location indication and the second location indication exceeding a pairing threshold;
in response to the pairing, authorizing the proximity-based login, wherein the authorizing comprises:
logging, by the central service, the gamer profile in to the gaming console; and
in response to determining loss of the proof-of-presence, deauthorizing the proximity-based login, wherein the deauthorizing comprises:
logging, by the central service, the gamer profile out of the gaming console.”
As indicated above, the underlined portions of representative Independent Claim 1, and similarly recited Independent Claims 16 and 19, generally encompass the abstract ideas, for example as, each of at least one step or instruction or rule for organizing human activity, verifying identity, and managing permissions. The dependent claims include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 to 20 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
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 ;
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)); and/or
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).
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, and 12 recite the additional elements of, for example, mobile computing device, IoT devices, etc.. However these are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The receiving, pairing, authorizing, and determining steps of the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation for the use of the judicial exception and similarly are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the organizing activities needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality).
Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, Claims 1 and 12 as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1, 12 and their depending claims lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claims 1 and 12 do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional elements in the claim (i.e. mobile computing device, IoT devices, etc.) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components used as tools. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Further, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Here, the determining, receiving, authorizing, and pairing steps of the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation extra-solution activity. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) and then to present or display said information is well known as in presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Thus, Claims 1 and 12, and their dependent claims remain ineligible.
Dependent Claims are ineligible and lack a practical application.
Claims 2-11 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
Claims 13-20 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 12.
The dependent claims recite further extra-solution activities and further define the abstract idea of the independent claims.
AIA Notice
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0319955 A1 to Jung in view of U.S. Patent 8,943,605 B1 to Martin et al. (hereinafter Martin).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claim 12, Jung discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a central service via an application on a mobile computing device, a first authorization indication to log a gamer profile in to a gaming console (para. [0040] discloses the online game host 210 may receive data from the first computing device 220. In various implementations, the data may be login data associated with a user of the online game. For example, a user desiring to experience the online game may log into the online game host 210 using the first computing device 220. Accordingly, the online game host 210 may receive data associated with the login (e.g., user name, password, desired login detailed, or the like) from the first computing device 220.), wherein:
the gamer profile is logged in to the application and authenticated by the central service (para. [0040]), and
the first authorization indication includes a first location indication of a physical location of the mobile computing device (para. [0060] discloses Determine a Location of the First Device and a Location of the Second Device”, the online game host 210 may include logic and/or features for determining a location of a computing device. In general, the online game host 210 may determine the location (e.g., using GPS, using location-aware browsing, or the like) for the first and second computing devices 220 and 230);
receiving, by the central service from the gaming console, a second authorization indication for a proximity-based login, wherein the second authorization indication includes a second location indication of a physical location of the gaming console (para. [0060]-[0061]);
pairing, by the central service, the first authorization indication and the second authorization indication in response to determining proof-of-presence of the mobile computing device and the gaming console based on the first location indication and the second location indication exceeding a pairing threshold (para. [0060]-[0061]).
However, Jung does not explicitly disclose:
in response to the pairing, authorizing the proximity-based login, wherein the authorizing comprises: logging, by the central service, the gamer profile in to the gaming console; and
in response to determining loss of the proof-of-presence, deauthorizing the proximity-based login, wherein the deauthorizing comprises: logging, by the central service, the gamer profile out of the gaming console.
In a related invention, Martin discloses a method, system, and medium are provided for sharing content among network devices. Martin discloses: in response to the pairing, authorizing the proximity-based login, wherein the authorizing comprises: logging, by the central service, the gamer profile in to the gaming console (Col. 1:17-40, Col. 8:63 – Col. 9:18 discloses when two individuals with gaming systems are nearby, each device may connect to a personal area network or wireless network to browse content on each other's device. One of the individuals may select a game on the other person's gaming system, where that person does not have the game on their gaming system. The base station controller of the wireless network may receive the request for the game. In some embodiments, the base station controller may connect with the content provider for a version of the content. The base station controller may also generate a temporary key for content. In turn, the content may be transmitted to the person's gaming system via the wireless network or a personal area network. The temporary key may be transmitted from the base station controller to the individual's gaming system. The key may be based on an identifier associated with the access point available to each of the gaming systems. A handshake between the gaming systems or between each gaming system and the base station controller may occur periodically to confirm proximity); and
in response to determining loss of the proof-of-presence, deauthorizing the proximity-based login, wherein the deauthorizing comprises: logging, by the central service, the gamer profile out of the gaming console (Col. 1:17-40, Col. 8:63 – Col. 9:18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Martin with the system of Jung in order to improve the gaming interactions and experiences between multiple users.
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claim 13, Jung in view of Martin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the central service from the mobile computing device and the gaming console, continued respective location indications (Jung, paras. [0060]-[0061]); and
wherein the determining the loss of the proof-of-presence comprises: determining the continued respective location indications fall below a matching threshold (Jung, paras. [0060]-[0061]).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claim 14, Jung in view of Martin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the continued respective location indications comprise a different type of location indication than the first and second location indications (Jung, paras. [0060]-[0062]).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claim 15, Jung in view of Martin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
periodically polling, by the central service, the mobile computing device and the gaming console, for the continued respective location indications, wherein the continued respective location indications are received in response to the periodic polling (Jung, paras. [0060]-[0062]).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 16, Jung in view of Martin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
receiving, by the central service from the mobile computing device, a change indication of a possible change in location of the mobile computing device (Jung, paras. [0060]-[0061]); and
in response to the change indication, requesting, by the central service, the continued respective location indications from the mobile computing device and the gaming console, wherein the continued respective location indications are received in response to the request (Jung, paras. [0060]-[0061]).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 17, Jung in view of Martin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the authorizing further comprises:
providing, by the central service to the gaming console, access to limited data associated with the gamer profile based on the proximity-based login (Jung, paras. [0060]-[0061]).
Regarding Claim 7, Jung in view of Martin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the first location indication includes a first wireless scan signature comprising names and signal strengths of wireless access points available to the mobile computing device (Jung, paras. [0045]-[0047); and
the second location indication includes a second wireless scan signature comprising names and signal strengths of wireless access points available to the gaming console (Jung, paras. [0045]-[0047).
Regarding Claim 8, and similarly recited Claim 18, Jung in view of Martin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the first location indication includes a first scan signature comprising names of one or more internet-of-things (IoT) devices emitting signals that are detected by the mobile computing device (Jung, paras. [0045]-[0047, [0061]); and
the second location indication includes a second scan signature comprising names of one or more IoT devices emitting signals that are detected by the gaming console (Jung, paras. [0045]-[0047, [0061]).
Regarding Claim 9, and similarly recited Claim 19, Jung in view of Martin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first location indication and the second location indication each include an indication of a connection to a wireless network, a Quick-Response (QR) code, a sound signature, a Global Positioning System (GPS) location indication, or a combination thereof (Jung, paras. [0045]-[0047, [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding Claim 10, and similarly recited Claim 20, Jung in view of Martin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the deauthorizing further comprises: transmitting, from the central service to the gaming console, instructions to delete all data related to the gamer profile associated with the proximity-based login (Jung, paras. [0045]-[0047, [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding Claim 11, Jung in view of Martin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the central service receives the second authorization indication prior to receiving the first authorization indication (Jung, paras. [0045]-[0047, [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding Claim 17, Jung in view of Martin discloses the system of claim 12, wherein to authorize further comprises:
restrict access of the gaming console to limited data of the data associated with the gamer profile based on the proximity-based login (Martin, Col. 8:63 to Col. 9:18).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715