DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-20, received 11 November 2024. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1-20 is as follows:
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “determine….within a time period corresponding to the first contest”, however, the examiner is unable to find support for said feature.
Regarding the dependent claims, the claims depend on independent claims 1 and 11 such that the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims 1 and 11 and do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Claims 5 and 15 recite “determining that the interaction record includes a timestamp within the first time period”, however, the examiner is unable to find support for said feature.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 and 14 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.
Claims 4 and 14 recite the limitation "the first permission setting" in first limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 11-13, 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20130198304 A1, hereafter referred to as Jung) in view of Bassilli (US 20230011617 A1, hereafter referred to as Bassilli).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a system, comprising:
one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory (Jung [0064] teaches a service server), the one or more processors configured to:
generate, responsive to a request from a first client device associated with a first player profile (Jung [0090 and 0095] discloses receiving from a creator a request for creation of room including group members, wherein the creator and members are associated with member related information of users (profiles) [0077, 0087]), a first contest for a synchronized group (Jung [Fig 8-803 and Fig 9-903] discloses creation of the room or sharing group according to the request) in which the first player profile is identified as a host (Jung [0072-0073] teaches the creator configuring the room and being associated as the group creator [0061]), the first contest corresponding to a first interaction type (Jung [0090] discloses the request as a room request or sharing group request [0095]);
determine, within a time period corresponding to the first contest, that a second player profile of the synchronized group is identified in an interaction record (Jung [0098 and Fig 9-914] teaches various sharing activities for a shared file are generated by a user, after creation of the sharing group);
update, based on permission settings of the second player profile, a data structure of the synchronized group to include data from the interaction record responsive to determining that the second player profile is identified in the interaction record having the first interaction type (Jung [0084 and Fig 12] discloses updating or registering information regarding group activity data including modification data, comment, evaluation and modifier, wherein various activities are possible based on stored settings [0101, 0087]); and
provide a feed of the synchronized group generated based on the data structure (Jung [Fig 11-1110, 1120] teaches providing contents for the sharing activity including an identifier of the contributing member).
However, Jung does not explicitly teach determine that a second player profile of the synchronized group is identified in an interaction record having the first interaction type.
Bassilli, in an analogous art, teaches generate, a first contest for a synchronized group (Bassilli [0090] discloses receiving input from a host or creator with criteria or requirements for a contest), the contest corresponding to a first interaction type (Bassilli [Claim 16] discloses generating the requested contest with the received criteria [0090]);
determine that a second player profile of the synchronized group is identified in an interaction record having the first interaction type (Bassilli [claim 16] discloses receiving from each of the plurality of participants a contest entry according to the defined criteria [0090]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jung in view of Bassilli in order to configure the interaction, as taught by Jung, to include at least the first interaction type, such that a second player is identified in a interaction record having the first type, as taught by Bassilli.
KSR rationale B, simple substitution of one known element (an interaction record comprising interaction metadata, as taught by Jung) for another known element (an interaction record comprising interaction metadata of a first type, as taught by Bassilli) in order to yield predictable results (updating data based on the metadata of the interaction record) supports the conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, Jung-Bassilli teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Jung-Bassilli teaches the system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive an indication of the first interaction type for the first contest in the request from the first client device (Jung [0090] discloses the request as a room request or sharing group request [0095]. Likewise, Bassilli [0090] discloses receiving input from a host or creator with criteria or requirements for a contest).
Regarding claim 3, Jung-Bassilli teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Jung-Bassilli teaches the system wherein the permission settings comprise a first permission setting to authorize performance of actions to be included in the synchronized group (Jung [0087 and 0101] teaches a database storing information of members corresponding to a group authorized access an uploaded file to perform various activities).
Regarding claim 7, Jung-Bassilli teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Jung-Bassilli teaches the system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a score for the second player profile based on the interaction record (Bassilli [0110-0114] teaches determining a score for a submission); and update the synchronized group with an indication of the score (Bassilli [0112-0113] discloses using the scoring metric to determine a winner which is identified and announced [0006]).
Regarding claims 11-13 and 17, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 1-3 and 7.
Therefore, claims 11-13 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 1-3 and 7.
Claim 8, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20130198304 A1, hereafter referred to as Jung) in view of Bassilli (US 20230011617 A1, hereafter referred to as Bassilli) as applied above regarding claim 1, further in view of Ono (US 20210354033 A1, hereafter referred to as Ono)
Regarding claim 8, Jung-Bassilli teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Jung-Bassilli does not explicitly teach the system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: restrict updates to the first contest upon one or more criteria of the first contest being satisfied.
Ono, in an analogous art, teaches the system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
restrict updates to the first contest upon one or more criteria of the first contest being satisfied (Ono [0133] discloses restricting access to the room in the case the number of players added to the room has reached an upper limit).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jung-Bassilli in view of Ono in order to configure the system, as taught by Jung-Bassilli, to restrict updates to the contest responsive to updating the contest based on a threshold number of interactions satisfying the criteria of the contest, as taught by Ono.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to reduce the processing load on the server (Ono [0330]) and shorten a player wait time for participation [0016, 0330]).
Regarding claim 18, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations set forth above regarding claim 8.
Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 8.
Claim 9-10, 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20130198304 A1, hereafter referred to as Jung) in view of Bassilli (US 20230011617 A1, hereafter referred to as Bassilli) as applied above regarding claim 1, further in view of Sepulveda et al (US 20160001184 A1, hereafter referred to as Sepulveda).
Regarding claim 7, Jung-Bassilli teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Jung-Bassilli does not explicitly teach the system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update the data structure of the first contest further based on the interaction record satisfying one or more interaction criteria of the first contest.
Sepulveda, in an analogous art, teaches the system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update the data structure of the first contest (Sepulveda [0147] discloses storing validation related data) further based on the interaction record satisfying one or more interaction criteria of the first contest (Sepulveda [0147 and 0244] discloses validating player data and data (purchase, vote or funding data).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jung-Bassilli in view of Sepulveda in order to configure the interaction performed via the second player profile, as taught by Jung-Bassilli, to be determined to satisfy the criteria for the contest and updating the data structure responsive to the determination, as taught by Sepulveda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to increase the security and non-repudiation of the system by ensuring information is confirmed before accepting pledges or interaction data from a player (Sepulveda [0220, 0244] discloses validating information prior to accepting said information).
Regarding claim 10, Jung-Bassilli-Sepulveda teaches the limitations of claim 9, as rejected above.
Additionally, Jung-Bassilli-Sepulveda teaches the system wherein the one or more interaction criteria are indicated in the request (Bassilli [0090] discloses requirements or criteria for participation).
Regarding claims 19-20, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 9-10.
Therefore, claims 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 9-10.
Claims 5, 15rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20130198304 A1, hereafter referred to as Jung) in view of Bassilli (US 20230011617 A1, hereafter referred to as Bassilli) as applied above regarding claim 1, further in view of Stewart (US 2020314269 A1, hereafter referred to as Stewart).
Regarding claim 5, Jung-Bassilli teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Jung-Bassilli does not explicitly teach the system wherein the first contest corresponds to a first time period, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update the data structure responsive to determining that the interaction record includes a timestamp within the first time period.
Stewart, in an analogous art, teaches the system wherein the first contest corresponds to a first time period, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
update the data structure responsive to determining that the interaction record includes a timestamp within the first time period (Stewart [0049] teaches adding an activity message to as mapping upon identifying an activity message containing a timestamp within the time period).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jung-Bassilli in view of Stewart in order to configure the update to the data structure, as taught by Jung-Bassilli, to be responsive to determining that the interaction record includes a timestamp within the first time period, as taught by Stewart.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to detect and filter traffic generated from automated entities to avoid skewing engagement activities and classify engagement activities generated from an automated entity from engagement activities generated by a legitimate user (Stewart [0033-0034, 0015 and 0021]).
Regarding claim 15, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations set forth above regarding claim 5.
Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 5.
Claims 6, 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20130198304 A1, hereafter referred to as Jung) in view of Bassilli (US 20230011617 A1, hereafter referred to as Bassilli) as applied above regarding claim 1, further in view of Joao (US 20210264735 A1, hereafter referred to as Joao).
Regarding claim 6, Jung-Bassilli teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Jung-Bassilli does not explicitly teach the system wherein the first interaction type is a type of wager.
Joao, in an analogous art, teaches the system wherein the first interaction type is a type of wager (Joao [0283]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jung-Bassilli in view of Joao in order to configure the first interaction type, as taught by Jung-Bassilli, be a type of wager, as taught by Joao.
KSR rationale B, simple substitution of one known element (interaction type as a type of wager, as taught by Joao) for another known element (interaction type as file edit, as taught by Jung-Bassilli) in order to yield predictable results (updating a data structure with the interaction type and synchronizing a group based on the data structure) supports the conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 16, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations set forth above regarding claim 6.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 11-14 and 17-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-7, 9-10, 11, 15-17, 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12143444 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application 18943363
US Patent 12143444 B1
1. A system, comprising: one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, the one or more processors configured to: generate, responsive to a request from a first client device associated with a first player profile, a first contest for a synchronized group in which the first player profile is identified as a host, the first contest corresponding to a first interaction type; determine, within a time period corresponding to the first contest, that a second player profile of the synchronized group is identified in an interaction record having the first interaction type; update, based on permission settings of the second player profile, a data structure of the synchronized group to include data from the interaction record responsive to determining that the second player profile is identified in the interaction record having the first interaction type; and provide a feed of the synchronized group generated based on the data structure
1. A system, comprising: one or more processors coupled to memory, the one or more processors configured to: receive, from a first client device associated with a first player profile identified as a host of a synchronized group, a request to create a contest for the synchronized group, the request identifying an interaction type to be performed for participation in the contest; generate the contest within the synchronized group, the contest defining criteria for participation including at least the interaction type; receive an indication that a second player profile identified in the synchronized group performed an interaction having the interaction type; determine that the second player profile includes a permission setting authorizing performance of actions to be included in the synchronized group; update a data structure corresponding to a feed of the synchronized group to include data corresponding to the interaction and the second player profile responsive to determining that the second player profile includes the permission setting; receive, from the first client device, a second request to view the feed of the synchronized group; and provide, to the first client device, the feed of the synchronized group including a content item generated based on the data and comprising an identifier of the contest and the second player profile
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive an indication of the first interaction type for the first contest in the request from the first client device
1. A system, comprising: one or more processors coupled to memory, the one or more processors configured to: receive, from a first client device associated with a first player profile identified as a host of a synchronized group, a request to create a contest for the synchronized group, the request identifying an interaction type to be performed for participation in the contest……
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the permission settings comprise a first permission setting to authorize performance of actions to be included in the synchronized group
1. ……. determine that the second player profile includes a permission setting authorizing performance of actions to be included in the synchronized group; update a data structure corresponding to a….
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update the permission settings to revoke the first permission setting to indicate that performance of actions are not to be included in the synchronized group
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive a fourth request to revoke the permission setting of the second player profile authorizing performance of actions to be included in the synchronized group
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a score for the second player profile based on the interaction record; and update the synchronized group with an indication of the score
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a score for the second player profile based on an outcome corresponding to the interaction; and generate contest results for the contest of the synchronized group based on the score
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: restrict updates to the first contest upon one or more criteria of the first contest being satisfied
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: restrict updates to the contest responsive to updating the contest based on a threshold number of interactions satisfying the criteria of the contes
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update the data structure of the first contest further based on the interaction record satisfying one or more interaction criteria of the first contest.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that the interaction performed via the second player profile satisfies the criteria for the contest; and update the data structure corresponding to the feed of the synchronized group responsive to determining that the interaction satisfies the criteria
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more interaction criteria are indicated in the request
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the request further identifies at least one criteria for the interaction for participation in the contest
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-10, the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4, 7-10 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1, 5-7, 9-10 of the patent. That is claims 1-4, 7-10 are anticipated by claims 1, 5-7 and 9-10 of the patent.
The mapping of claims 1-4, 7-10 of the instant application to the referenced patent are provided.
Regarding claims 11-14 and 17-20, they are not patentably distinct from claims 11, 15-17 and 19-20 of the patent since the claims 11-14 and 17-20 are generic to all that is recited in claims 11, 15-17 and 19-20 of the patent such that claims 11-14 and 17-20 are anticipated by claims 11, 15-17 and 19-20 of the patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hartstein et al (US 20210158653 A1);
Borovikov et al (US 20200306643 A1);
Medeiros (US 20220383294 A1);
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights