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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 9 recites, in part, the limitations of […]: receiving game data that includes game events that indicate game state changes in a plurality of active game instances […]; for each of the game events: obtaining the game event from the game data and determining whether the game event is an indexing event including one or more of: creation of a new game instance, update of one of the plurality of active game instances, or closing of one of the plurality of active game instances; in response to determining that the game event is an indexing event, determining whether a particular game instance associated with the game event is eligible to be joined by one or more players; in response to determining that the particular game instance associated with the game event is eligible to be joined by the one or more players, determining one or more index assignments for the particular game instance that target one or more particular indexes associated with one or more game instance characteristics of the particular game instance, wherein the one or more particular indexes are a subset of a plurality of game instance indexes that store references to the active game instances; and writing one or more game state updates to the one or more particular indexes in a data structure based on the one or more index assignments, wherein the one or more particular indexes are scanned to find eligible game instances based on the one or more game instance characteristics associated with the one or more particular indexes matching one or more user characteristics of a requesting user […] requesting to join a game instance. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 9 (wherein the limitations are substantially similar to those of independent claim(s) 1 and 14). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., 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), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 9 recites the additional element(s) of a system comprising: at least one processor coupled to a nontransitory computer readable medium having stored thereon software instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations including: […] a game platform; […] (wherein the limitations are substantially similar to those of independent claim(s) 1 and 14). These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to receive data, identify and evaluating data, and updating data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
Additionally, the specification makes it clear that the abstract idea of matching characteristics to join a game instance can be implemented on a generic computer.
[0066] In some implementations, the client device(s) 110 or 116 may each include computing devices such as personal computers (PCs), mobile devices (e.g., laptops, mobile phones, smart phones, tablet computers, or netbook computers), network-connected televisions, gaming consoles, etc. In some implementations, a client device 110 or 116 may also be referred to as a “user device.” In some implementations, one or more client devices 110 or 116 may connect to the online gaming platform 102 at any given moment. It may be noted that the number of client devices 110 or 116 is provided as illustration, rather than limitation. In some implementations, any number of client devices 110 or 116 may be used.
As such, the system, for implementing the abstract idea, may require no more than generic, conventional, and well-known computer devices such as a general purpose computer (as evidenced in Para. 66 above).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Thus, Claims 9, 1, and14 are rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 2-8, 9-13, and 14-20 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 9 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-8, 9-13, and 14-20 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 9. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 9, Claims 2-8, 9-13, and 14-20 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on the claims as currently presented, the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Schuster et al. (US 11,504,632 B1) discloses the concept of a matchmaker (e.g., matchmaking software) may be implemented as a number of matchmaker shards, where each shard can potentially run on a different host within a service provider network and dynamically adjusting a shard count associated with a given matchmaker of a subscriber during runtime, the shard count dictating a number of matchmaker shards used for assigning players to matches of a game.
Schuster (US 10,953,328 B1) discloses the concept of a game-hosting service of a service provider network is configured to dynamically adjust a batching interval used to assign processes to game session requests in batches of processes and the adjustment of the batching interval may be based on a level of contention resulting from operations to assign processes to game session requests.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10-6).
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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights