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 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 facilitating completion of particular game actions by users within an online game without having to wait for periods of time for the completion of the particular game actions, the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: execute an instance of a game space in which the online game is played, wherein playing the online game includes executing game actions on behalf of the users, wherein the game actions include a first game action that requires a first period for a first completion and a second game action that requires a second period for a second completion; generate a particular offer, for a first user, to remove and/or reduce both of the first period and the second period in exchange for a particular consideration; and effectuate a presentation of the particular offer to the first user through one or more user interfaces on a first client computing platform, wherein the first client computing platform is associated with 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 – 9 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 wherein players progress through the game by executing game actions, wherein the gaming system may offer players a reduction or removal of a wait period of a completion of a game action. Controlling a video game to allows a player to progress through the game 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 progress through the game by executing game actions, wherein the gaming system may generate an offer and present said to the player as the player progresses through the game. The claims recite instructions for providing a game with these features. Here, a human can observe that an offer has been presented and then determine that an offer should be provided during gameplay.
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 execute game actions to progress through the game, 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, however, viewed as a whole, this additional element is 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 processing elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
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 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 -19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,201,900.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are drawn towards the system and method claim versions of the parent 12,201,900, except the parent claims disclose enabling users to interact with each other in the game space and generating offers to users, as opposed to a first user which is present in the current claims. Therefore the current claims are a broader version of the parent claims regarding this feature, as shown in table below. Independent claim 11 includes similar language to that of independent claim 1, wherein dependent claims 2 – 9 and 12 – 20 include identical language as the dependent claims in the parent 12,201,900. Therefore the claims are not patentably distinct.
Pending Claim 1:
Patented Claim 1:
1. A system for facilitating completion of particular game actions by users within an online game without having to wait for periods of time for the completion of the particular game actions, the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: execute an instance of a game space in which the online game is played, wherein playing the online game includes executing game actions on behalf of the users, wherein the game actions include a first game action that requires a first period for a first completion and a second game action that requires a second period for a second completion; generate a particular offer, for a first user, to remove and/or reduce both of the first period and the second period in exchange for a particular consideration; and effectuate a presentation of the particular offer to the first user through one or more user interfaces on a first client computing platform, wherein the first client computing platform is associated with the first user.
1. A system for facilitating completion of game actions by users within an online game without having to wait for periods of time for the completion of the game actions, the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: execute an instance of a game space in which the online game is played, and enable interaction of the users with the game space and/or each other, wherein playing the online game includes executing game actions on behalf of the users, wherein the game actions include game actions that require particular periods of time for corresponding completion, wherein the particular periods of time are removable and/or reducible such that the users no longer have to wait for the particular periods of time, wherein the game actions include a first game action that requires a first period for a first completion and a second game action that requires a second period for a second completion; generate offers to remove or reduce the particular periods of the game actions in exchange for consideration from the users, wherein the offers generated for the first user include a particular offer to remove both of the first period and the second period in exchange for a particular amount of consideration; and present the particular offer to the first user through one or more user interfaces on a first client computing platform, wherein the first client computing platform is associated with the first user.
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 Kelly et al. (U.S. 8,133,116) in view of Van Luchene (U.S. 2011/0300923).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kelly discloses a system and method for facilitating completion of particular game actions, (“A game engine determines the outcome of a game event according to a variety of factors, such as the game rules, a player character's in-game actions”, col. 8, lines 16 - 18), by users within an online game, (“the user controls a virtual city implemented in an online social game”, col. 9, lines 12 – 13), without having to wait for periods of time for the completion of the particular game actions, (“In some embodiments, there is no processing action or waiting time period, and the collecting action is accessible immediately after the initiating action is complete” col. 10, lines 56 – 60) the system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions, (“hardware system 700 comprises a processor “, col. 20, lines 17 – 18), to execute an instance of a game space in which the online game is played, wherein playing the online game includes executing game actions on behalf of the users (“the user controls a virtual city implemented in an online social game”, col. 9, lines 12 – 13), wherein the Examiner views the player controlling a virtual city in an online game as being equivalent to executing game actions on behalf of users in an instance of a game space. Kelly further discloses wherein the game actions include a first game action that requires a first period for a first completion, and a second game action that requires a second period for a second completion, (“the online game may begin a processing action, wherein the game state of the element is modified by the game system during some waiting time period. The time period can range from seconds to days, depending on the game system. For example, the game system may require an hour for virtual food to get cooked, or it may require three days for a virtual crop to grow”, col. 10, lines 42 – 48), wherein the Examiner views cooking the virtual food as being equivalent to a first game action that requires a first period of completion and the growing of a virtual crop as being equivalent to a second game action that requires a second period of completion.
Kelly, however, is silent on disclosing generating a particular offer for a first user. In a related art, Van Luchene teaches a system for facilitating completion of particular game actions, (“For example, many video games have levels which the player character must complete, and immediately after completing a level”, par. 0192), by users within an online game, (“In an embodiment, a central server or other device is operable to run a massive multi player online game, and the game is operable to simultaneously support a plurality of players via a plurality of video game devices”, par. 0181), wherein Van Luchene further discloses generating a particular offer, for a first user, to remove and/or reduce a player’s mission or task , (“For example, the virtual item that is offered can be that the difficulty of the video game or the difficulty of portions of the video game can be reduced. As another example, the virtual item that is offered can be that a mission or task will automatically be deemed completed, or that an objective will automatically be deemed achieved”, par. 0274), in exchange for a particular consideration, (“If the player corresponding to the player character clicks the button to indicate acceptance, a message is output (e.g., via the window) indicating the price he can pay to complete the level. For example, the price can be, e.g., in game currency (e.g., pay 100 gold coins), virtual items (e.g., forfeit a sword or health points, perform a service with the player character), in real currency (e.g., pay $2)”, par. 0172), and effectuate a presentation of the particular offer to the first user through one or more interfaces on a first client computing platform, wherein the first computing platform is associated with the first user, (“a video game can provide an offer to a player of the video game. For example, the video game can provide to the player an offer to receive a particular virtual item (a virtual object or a virtual service delivered in the video game) in exchange for a particular price”, par. 0165), wherein the Examiner views Van Luchene’s teaching of a player receiving an offer and paying a price to complete a game level in combination with Kelly’s waiting periods, as being equivalent to the claim limitations of generating an offer to remove or reduce waiting periods in exchange for a particular consideration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to combine the offers to complete game actions for a price of Van Luchene into the art disclosed by Kelly in order to minimize grind time by reducing the hours spent performing tasks and to also accelerate character progression.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Kelly discloses wherein execution of the instance of the game enables interaction of the users with the game space, (“For example, a player character in an online role-playing game may be able to interact with other player characters”, col. 2, lines 3 – 5).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Kelly discloses, as stated above, is silent on disclosing particular offer, however, Van Luchene discloses accepting an offer to remove or reduce game actions, (“For example, the virtual item that is offered can be that the difficulty of the video game or the difficulty of portions of the video game can be reduced. As another example, the virtual item that is offered can be that a mission or task will automatically be deemed completed, or that an objective will automatically be deemed achieved”, par. 0274).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kelly is silent on accepting an offer in exchange for virtual currency, however, this is disclosed by Van Luchene, (“the price can be, e.g., in game currency (e.g., pay 100 gold coins)”, par. 0172).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kelly is silent on accepting an offer in exchange for fiat currency, however, this is disclosed by Van Luchene, (“For example, the price can be, e.g., in game currency (e.g., pay 100 gold coins), virtual items (e.g., forfeit a sword or health points, perform a service with the player character), in real currency (e.g., pay $2)”, par. 0172).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kelly as stated above, is silent on disclosing particular offer, however, Van Luchene discloses wherein the offers further include a first offer to remove or reduce the game actions period in exchange for an amount of consideration wherein the particular consideration is less than the sum of the first and second amounts of consideration, (“For example, the price can be, e.g., in game currency (e.g., pay 100 gold coins), virtual items (e.g., forfeit a sword or health points, perform a service with the player character), in real currency (e.g., pay $2).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Kelly discloses wherein the first period required for the first completion of the first game action is currently pending within the online game, and wherein the second period required for the second completion of the second game action is currently pending within the online game, (“ the online game may begin a processing action, wherein the game state of the element is modified by the game system during some waiting time period. The time period can range from seconds to days, depending on the game system. For example, the game system may require an hour for virtual food to get cooked, or it may require three days for a virtual crop to grow”, col. 10, lines 42 – 48).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kelly is silent on presenting offers, however, this is disclosed by Van Luchene (“a video game can provide an offer to a player of the video game. For example, the video game can provide to the player an offer to receive a particular virtual item (a virtual object or a virtual service delivered in the video game) in exchange for a particular price”, par. 0165).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Kelly, as stated above, is silent on disclosing generating a particular offer for a first user, however, as cited above, Van Luchene further discloses generating a particular offer, for a first user, to remove and/or reduce a player’s mission or task , (“For example, the virtual item that is offered can be that the difficulty of the video game or the difficulty of portions of the video game can be reduced. As another example, the virtual item that is offered can be that a mission or task will automatically be deemed completed, or that an objective will automatically be deemed achieved”, par. 0274), in exchange for a particular consideration, (“If the player corresponding to the player character clicks the button to indicate acceptance, a message is output (e.g., via the window) indicating the price he can pay to complete the level. For example, the price can be, e.g., in game currency (e.g., pay 100 gold coins), virtual items (e.g., forfeit a sword or health points, perform a service with the player character), in real currency (e.g., pay $2)”, par. 0172), wherein the Examiner views Van Luchene’s teaching of a player receiving an offer and paying a price to complete a game level in combination with Kelly’s waiting periods, as being equivalent to the claim limitations of selecting wait periods for inclusion in the particular offer.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Kelly, as stated above, is silent on disclosing generating a particular offer for a first user, however, as cited above, Van Luchene further discloses generating a particular offer includes a determination of the particular consideration, (“a video game can provide an offer to a player of the video game. For example, the video game can provide to the player an offer to receive a particular virtual item (a virtual object or a virtual service delivered in the video game) in exchange for a particular price”, par. 0165).
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