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 non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 10 are directed towards a system, (machine), and claims 11 – 20 are directed towards a method, (process), which are a statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A system for unlocking game content for users of an online game, wherein the users are associated with client computing platforms, wherein the users include a first user, a second user, and a set of other users, wherein the first user and the set of other users are included in a first affiliation of users that is persistent over multiple gaming sessions, the system comprising: one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: prevent availability of particular content in the online game to the first user; add the second user to the first affiliation such that a first affiliation size increases, wherein the first affiliation size represents how many users are included in the first affiliation; and based on the first affiliation size as increased, make the particular content in the online game available to the first user.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claim 11. Dependent claims 2 – 10 and 12 - 20 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of managing personal behavior which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that executes a video game where players cooperate by forming affiliations in order to unlock gaming content. Controlling a video game to allow players to play cooperatively represents managing personal behavior. This also represents following rules/instructions that define how the game is conducted.
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that executes a video game where players cooperate by forming affiliations to unlock gaming content. The claims recite instructions for providing a game with these features. Here, a human can observe the forming of affiliations and determine whether gaming content will be unlocked. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor along with instructions that generates and presents a video game to players, wherein the players play cooperatively by forming affiliations to achieve an objective, (unlock gaming content), which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
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.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a processor and client devices, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements 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. Viewing 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.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guase et al. (U.S. 2014/0148230) in view of Nguyen (U.S. 2011/0092271).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Guase discloses a system and method for unlocking game content, (“unlocking new game areas”, par. 0037), for users of an online game, (“a method includes an operation for receiving bets from players playing in a first gambling mode in an online gambling room”, par. 0009), wherein the users are associated with client computing platforms, wherein the users include a first user, a second user, and a set of other users, (fig. 5, part 508 and Clients P2, P3, Pn), wherein the Examiner views P1 as a first user, and P2, P3, and Pn as being equivalent to a second user and a set of other users. Guase further discloses wherein the first user, second user, and the set of other users are included in a first affiliation of users, (“Community progress bar 210 shows the progress made by the players as a team in the current slots machine. As the players get winnings in the slots game, the community progress bar 116 gets filled to indicate the progress of the players as a group”, par. 0050), the system comprising one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions, (“a server includes a processor, and a non-transitory memory in communication with the processor. The non-transitory memory includes program instructions for a game manager”, par. 0011), to prevent availability of particular content in the online game to the first user, add the second user to the first affiliation such that a first affiliation size increases, wherein the first affiliation size represents how many users are included in the first affiliation; and based on the first affiliation size as increased, make the particular content in the online game available to the first user, (“In one embodiment, a player that invites other players to play the team challenge gets rewarded with some game asset, and in another embodiment the player gets an additional reward if the friend invited joins the team challenge”, par. 0102), wherein the Examiner views the player receiving a reward after inviting players as being equivalent to prevent availability of particular content to a first user, and in the event that the invited friend joins the team as being equivalent to an affiliation increasing in size and then the content being made available to the first user.
Guase, however is silent on the issue of the affiliation of users being persistent over multiple gaming sessions. In a related art, Nguyen discloses a gaming system for unlocking game content, (“the bonus game play assets may be bought with credit at a virtual bonus game store or may be earned via playing the primary game”, par. 0049 and fig. 2c, parts 228, 230, and 232), wherein the Examiner views the game play assets being earned via playing a primary game as being equivalent to unlocking game content. Nguyen further discloses a plurality of users being included in an affiliation of users that is persistent over multiple gaming sessions, (“The player's activities in the asynchronous persistent group bonus game during the bonus game session may be applied towards the overall progress of the player's team in reaching the overall team goal of the asynchronous persistent group bonus game. The player's individual bonus gaming session may end prior to the termination of the asynchronous persistent group bonus game such that the player may play several individual bonus gaming sessions”, par. 0058 and fig. 6a, parts 608 and 614), wherein the Examiner views the persistent group bonus wherein players may several bonus gaming sessions as being equivalent to an affiliation of users that is persistent over multiple gaming sessions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int the art at the time the invention was made to combine the persistent group bonus game of Nguyen into the art disclosed by Guase in order to promote competition between teams and collaboration or camaraderie between team members, as team members strive to reach the overall team goal together, which may enhance the enjoyment of the players in playing the asynchronous persistent group bonus game, as disclosed by Nguyen, (par. 0035).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Guase discloses wherein the particular content is not made available to the other users included in the first affiliation, (“In one embodiment, a player that invites other players to play the team challenge gets rewarded with some game asset”, par. 0102), wherein the Examiner views the player receiving rewards for sending invites as being equivalent to particular content not being available to other users in the affiliation.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Guase discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: compare the first affiliation size to a threshold number of users, and wherein the particular content is made available to the first user responsive to the first affiliation size breaching the threshold number of users, (“in another embodiment the player gets an additional reward if the friend invited joins the team challenge”, par. 0102), wherein the Examiner views the invited friend joining the team as being equivalent to a first affiliation breaching a threshold number of users.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Guase discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to establish the first affiliation responsive to receiving a first affiliation request to establish the first affiliation, (“In one embodiment, a player that invites other players to play the team challenge”, par. 0102).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Guase discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to establish the first affiliation responsive to receiving one or more individual affiliation acceptances from individual users in the set of other users, wherein an individual affiliation acceptance indicates an individual user has joined the first affiliation, (“in another embodiment the player gets an additional reward if the friend invited joins the team challenge”, par. 0102).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Guase discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to establish the first affiliation such that the first affiliation remains consistent across one or more instances of the online game such that individuals within the first affiliation have one or more capabilities that are not available to users not within the first affiliation, (“the player is given the option to invite other friends 156, 158 to participate in the upcoming battle”, par. 0044), wherein the Examiner views the player’s friends being invited to participate in the upcoming battle as being equivalent to individuals having one or more capabilities that are not available to users not within the first affiliation.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Guase discloses wherein the first affiliation has a functional significance within the online game such that individuals within the first affiliation have access to in-game content that is not accessible to users not within the first affiliation, (“the player is given the option to invite other friends 156, 158 to participate in the upcoming battle”, par. 0044).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Guase discloses wherein one or more relationships exist between the first user and the set of other users based on their inclusion in the first affiliation, the one or more relationships comprising one or both of a leadership relationship and a role relationship, (“membership to the team challenge is controlled by the creator of the team challenge, which means that new members must first be approved by the team challenge creator”, par. 0107).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Guase discloses wherein the one or more relationships provide capabilities between the first user and the set of other users that are not available to users not included in the first affiliation, the capabilities comprising one or more of sharing goods, trading goods, sharing services, trading services, sharing player characters, trading player characters, sharing items, and/or trading items, (“As players make progress in the team challenge, party points are awarded to the players, and these party points may be used to acquire assets in the game, such as energy, endurance, additional bonus traveled miles in the team challenge, etc. The more players play in the gambling game, the more party points they get. The party points applies only to the team, and in one embodiment, there is not a separate party point counter for each of the players”, par. 0099), wherein the Examiner views the party points as being equivalent users in the affiliation sharing items or goods.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Guase discloses wherein the particular content made available to the first user comprises one or more of a new quest, a new map region, a new weapon, a new technology, a new skill, a new troupe, a new mount, and/or a new power-up available for purchase, (“unlocking new game areas”, par. 0037).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/E.M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights