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
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and/ or certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a – Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (and similarly independent claims 15 and 16) is directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions; and commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts and business relations) and/or mental processes.
Specifically, the claim recites:
presenting multiple first game media and multiple events using second game media corresponding to the first game media;
creating a deck including a first game medium selected from the presented multiple first game media;
registering user identification information, the created deck, and event identification information so as to be associated with one another; and
on condition that the user checks in at an event venue where a registered event is held, presenting opponent information relating to an opponent of the user in a match game using corresponding second game media.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover managing participation in a physical or hybrid event (e.g., a card game tournament), selecting and associating game pieces (a deck), associating a user with an event, verifying physical presence via check-in, and providing opponent pairing/table information. This is a social activity of organizing competitive events and matchmaking participants which are activities that can be performed by human organizers using paper lists, verbal announcements, or mental processes. Dependent claims 2–14 merely add further rules for matchmaking, presentation of icons, check-in determination (location or identification), timing of presentations (before/after check-in), ranking, cancellation, retirement, and result registration, all of which further organize human activity around event logistics and player interaction.
Step 2a – Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements—an “event management apparatus communicably connected to a user terminal,” “presentation control unit,” “deck creation control unit,” “registration control unit,” “matching control unit,” “check-in determination unit,” and generic user terminal are recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computer components. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, no improvement to another technology or technical field, and no particular machine that is integral to the claim beyond a generic computing environment. The check-in condition is itself an abstract data-gathering and verification step that does not transform the nature of the claim. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine in a meaningful way beyond linking the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computers and mobile terminals.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions (receiving/presenting data, storing associations in memory, determining conditions based on location or scanned identification, and outputting information to a display). No inventive concept is present.
Dependent claims 2–14 do not cure the deficiency; they merely further specify the same abstract organization of human activity (matchmaking conditioned on check-in, specific content of opponent information, icon presentation rules before/after check-in, etc.) implemented on the same generic hardware.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, as they merely restate the abstract idea as a computer program and system, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3, 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betti (US 2013/0331192 A1) in view of Konishi (US 2022/0314127 A1).
1. Betti discloses an event management apparatus communicably connected to a user terminal comprising:
a presentation control unit configured to present multiple events to the user terminal (presenting location-based competitive games and tournaments to mobile devices), [0011], [0027], [0041];
a registration control unit configured to register user identification information of a user and event identification information of an event selected so as to be associated with one another (registering a user for a selected location-based tournament in association with the user’s presence at the venue), [0011], [0036], [0038];
wherein on condition that the user checks in at an event venue where a registered event is held, the presentation control unit is configured to present opponent information which indicates information relating to an opponent of the user in a match game to the user terminal of the user (user checks in at a specific geographic location or venue using GPS data from the mobile device to validate physical presence; once checked in, the system identifies and pairs users at the same physical location and presents opponent-related information for competitive play), [0011], [0027], [0036], [0041], [0053]-[0054].
Betti does not expressly disclose presenting multiple first game media and multiple events using second game media which correspond to the first game media; a deck creation control unit configured to create a deck including a first game medium selected from the presented multiple first game media; or registering the created deck (and that the match game uses corresponding second game media which correspond to the created deck).
Konishi discloses an information processing system for conducting user competitions in which a player who has registered to participate in a competition is required to register a card deck that will be used in the battles. The system provides a dedicated deck registration screen on which the player selects one of prepared decks and transmits a deck registration request that includes the competition identifier, the player identifier, and information concerning the selected card deck, [0118]-[0121], (FIGS. 17–18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Betti with the deck creation and registration functionality taught by Konishi, so that a user creates a virtual deck of first game media corresponding to the second game media the user will play with and registers that deck in association with the user and the selected event and would have been motivated to do so to improve event organization, enable deck verification, and increase user convenience. Such combination yields predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
2. Betti and Konishi disclose the event management apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a matching control unit configured to perform user match-making, wherein the matching control unit is configured to perform match-making with another user on condition that the user checks in the event venue where the registered event is held (users are identified and paired only after GPS-verified check-in at the same physical location), Betti [0011], [0027], [0036].
3. Betti and Konishi disclose the event management apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the presentation control unit is configured to present the opponent information on condition that the opponent is determined by the match-making (opponent information is presented after users at the same location are paired), Betti [0011], [0027], [0036].
5. Betti and Konishi disclose the event management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the presentation control unit is configured to present an icon indicating that check-in can be performed by a method selected from a checking-in method based on position information and a checking-in method based on identification information, as a check-in information icon (implicitly provide a check-in icon in order to check-in the tournaments), Betti [0011], [0041].
6. Betti and Konishi disclose the event management apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a check-in determination unit configured to determine whether check-in has been performed, wherein the check-in determination unit determines that the user has checked in if at least one of the user terminals is located at the event venue and/or if the identification information presented by the user terminal at the event venue is obtained, Betti [0011], [0041].
7. Betti and Konishi disclose the event management apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the presentation control unit is configured to present selectable icons and to present one of the presented selectable icons differently before and after the check-in of the registered event, (i.e. implicitly changes the check in icon after checked in, as the player does not need to check-in twice), Betti [0011], [0041].
8. Betti and Konishi disclose the event management apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the presentation control unit is configured to present the check-in information icon before the check-in and to not present the check-in information icon after the check-in, (i.e. implicitly changes the check in icon after checked in, as the player does not need to check-in twice), Betti [0011], [0041].
9. Betti and Konishi disclose the event management apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the presentation control unit is configured to present the check-in information icon, which is valid only on a day the event is held, (check-in during time of tournament), Betti [0011], [0041].
10. Betti and Konishi disclose the event management apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the presentation control unit is configured to present a match result including ranking of the match game in the registered event after the check-in (opponent information, including scores/ranking is presented after users at the same location are paired), Betti [0011], [0027], [0036], [0041], [0050].
11. Betti and Konishi disclose the event management apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the presentation control unit is configured to present a deck creation screen before and after the check-in, Konishi (Fig. 17-18).
12-13. Betti and Konishi disclose the event management apparatus according to claim 6, but does not expressly disclose wherein the presentation control unit is configured to present an icon enabling cancellation of the registration of the registered event before the check-in or retirement from the match game with the opponent after the check-in; however such ability to cancel or retire from a match game after check-in is notoriously well known and a common practice when the player cannot continue a tournament, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Betti with the ability to cancel/retire from the tournament and would have been motivated to do so to inform the opposing player that the match is canceled.
14. Betti and Konishi disclose the event management apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the registration control unit is configured to enable registration of a match result after the check-in and after the end of the match game with the opponent, Betti [0041], [0050].
15. Betti and Konishi disclose an event management computer program causing a computer to function as a presentation control unit, which presents two or more first game media and two or more events using second game media corresponding to the first game media, to the user terminal; a deck creation control unit configured to create a deck including a first game medium, which is selected from the presented two or more first game media; a registration control unit configured to register user identification information of a user, the created deck, and event identification information of an event selected from the two or more events so as to be associated with one another, wherein on condition that the user checks in at an event venue where a registered event is held, the presentation control unit is configured to present opponent information which indicates information relating to an opponent of the user in a match game using corresponding second game media, which correspond to the created deck, to the user terminal of the user as similarly discussed above.
16. Betti and Konishi disclose an event management system including a user terminal; and an event management apparatus communicably connected to a user terminal, comprising: a presentation control unit, which presents two or more first game media and two or more events using second game media corresponding to the first game media, to the user terminal; a deck creation control unit configured to create a deck including a first game medium, which is selected from the presented two or more first game media; a registration control unit configured to register user identification information of a user, the created deck, and event identification information of an event selected from the two or more events so as to be associated with one another, wherein on condition that the user checks in at an event venue where a registered event is held, the presentation control unit is configured to present opponent information which indicates information relating to an opponent of the user in a match game using corresponding second game media, which correspond to the created deck, to the user terminal of the user as similarly discussed above.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betti (US 2013/0331192 A1) and Konishi (US 2022/0314127 A1) as applied above and further in view of PODOLSKY (US 2018/0012165 A1).
4. Betti and Konishi disclose the event management apparatus according to claim 3, but does not expressly disclose wherein, the opponent information includes information on a name of the opponent and a table number where the match game is conducted. PODOLSKY discloses the opponent information includes information on a name of the opponent and a table number where the match game is conducted [0030]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Betti with PODOLSKY and would have been motivated to do so because providing the physical table assignment is a conventional and useful feature of tournament pairing systems that enables players to quickly locate their match at a physical venue.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892.
Paradise (US 9,479,602 B1) teaches provides a platform for geographically restricted gaming events and tournaments wherein users register for selected evens and the system verifies the user’s device (via GPS) against the event venue to verify “Check-in”.
HIROBE (US 2025/0249368 A1) teaches user registering and creating decks for usage in a tournament.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights