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 a judicial exception without reciting additional elements that integration the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 – statutory class of invention?
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the statutory classes of invention and therefore pass Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One – abstract idea?
Independent claims 1, 9, & 17-20 recite the abstract idea of tracking a user’s contribution to content and awarding a benefit to the user based on a later interaction with the content.
The claims are categorized in two families, where claims 1-8, 17, & 19 are directed to “relocating content” and claims 9-16, 18, & 20 are directed to “copying content” as it relates to otherwise substantially similar limitations. Accordingly, claim 1 is representative herein and the same analysis is applicable to the remaining independent claims 9 & 17-20.
Claim 1, as representative of the independent claims, recites:
generating and arranging content based on a first user’s input;
updating the location of that content based on a second user’s input;
associating the content with the first and second users;
executing an action on the content based on a third user’s input;
updating a parameter associated with the second user; and
storing privilege information based on the updated parameter.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations recite observing or recording user actions, determining that a later event occurred with respect to user-associated content, updating a score or parameter based on that event, and granting a reward or privilege according to the updated score or parameter.
Those limitations may be performed conceptually by a person applying a reward rule. For example, a game administrator could maintain a record that a first participant created an item, a second participant moved or copied the item, and a third participant subsequently used or rated the item. The administrator could then give the second participant points, status, access, or another benefit based on the later use or rating.
Thus, the claims recite a mental process involving observation, evaluation, judgement, and application of a rule to tracked information. The claims also recite a user-incentive or reward arrangement that may be characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. That is, the judicial exception may be characterized as determining an attribution relationship between a user and content, updating a user related parameter based on a later interaction with the content, and providing a reward or privilege based on the parameter.
As discussed above, claims 9, 18, & 20 recite the same abstract concept using copied content versus relocated content. And dependent claims 2-8 & 10-16 further define the user relationships, the content selection, the types of operations, later modifications, and the nature of a privilege. These limitations refine the rule by which attribution, a parameter, or a reward is determined and do not remove the claims from the identified abstract idea grouping.
Step 2A, Prong Two – practical application?
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims additionally recite processors, memories, a server, a storage unit, information processing apparatuses, a virtual space, virtual content, player characters, user input, and data transmission over a server. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are used as generic tools to receive user input, maintain attribution information, update data, and store or communication results of the abstract reward determination.
The claims do not recite a particular technical technique for maintaining content provenance, determining whether later action was performed on the same content instance, or a tracked descendant of the content, or preventing an improper attribution or duplicate reward. For non-exhaustive example purposes, the claims, for example, do not require (i) a unique content identifier; (ii) a source-content identifier for copied content; (iii) a creator identifier and an editor identified stored in a defined content state record, (iv) a linked content lineage record that associates a copy with its source, (v) a location coordinate data structure or object state record; (vi) a defined operation for associating, updating, or verifying creator/editor information; (vii) a protocol for synchronizing edits, copies, attribution, etc., (viii) a conflict resolution process for simultaneous edits, (ix) a validation process that ties third user actions to specified edited or copied content, or (x) a claimed improvement in rendering, memory utilization, network bandwidth/communications, data integrity, game state synchronization, virtual environment operation, etc. These are some avenues, if supported by the originally filed specification, could convey practical application of the abstract idea.
The claims therefore broadly recite the intended result of rewarding a user whose contribution to content was later acted upon, while implementing that result in a generic virtual space and client/server environment.
The recitation of a “virtual space” does not itself integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limiting a reward or attribution rule to a game or virtual world field of use, without reciting a particular technological implementation that meaningfully limits the abstract idea, is insufficient. For instance, claims 7 & 15 recite additionally that a virtual space is generated from server data and actions are controlled based on user input. Those limitations describe conventional client/server game operations and user interface processing at a high level of generality.
The claims must be evaluated as a whole, and the specification must be considered when determining the claim reflects a disclosed technological improvement. A disclosure of a technical improvement is relevant only where the claim includes the components or steps that provide the alleged improvement.
Accordingly, as written, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – significantly more?
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The recited processors, memories, server, storage unit, information processing apparatuses, and communications operate only according to their ordinary functions of receiving input, generating data, storing data, associating data, transmitting data, and controlling game state presentation.
The virtual space and player character limitations merely apply the abstract attribution and rewarding rules in a particular content environment. The additional elements do not recite a nonconventional arrangement of computer components or a particular technical operation that improves the functionality of the computing systems, servers, storage means, communication networks, or virtual environments.
Considered as an ordered combination, the claims recite the following abstract workflow implemented with generic computing resources: record that a first user created content, record that a second user moved or copied the content, determine that another user interacted with the content, update a parameter associated with the second user, and provide or record a privilege based on the parameter. This ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely automates the attribution and reward rules using generic computer functionality.
For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible in view of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 17 & 18 are 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 17 and 18 recite “executing a process according to the parameter” in the last limitation of each claim. The claim does not identify the process to be executed or recite how the parameter determines, triggers, modifies, or otherwise controls that process. While the specification describes distinct examples of parameter-based processes, including awarding social points, increasing player level, granting items, granting titles, and granting content generation privilege, the claims do not define which of these processors, or what other process, is required. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter are not reasonably clear.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights