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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 8/2/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on behalf of this case on 8/2/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-10 recite a process as the claims recite a method. Claims 1-18 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with processor executing instructions, Claims 19-20 recite an article of manufacture as the claims recite a non-transitory computer readable medium.
The claim(s) 1-20 recite(s) collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results based on the collection and analysis, where the results are user generated games. Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results based on the collection and analysis, where the results are user generated games is subject matter related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) is a certain method of organizing human activities.
Certain method of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) 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)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite receiving input from a user, generating a user interest based on input, storing information, and displaying the interest all of which are limitations a human or humans could perform and therefore part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that this received input is from a user interface by a social platform, user interest system comprising one or more modules configured to present a plurality of input controls (software running on a computer to perform functions see 112 sixth/f interpretation), and the information is stored in a database merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or other computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite this generally being performed by a user interface by a social platform, user interest system comprising one or more modules configured to present a plurality of input controls, and the information is stored in a database merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite user generated content is displayed and accessed via a user account. These are limitations a human could perform specifically generating and storing content in for example a log or storage as broadly recited in the claim. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed in the preceding claims.
As per claim 3, the claims list alternatives of user interests. These are all interests a human could perform by selection by for example pen and paper. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed in the preceding claims.
As per claim 4, the claims recite templates to make a game based on input. A human or humans could make a game according to templates. The additional elements this is performed by software running on a computer “the user interest system”(see 112 sixth/f interpretation below) merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 5, the claims recite different types of games all of which a user could perform following templates and user inputs and therefore part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed in the preceding claims.
As per claim 6, the claims recite limitations a human could perform specifically providing input to generate a cover for a game. The additional element that this limitation is being performed by an “artificial intelligence (AI) text to image generator” merely results in apply it. Here there are no details about a particular artificial intelligence (AI) text to image generator or how it operates to derive information other than it being used to generate an image. The artificial intelligence (AI) text to image generator is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limitation on how the artificial intelligence (AI) text to image generator operates to derive image information. In additional the limitation only recites the idea of generating an image using an artificial intelligence (AI) text to image generator without any details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the artificial intelligence (AI) text to image generator solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Also the claim invokes a generic artificial intelligence (AI) text to image generator merely as a tool or marking the determination rather than purporting to improve the computer or technology. This can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers (additionally see USPTO examples 47-48)
As per claim 7, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically as broadly recited in the claims. A human could provide a data packet of questions and answers cards to provide an interactive trivia game.
The additional elements that this information is input into an “interface” merely in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or other computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite this information is input into an interface merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 8, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically a human could tag a game as under 5 years old, store that information, and provide a catalogue or section, that was for under 5 years old. Then when a user was under 5 years old suggest that section to them. The additional element that this information is stored in a database merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 9, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically a human could generate a fantasy sports league based on receive data, and receive suggestions of plurality of position based on the sports data and input that roster information. The additional elements that this information is received from an application programming interface (API), the suggestions are done “automatically”, information is input into an “interface”, and performed by software running on a computer (see user interest system, 112 f/sixth interpretation) merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or other computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite this information is received from an application programming interface (API) ,the suggestions are done “automatically”, information is input into an interface, and performed by software running on a computer (see user interest system, 112 f/sixth interpretation) merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 10, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically a human could create a roster with information regarding cost, position and budget. The additional element of an interface is previously discussed above.
As per claim 11, the claims receiving input from a user, generating a user interest based on input, storing information, and displaying the interest all of which are limitations human could perform and therefore part of the abstract idea. Further the claims recite additionally limitations a human or humans could perform and therefore part of the abstract idea, specifically a human could tag a game as under 5 years old, store that information, and provide a catalogue or section, that was for under 5 years old. Then when a user was under 5 years old suggest that section to them based on a set of rules (suggestion algorithm), all of which are limitations that are part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that this is performed by software running on a computer (a memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:), received input is from a user interface by a social platform, user interest system comprising one or more modules configured to present a plurality of input controls, and the information is stored in a database merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or other computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite this generally being performed by software running on a computer (a memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:), received input is from a user interface by a social platform, user interest system comprising one or more modules configured to present a plurality of input controls, and the information is stored in a database merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 12, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically a human could display a template for a game, provide input, generate a game based on input, generate a game cover, tag the game with one or more game tags like as above in claim 11 under 5 years old, store the game with the tags, populate a game catalogue and suggest that game to a user under 5 years out for example look at this binder of games for the under 5 years old crowd. The additional elements that this information is stored in a database and being performed by one or more modules and instructions merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed previously in the claims above.
The additional element that this limitation is being performed by an “artificial intelligence (AI) text to image generator” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the claims above.
As per claim 13, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically recite different types of games all of which a user could perform following templates and user inputs and therefore part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed in the preceding claims.
As per claim 14, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically as broadly recited in the claims. A human could provide a data packet of questions and answers cards to provide an interactive trivia game.
The additional elements that this information is input into an “interface” and being performed by instructions merely in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the claims above.
As per claim 15, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically a human could generate a fantasy sports league based on receive data, receive suggestions of plurality of position based on the sports data, input that roster information, update budgets, generate a team based on selection, and store the team and league information. The additional elements that this information is received from an application programming interface (API), the suggestions are done “automatically”, information is input into an “interface”, information is stored in a database, and limitations are performed by one or more modules, merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or other computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite this information is received from an application programming interface (API), the suggestions are done “automatically”, information is input into an “interface”, information is stored in a database, and limitations are performed by one or more modules merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 16, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically a human could create a roster interface with information regarding cost, position and budget. The additional element of an interface is previously discussed above as it results in merely apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 17, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically a human could purchase information via one of several marketplaces, which is a social platform. Further a human could purchase via a platform digital goods, physical goods, or sponsor related goods. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 18, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically a human could generate rewards based on interaction in a social platform, and use the rewards to purchase information in a marketplace. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 19, the claims receiving input from a user, generating a user interest based on input, storing information, and displaying the interest all of which are limitations human could perform and therefore part of the abstract idea. Further the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically a human could tag a game as under 5 years old, store that information, and provide a catalogue or section, that was for under 5 years old. Then when a user was under 5 years old suggest that section to them based on a set of rules (suggestion algorithm), all of which are limitations that are part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that this is performed by software running on a computer (a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:), received input is from a user interface by a social platform, user interest system comprising one or more modules configured to present a plurality of input controls, and the information is stored in a database merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or other computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite this generally being performed by performed by software running on a computer (a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:), received input is from a user interface by a social platform, user interest system comprising one or more modules configured to present a plurality of input controls, and the information is stored in a database merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 20, the claims list alternatives of user interests. These are all interests a human could perform by selection by for example pen and paper. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed in the preceding claims.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite: (1) 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)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above under the practical application step.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The user interest system comprising one or more modules configured to present a plurality of input controls for generating one or more user interests by the social platform (see claim 1)
Wherein the user interest system comprises a marker template, the marker template configured for generating an original game by the social platform based on a template and user input to the template (see claim 4)
wherein the user interest system comprises a league creator, the league creator configured for generating a fantasy sports league by the social platform based on sports data loaded from an application programming interface (API), an automatically suggested league comprising a plurality of players at a plurality of positions based on the sports data, and user input to a roster customization interface (see claim 9)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
From review of Applicant’s specification, the Examiner will interpret software (instructions) running on a processor to performing operations to be the corresponding structure (see claims 11, 19, and paragraph 0060).
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) 1-4, 8-9, 11, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Miller (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0303268).
As per claim 1, Miller teaches A computer-implemented method comprising: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: method of a game platform).
providing a user interface by a social platform to generate personalized entertainment content, (see Figure 3, Examiner’s note: computer interfaces).
the social platform comprising a plurality of user accounts, (see paragraphs 0017-0018, Examiner’s note: user accounts).
a user interest system, (see paragraphs 0021-0023, and 0055-0056 Examiner’s note: teaches a user interface with drafting and tracking performance).
and a marketplace system, (see paragraphs 0021, 0023, Examiner’s note: drafting based and performance based on points).
the user interest system comprising one or more modules configured to (see paragraphs 0006 and 0016, Examiner’s note: teaches software running on a computer to perform operations).
present a plurality of input controls for generating one or more user interests by the social platform; receiving user input from a user associated with a user account via the plurality of input controls; generating a user interest based on the user input; storing the user interest in a database; and displaying the user interest on the social platform. (see Figures 4-24 and paragraphs 0016-0017, Examiner’s note: these various interfaces teach user interactions the user can have with the gaming system to show interest in created leagues or create new leagues to perform fantasy sports (Figures 4-24). Further teaches storing information in databases (see paragraphs 0016-0017)).
As per claim 2, Miller teaches
wherein the one or more user interests comprise user-generated content that is displayed and accessed via the user account (see paragraphs 0017-0018 and 0033-0034, Examiner’s note: teaches providing and displaying information related to user accounts).
As per claim 3, Miller teaches
wherein the one or more user interests comprise one or more of an original game, a fantasy sports league, a custom avatar, trophies, badges, last-played game, most-played games, game catalogues, social connections, affiliations, and brands (see paragraph 0001 and 0003, Examiner’s note: teaches fantasy sports, it is noted only one is required by the claims).
As per claim 4,Miller teaches
wherein the user interest system comprises a maker template, the maker template configured for generating an original game by the social platform based on a template and user input to the template (see Figures 3-11, 13, and 17, Examiner’s note: teaches various interfaces to create the game).
As per claim 8, Miller teaches
further comprising tagging the original game with one or more game tags; storing the original game and the one or more game tags in one or more databases; populating a game catalogue; and suggesting the user interest to one or more of the plurality of user accounts based on the one or more game tags (see paragraphs 0038 and 0016-0017, Examiner’s note: filters for providing information of interest to a user (See paragraph 0038), where information may be stored in databases (see paragraphs 0016-0017)).
As per claim 9, Miller teaches
wherein the user interest system comprises a league creator, the league creator configured for generating a fantasy sports league by the social platform based on sports data loaded from an application programming interface (API), (see paragraphs 0026-0029, Examiner’s note: leagues can be created by the user or the user).
an automatically suggested league comprising a plurality of players at a plurality of positions based on the sports data, (see paragraph 0021, Examiner’s note: teaches draft positions may be determined based on previous data, e.g. information in the system).
and user input to a roster customization interface (see Figures 8-20, Examiner’s note: these GUI interfaces teach customized by the user roster information).
As per claim 11, Miller teaches A system comprising: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: system that enables operation of a game).
a memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: (see paragraphs 0004-0005 and 0016, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform operations).
provide a user interface by a social platform to generate personalized entertainment, (see Figure 3, Examiner’s note: computer interfaces).
the social platform comprising a plurality of user accounts, (see paragraphs 0017-0018, Examiner’s note: user accounts).
a user interest system, (see paragraphs 0021-0023, and 0055-0056 Examiner’s note: teaches a user interface with drafting and tracking performance).
and a marketplace system, (see paragraphs 0021, 0023, Examiner’s note: drafting based and performance based on points).
the user interest system comprising one or more modules configured to (see paragraphs 0006 and 0016, Examiner’s note: teaches software running on a computer to perform operations).
present a plurality of input controls for generating one or more user interests by the social platform; receive user input from a user associated with a user account via the plurality of input controls; generate a user interest based on the user input; (see Figures 4-24 and paragraphs 0016-0017, Examiner’s note: these various interfaces teach user interactions the user can have with the gaming system to show interest in created leagues or create new leagues to perform fantasy sports (Figures 4-24). Further teaches storing information in databases (see paragraphs 0016-0017)).
tag the user interest with one or more tags, each tag comprising a category configured for use in a suggestion algorithm; store the user interest and the one or more tags in a database; display the user interest on the social platform; and suggest the user interest to one or more of the plurality of user accounts based on the one or more tags. (see paragraphs 0038 and 0016-0017, Examiner’s note: filters for providing information of interest to a user (See paragraph 0038), where information may be stored in databases (see paragraphs 0016-0017)).
As per claim 19, Miller teaches A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising: (see paragraphs 0004-0005, 0016, and claim 25, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform operations).
providing a user interface by a social platform to generate personalized entertainment, (see Figure 3, Examiner’s note: computer interfaces).
the social platform comprising a plurality of user accounts, (see paragraphs 0017-0018, Examiner’s note: user accounts).
a user interest system, (see paragraphs 0021-0023, and 0055-0056 Examiner’s note: teaches a user interface with drafting and tracking performance).
and a marketplace system, (see paragraphs 0021, 0023, Examiner’s note: drafting based and performance based on points).
the user interest system comprising one or more modules configured to (see paragraphs 0006 and 0016, Examiner’s note: teaches software running on a computer to perform operations).
present a plurality of input controls for generating one or more user interests by the social platform; receiving user input from a user associated with a user account via the plurality of input controls; generating a user interest based on the user input; storing the user interest in a database; (see Figures 4-24 and paragraphs 0016-0017, Examiner’s note: these various interfaces teach user interactions the user can have with the gaming system to show interest in created leagues or create new leagues to perform fantasy sports (Figures 4-24). Further teaches storing information in databases (see paragraphs 0016-0017)).
tagging the user interest with one or more tags, each tag comprising a category configured for use in a suggestion algorithm; suggesting the user interest to one or more of the plurality of user accounts based on the one or more tags; and displaying the user interest on the social platform. (see paragraphs 0038 and 0016-0017, Examiner’s note: filters for providing information of interest to a user (See paragraph 0038), where information may be stored in databases (see paragraphs 0016-0017)).
As per claim 20, Miller teaches
wherein the one or more user interests comprise one or more of an original game, a fantasy sports league, a custom avatar, trophies, badges, last-played game, most-played games, game catalogues, social connections, affiliations, and brands. (see paragraph 0001 and 0003, Examiner’s note: teaches fantasy sports, it is noted only one is required by the claims).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0303268) further in view of Sung et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2011/0066506).
As per claim 5, Miller teaches
wherein the original game comprises a fantasy sports game, and wherein the template displays for user selection one or more of a game type, a game duration, and one or more input boxes to receive user-generated questions and answers (see Figure 3-4, 6, and paragraph 0036, Examiner’s note: users input information regarding constraints of the game including time, size, etc.).
Miller does not expressly teach a trivia game with quiz information
However, Sung which is in the art of online game and app creation (see abstract and Figures 2A-2B) teaches a trivia game with quiz information (see paragraphs 0015-0016, 0020, 0023, 0039, and Figures 2A, Examiner’s note: teaches trivia quiz games and templates with attributes like questions and answers and number of levels (e.g. duration)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Miller with the aforementioned teachings from Sung with the motivation of providing a way to provide a different type of game creation (see Sung paragraphs 0015-0016, 0020, 0023, 0039, and Figures 2A), when Miller already teaches creating content for other types of games including dating contests, talent contests, survival contests, etc. (see Miller paragraph 0012).
Claim(s) 6-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0303268) further in view of Sung et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2011/0066506) further in view of Iyer et al. (United States Patent Application Number: US 2020/0228880).
As per claim 6, Miller teaches
further comprising generating an original game cover based on user input to the system (see paragraph 0068, Examiner’s note: team picture).
Miller in view of Sung et al. does not expressly teach generating an image with an artificial intelligence (AI) text-to-image generator.
However, Iyer et al. which is in the art of on demand generation and personalization of video content (See abstract) teaches generating an image with an artificial intelligence (AI) text-to-image generator (see paragraph 0024, Examiner’s note: AI can now be leveraged to generate images from text).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Miller in view of Sung with the aforementioned teachings from Iyer et al. with the motivation of providing a way to leverage computers to generate images of interest for user (see Iyer et al. paragraph 0024), when a providing or generating an image for a game is known (see Miller paragraph 0068).
As per claim 7, Miller teaches
further comprising compiling user-selected settings and responses to the plurality of input controls into a data packet configured to be executed as part of a game play interface that interactively displays the fantasy sports game. (see Figure 3-4, 6, and paragraph 0036, Examiner’s note: users input information regarding constraints of the game including time, size, etc.
Miller does not expressly teach the trivia game
However, Sung which is in the art of online game and app creation (see abstract and Figures 2A-2B) teaches the trivia game (see paragraphs 0015-0016, 0020, 0023, 0039, and Figures 2A, Examiner’s note: teaches trivia quiz games and templates with attributes like questions and answers and number of levels (e.g. duration)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Miller with the aforementioned teachings from Sung with the motivation of providing a way to provide a different type of game creation (see Sung paragraphs 0015-0016, 0020, 0023, 0039, and Figures 2A), when Miller already teaches creating content for other types of games including dating contests, talent contests, survival contests, etc. (see Miller paragraph 0012).
Claim(s) 10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0303268) further in view of Carson et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0121013).
As per claim 10, Miller teaches
wherein the roster customization interface comprises the plurality of players at the plurality of positions organized by position, the roster customization interface configured to receive a user selection of one or more players, (see Figures 8-20, Examiner’s note: these GUI interfaces teach customized by the user roster information).
Miller does not expressly teach and in-game cost and wherein the in-game cost is used for updating a user budget.
However, Carson which is in the art of fantasy sports (see abstract) teaches and in-game cost and wherein the in-game cost is used for updating a user budget (see paragraphs 0028-0030, 0055, 00557, and 0115-0116, Examiner’s note: teaches different items or players cost different points).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Miller with the aforementioned teachings from Carson with the motivation of providing a common way of filling or selecting a team based on budget constraints (see Carson paragraphs 0028-0030, 0055, 00557, and 0115-0116), when determining draft positions according to credits, points or credits is known (see miller paragraphs 0021-0022).
As per claim 15, Miller teaches
wherein the one or more modules comprises a league creator, the league creator configured for generating a fantasy sports league by the social platform, and wherein the instructions further comprise: load sports data from an application programming interface (API); display a fantasy league creation interface; (see paragraphs 0026-0029, Examiner’s note: leagues can be created by the user or the user).
automatically suggest a league comprising a plurality of players at a plurality of positions based on the sports data; (see paragraph 0021, Examiner’s note: teaches draft positions may be determined based on previous data, e.g. information in the system).
determine a fantasy league name and fantasy league cover art based on user input; (see Figure 6, Examiner’s note: team name and time picture).
display a roster customization interface; receive a user selection of one or more players; (see Figures 8-20, Examiner’s note: these GUI interfaces teach customized by the user roster information).
generate a custom team based on the user selection; (see Figures 4-20, Examiner’s note: teaches generating a custom team based on user selection at the interfaces).
and store the fantasy sports league and the custom team in one or more databases (see paragraphs 0014 and 0016, Examiner’s note: teaches storing the information in Miller in databases).
Miller does not expressly teach update a user budget with each player selection;
However, Carson which is in the art of fantasy sports (see abstract) teaches update a user budget with each player selection (see paragraphs 0028-0030, 0055, 00557, and 0115-0116, Examiner’s note: teaches different items or players cost different points).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Miller with the aforementioned teachings from Carson with the motivation of providing a common way of filling or selecting a team based on budget constraints (see Carson paragraphs 0028-0030, 0055, 00557, and 0115-0116), when determining draft positions according to credits, points or credits is known (see miller paragraphs 0021-0022).
As per claim 16, Miller teaches
wherein the roster customization interface comprises the plurality of players at the plurality of positions organized by position, the roster customization interface configured to receive the user selection of one or more players, (see Figures 8-20, Examiner’s note: these GUI interfaces teach customized by the user roster information).
Miller does not expressly teach and in-game cost and wherein the in-game cost is used for updating the user budget
However, Carson which is in the art of fantasy sports (see abstract) teaches and in-game cost and wherein the in-game cost is used for updating the user budget (see paragraphs 0028-0030, 0055, 00557, and 0115-0116, Examiner’s note: teaches different items or players cost different points).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Miller with the aforementioned teachings from Carson with the motivation of providing a common way of filling or selecting a team based on budget constraints (see Carson paragraphs 0028-0030, 0055, 00557, and 0115-0116), when determining draft positions according to credits, points or credits is known (see miller paragraphs 0021-0022).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0303268) further in view of Iyer et al. (United States Patent Application Number: US 2020/0228880).
As per claim 12, Miller teaches
wherein the one or more modules comprises a maker template, the maker template configured for generating personalized entertainment by the social platform, and wherein the instructions further comprise: display a template for a user-generated game; receive user input to the template; generate an original game based on the user input; (see Figures 3-11, 13, and 17, Examiner’s note: teaches various interfaces to create the game).
generate a game cover based on user input (see paragraph 0068, Examiner’s note: team picture).
tag the original game with one or more game tags; store the original game, the game cover, and the one or more game tags in one or more databases; populate a game catalogue; and suggest the user interest to one or more of the plurality of user accounts based on the one or more game tags. (see paragraphs 0038 and 0016-0017, Examiner’s note: filters for providing information of interest to a user (See paragraph 0038), where information may be stored in databases (see paragraphs 0016-0017)).
Miller does not expressly teach generate image based on input to an artificial intelligence text-to-image generator.
However, Iyer et al. which is in the art of on demand generation and personalization of video content (See abstract) teaches generate image based on input to an artificial intelligence text-to-image generator (see paragraph 0024, Examiner’s note: AI can now be leveraged to generate images from text).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Miller with the aforementioned teachings from Iyer et al. with the motivation of providing a way to leverage computers to generate images of interest for user (see Iyer et al. paragraph 0024), when a providing or generating an image for a game is known (see Miller paragraph 0068).
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0303268) further in view of Iyer et al. (United States Patent Application Number: US 2020/0228880) further in view of Sung et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2011/0066506)
As per claim 13, Miller teaches
wherein the original game comprises a user-generated fantasy sports game, and wherein the template displays for user selection of one or more of a game type, a game duration, and one or more input boxes to receive user-generated questions and answers. (see Figure 3-4, 6, and paragraph 0036, Examiner’s note: users input information regarding constraints of the game including time, size, etc.).
Miller in view of Iyer et al. does not expressly teach a trivia game with quiz information
However, Sung which is in the art of online game and app creation (see abstract and Figures 2A-2B) teaches a trivia game with quiz information (see paragraphs 0015-0016, 0020, 0023, 0039, and Figures 2A, Examiner’s note: teaches trivia quiz games and templates with attributes like questions and answers and number of levels (e.g. duration)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Miller in view of Iyer et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Sung with the motivation of providing a way to provide a different type of game creation (see Sung paragraphs 0015-0016, 0020, 0023, 0039, and Figures 2A), when Miller already teaches creating content for other types of games including
As per claim 14, Miller teaches
the instructions further comprising: compile user-selected settings and responses to the plurality of input controls into a data packet configured to be executed as part of a game play interface that interactively displays the user-generated fantasy sports game. (see Figure 3-4, 6, and paragraph 0036, Examiner’s note: users input information regarding constraints of the game including time, size, etc).
Miller in view of Iyer does not expressly teach the trivia game
However, Sung which is in the art of online game and app creation (see abstract and Figures 2A-2B) teaches the trivia game (see paragraphs 0015-0016, 0020, 0023, 0039, and Figures 2A, Examiner’s note: teaches trivia quiz games and templates with attributes like questions and answers and number of l