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 it is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter
3. Step 2A:
4. Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed an abstract idea under the category of “methods of organizing human activity”.
5. The claim language presents organizing a multiplayer game wherein a spectator is invited to join a queue of players who would like to participate in the game. Furthermore, invitations to join the queue are based on spectator eligibility. However, these steps, and those listed in the dependent claims including subject matter related to eligibility, accepting invitations, user account conditions, etc., describe a method of organizing a game in which the Court in Planet Bingo determined was an abstract idea (see Planet Bingo: “For example, the claims here recite methods and systems for “managing a game of Bingo.” ’646 patent col. 8 l. 46; see alsoid. col. 9 l. 33; ’045 patent col. 8 l. 64. This is similar to the kind of “organiz-ing human activity” at issue in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356.). For these reasons, the claims are an abstract idea.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. As stated above, the claims incorporating spectators into participating players. However, the claims do not address a problem longstanding in computer history, and thus lack practical application. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
7. Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more than a generic computer in the form of game devices and servers. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that all are well-known and understood within the art. The claim is directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible.
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) 1, 2, 4, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltran et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2019/0366210) in view of Eatedall (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0192974).
Re claim 1, 11, and 16: Beltan discloses a method comprising:
determining, by one or more servers, that a first user associated with a first user device is viewing game content associated with a game, wherein the game content is created by a second user associated with a second user device (see Abstract: “streaming video generated from the executing video game over a network to a primary client device; streaming the video over the network from the primary client device to one or more secondary client devices” and “the secondary user's 114 or 116 may first spectate the game play of the video game by the primary user 112, before requesting or being invited to share the controller.”);
adding, by the one or more servers, the first user to a queue of players waiting to join the multiplayer game session (see paragraph [0060]: players are added to a game queue).
Beltan fails to disclose determining, by the one or more servers, whether the first user is eligible to join a multiplayer game session for the game; and
responsive to determining that the first user is eligible to join the multiplayer game session:
sending, by the one or more servers and to the first user device, an invite for first user to join the multiplayer game session. However, Eatedall discloses a multiplayer game where spectators are invited to play the game they’re watching, wherein spectators are eligible to play the game based on “random selection using a draw of lots, winning a contest held prior to the event or during the e-sports event, paying for the opportunity, making in-game purchases while playing the game online, playing in specific online tournaments, watching advertisements while playing the game online or watching advertisements during the event, among other options.” (see paragraph [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to attach an eligibility requirement to a spectator joining the game, for the purpose of encouraging player to interact with the gaming system and service.
Re claim 2: Beltan in view of Eatedall discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the first user is eligible to join a multiplayer game session for the game comprises:
comparing, by the one or more servers, at least one eligibility criteria for joining the multiplayer game session to one or more characteristics of a user account of the first user; and
determining, by the one or more servers and based on the comparison, whether the first user is eligible to join the multiplayer game session (see Beltan: eligibility criteria including “paying for the opportunity, making in-game purchases while playing the game online, playing in specific online tournaments, watching advertisements while playing the game online or watching advertisements during the event, among other options” are directly associated in a player’s account).
Re claim 4: Beltan discloses with respect to the method of claim 2, wherein the at least on eligibility criteria includes one or more of whether the first user has a user account associated with a game service for the game, whether the first user has a user account associated with a game system for the game (see paragraph [0099]: “At method operation 500, a primary user (host user) and one or more remote secondary users login to a gaming platform that enables communication between the users.”).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltan in view of Eatedall in view of Garavito (U.S. Patent No. 10,112,110).
Re claims 3 and 17: Beltan and Eatedall fails to disclose with respect to the method of claim 2, further comprising:
receiving, by the one or more servers and from the second user, the at least one eligibility criteria for joining the multiplayer game session. However, Garavito discloses a similar system to that of Beltan that allows game streamers to invite viewing subscribers of their broadcast streams to play their game with them. Garavito allows the streamer, or operator, to send to the server an eligibility criteria for subscribers to meet and join the game, and from there, subscribers are invited to the game by the game server (column 2, lines 4-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10, 12-15, and 18-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the 101 rejection was overcome. Here, the aforementioned limitations are allowed because the prior art of record and prior art in general lacks specifically not just the limitations but also can not be obviously combined to formulate said limitations. For example, regarding claims 5 and 6, and other similar claims, while a player not accepting an invitation in time and having to remain in a queue may seem obvious, the queue being for an upcoming game session does not. Thus, the claims, would be allowed if the 101 rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights