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 § 112
Claim 37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the identifier associated with the second client device" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 21 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 21 - 27 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
21. (New) A computer-implemented method for exchanging virtual game items in a location-based game, the method comprising:
receiving, by a game server and from a first client device associated with a first player, an identifier of a second player as first device proximity detection information indicating that the first client device has detected a second client device within a proximity of the first client device, the second client device associated with the second player of the location-based game;
determining, by the game server and in response to receiving the first device proximity detection information, whether predetermined data has been received by the game server from the second client device; and
in response to determining receipt of the first device proximity detection information and the predetermined data, transmitting, by the game server, game data associated with an exchange of virtual game items to at least one of the first and second client devices.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental processes and Certain Methods of Organizing human activity
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent the managing of relationship or interactions between people and the observation, and evaluation of client proximities to effectuate a trade and the Exchanging of game items between players.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): server, devices, databases
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer server, devices, databases. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0050] FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating an example computer suitable for use in the network computing environment of FIG. 1, according to one embodiment. Specifically, FIG. 6 shows a diagrammatic representation of a machine in the example form of a computer system 600. The computer system 600 can be used to execute instructions 624 (e.g., program code or software) for causing the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies (or processes) described herein, including those associated, and described, with the components (or modules) of a game server 110 or client device 120.
[0051] The machine may be a server computer, a client computer, a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a smartphone, a network router, switch or bridge, a cell phone tower, or any machine capable of executing instructions 624 (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine. Further, while only a single machine is shown, the term “machine” shall also be taken to include any collection of machines that individually or jointly execute instructions 624 to perform any of the disclosed methods.
[0052] The example computer system 600 includes one or more processing units (generally one or more processors 1002). The processor 602 is, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), a controller, a state machine, one or more application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), one or more radio-frequency integrated circuits (RFICs), or any combination of these. Any reference to a processor 602 may refer to a single processor or multiple processors. The computer system 600 also includes a main memory 604. The computer system may include a storage unit 616. The processor 602, memory 604, and storage unit 616 communicate via a bus 608.
[0053] In addition, the computer system 600 can include a static memory 606, a display driver 610 (e.g., to drive a plasma display panel (PDP), a liquid crystal display (LCD), or a projector). The computer system 600 may also include alphanumeric input device 612 (e.g., a keyboard), a cursor control device 614 (e.g., a mouse, a trackball, a joystick, a motion sensor, or other pointing instrument), a signal generation device 618 (e.g., a speaker), and a network interface device 820, which also are configured to communicate via the bus 608.
[0054] The storage unit 616 includes a machine-readable medium 622 which may store instructions 624 (e.g., software) for performing any of the methods or functions described herein. The instructions 624 may also reside, completely or partially, within the main memory 604 or within the processor 602 (e.g., within a processor’s cache memory) during execution by the computer system 600. The main memory 604 and the processor 602 also constitute machine-readable media. The instructions 624 may be transmitted or received over a network 130 via the network interface device 620.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21 – 25, 27 – 32 and 34 - 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Proctor Jr. et al (US 9,135,612).
As per claim 21,
receiving, by a game server and from a first client device associated with a first player, an identifier of a second player as first device proximity detection information indicating that the first client device has detected a second client device within a proximity of the first client device, the second client device associated with the second player of the location-based game; (Proctor discloses a first device sending to a server, an identifier of a second deice) (Proctor 9:66 – 7:39)
determining, by the game server and in response to receiving the first device proximity detection information, whether predetermined data has been received by the game server from the second client device; and (Proctor discloses determines if the second device that was detected has items for sale or trade or purchase) (Proctor 11:46 – 57, 12:57 – 13:28)
in response to determining receipt of the first device proximity detection information and the predetermined data, transmitting, by the game server, game data associated with an exchange of virtual game items to at least one of the first and second client devices. (Proctor discloses the enabling of the transaction to be processed and items transferred to the first device) (Proctor 13:38 – 64)
As per claim 22, wherein the predetermined data includes an identifier of the first player received by the game server from the second client device as second device proximity detection information, and wherein the game server transmits the game data associated with the exchange in response to determining receipt of the first and second device proximity detection information. (Proctor discloses the each device provided to the server each other identity information when detected in proximity) (Proctor 24:25 – 30)
As per claim 23,
wherein the first player has a first game item available for a trade and the second player has a second game item available for a trade, and wherein the transmitted game data comprises game data indicating an exchange of the first game item for the second game item. (Proctor 21:20 – 29; 24:37 – 49)
As per claim 24, identifying a first value of the first game item and a second value of the second game item; and responsive to a difference between the first value and the second value being within a threshold, updating, by the game server, the game data to reflect the exchange and transmitting the updated game data indicating the exchange to the at least one of the first and second client devices. (Proctor discloses the execution of a trade based upon prices being within an acceptable threshold) (Proctor 9:29 – 40; 13:52 – 54; 17:15 – 35)
As per claim 25, causing, by the game server, at least one of the first and second client devices to display a notification on a screen of the at least one of the first and second client devices describing the exchange. (Proctor 22:5 – 10)
As per claim 27, receiving, by the game server, a selection of one or more game items associated with the first player from the first client device; and assigning, by the game server, the one or more game items to a list of items associated with the first player that are available to trade with other players. (Proctor discloses the server receiving shared lists that are associated with first and second devices that used to specified desired or wanted items of a first user and available items of a second user that are available to be traded) (Proctor 12: 57 – 13:5)
Independent claim(s) 28 and 35 is/are anticipated by Proctor based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 29 – 32, 34 is/are anticipated by Proctor based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 22 - 25, 27 which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 36 and 37 is/are anticipated by Proctor based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 22 which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 38 is/are anticipated by Proctor based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 23 which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 39 is/are anticipated by Proctor based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 21 which are similar in claim scope.
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) 26 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor Jr. et al (US 9.135,612) in view of Kai (US 2022/0169144).
As per claim 26, Proctor fails to disclose:
wherein the location- based game is a parallel reality game that includes a virtual world whose virtual geographic locations parallel geographic locations in a real world, and wherein the first game item is a first virtual game item that exists in the virtual world of the parallel reality game.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kai discloses a parallel reality game wherein game items are generated withing the virtual environment based upon a user real world geographic location (Kai 0019, 0120).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Proctor in view of Kai to use a known technique to modify similar systems in the same way by means of providing virtual game items that are available with in the game world that are associated with real world locations. This would be beneficial as a way to encourage user to be active in the real world and encourage them to visit specific locations.
Dependent claim(s) 33 is/are made obvious by the combination of Proctor and Kai based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 26, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor Jr. et al (US 9.135,612) in view of Eagle et al (US 2005/0250552)
As per claim 40, Proctor fails to disclose:
comparing the identifier received from the second client device to one or more previously received identifiers, the one or more previously received identifiers associated with corresponding time stamps indicating when the one or more previously received identifiers were received by the first client device; and responsive to determining the identifier received from the second client device was not previously received by the first client device within a time interval, providing the identifier from the second client device to the game server.
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein a first device is used to detect other devices within proximity of one another, Eagle teaches:
[0022] FIG. 2 shows the operation of the overall system. A first individual 203 carries a first Bluetooth phone which detects a second Bluetooth phone carried by a second individual 205. The BlueAware application program that executes on the Bluetooth phone carried by the first person 203 id illustrated in simplified form within the dashed-line rectangle 210 in FIG. 2. As seen at 211, when the presence of a nearby device is detected, its Bluetooth device ID (a unique 48 bit Bluetooth device address value assigned to and stored on each device) is compared with the Bluetooth ID's previously stored in a Devices Log data structure seen at 214 maintained by the BlueAware program.
[0023] If it is determined at 216 that a detected nearby device has newly come within range and not currently identified in the Devices Long 214, its Bluetooth ID is posted at 217 as a new Devices Log entry and a request message is sent as indicated at 218 to a remote server, seen at 220 in FIG. 2, via the cellular phone network 222. The time at which the new device was detected is recorded as seen at 223 in a Logtime Log 240 which holds a device identification number (from the Devices Log) and a time stamp value. If the detected device is already recorded in the Devices log 214, a timestamp indicating the time of detection is recorded in the Logtime Log 240, along with the device number assigned to that device in the Device Log 214.
[0024] Using the mechanism described above, a sequence of timestamp values may be recorded for each device encountered, and the BlueAware application may process this data to determine whether the detection of a given device warrants the transmission of a notification message to the server. To conserve memory space, the BlueAware application may periodically remove identification and timestamp data for devices which have been out of range for an extended time.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Proctor in view of Eagle to utilize a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by utilizing timestamps to determine a newly detected device in proximity and not send identifiers of devices to a game server. This would enable the system to selectively send data on the network and thus save bandwidth on the network and not overload the network with duplicate data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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.
/RAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 6/18/2025
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights