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 Objections
Claims 1 and 11-12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains the limitation “progressing the game” (line 6); however, it appears that such a limitation should be amended to “progressing the video game”. Additionally, Claim 1 contains the limitation “the second content withing a predetermined period” (lines 11-12); however, it appears that such a limitaiton should be amended to “the second content within a predetermined period”.
Claim 11 contains the limitation “progress the game” (line 6); however, it appears that such a limitation should be amended to “progress the video game”.
Claim 12 contains the limitation “proceeding with the game” (line 3); however, it appears that such a limitation should be amended to “proceeding with a video game”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 is/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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the first content” (line 7) and “the second user” (line 11); however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the first content” (line 7) and “the second user” (line 10); however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the first content” (line 3) and “the second user” (line 6); however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Depending claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1 from which they depend; therefore are rejected herein for the same reasons as noted above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a video game processing program for causing a server device in a game system including a terminal device that executes a video game including one or more contents used in a video game and a server device that is connected to the terminal device via a communication network to control the video game, the game program causing the server device to perform functions comprising: progressing the game; associating a first user as an owner of the first content; generating second content related to the first content based on at least a part of information of the first content; providing the second content to the second user; and issuing a non-fungible token (NFT) related to the second content withing a predetermined period since the second content is provided to the second user” (Claim 1); “A game system comprising: a terminal device configured to execute a video game including one or more contents; a server device configured to connect to the terminal device via a communication network, the server device configured to control the video game; and at least one processor configured to: progress the game; associate a first user as an owner of the first content; generate second content related to the first content based on at least a part of information of the first content; provide the second content to the second user; and issue an NFT related to the second content within a predetermined period since the second content is provided to the second user.” (Claim 11); and “A control method executed in a game system comprising at least one processor, the method comprising: proceeding with the game; associating the first user as an owner of the first content; generating a second content related to the first content based on at least a portion of the information of the first content; providing the second content to the second user; and issuing an NFT related to the second content within a predetermined period since the second content is provided to the second user.” (Claim 12). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity, particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for progressing through a game associating a first user as an owner of first content, generating second content related to the first content based on at least a portion of the information of the first content, and providing second content the second user). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping). In this case, instructions or rules to or for “progressing the game; associating a first user as an owner of the first content; generating second content related to the first content based on at least a part of information of the first content; providing the second content to the second user” (Claim 1); “progress the game; associate a first user as an owner of the first content; generate second content related to the first content based on at least a part of information of the first content; provide the second content to the second user (Claim 11); and “proceeding with the game; associating the first user as an owner of the first content; generating a second content related to the first content based on at least a portion of the information of the first content; providing the second content to the second user” (Claim 12) pertain to concepts performed via managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components (non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, server device, terminal device, non-fungible token, system, and/or processor) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. The recitations of utilization of “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”, “server device”, “terminal device”, “non-fungible token”, “system”, and/or “processor” are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids medium, system, and/or method or to which a computer performs/implements the medium, system, and/or method. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
The additional limitation of “a video game processing program for causing a server device in a game system including a terminal device that executes a video game including one or more contents used in a video game and a server device that is connected to the terminal device via a communication network to control the video game” (Claim 1) and “a terminal device configured to execute a video game including one or more contents; a server device configured to connect to the terminal device via a communication network, the server device configured to control the video game” (Claim 11) is/are well known, routine and conventional. Swanberg (US 2002/0155893) teaches conventional terminal devices that execute video games (¶ 5). Fanjoy (US 2007/0243921) teaches it is conventional in the art for servers connected to terminals to control video games (¶ 28).
The additional limitation of “issuing a non-fungible token (NFT) related to the second content withing a predetermined period since the second content is provided to the second user” (Claim 1); “wherein the functions further comprise issuing another NFT related to the first content before associating the first content with the first user” (Claim 7); “issue an NFT related to the second content within a predetermined period since the second content is provided to the second user” (Claim 11); and “issuing an NFT related to the second content within a predetermined period since the second content is provided to the second user” (Claim 12) is/are well known, routine and conventional. Yoon (US 2023/0336348) teaches the issuing of NFT for digital assets is conventional in the art (¶ 4).
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-10 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid (US 2024/0012794) in view of Shimizu (US 2015/0336004), and in further view of Koch (US 2022/0266148).
Claim 1: Reid discloses a recording medium having recorded thereon a video game processing program for causing a server device (¶ 34-35, 204, 206, 215, inherent that a server includes processor and medium/memory) in a game system including a terminal device that executes a video game including one or more contents used in a video game (client (game console, web browser, mobile phone) of Fig. 6, ¶ 194-195, 205, 215) and a server device that is connected to the terminal device via a communication network (Figs. 6-7, ¶ 195-198), the game program causing the server device to perform functions comprising: associating a first user as an owner of the first content (avatar) )(¶ 8, 57, 66, 132-142, 179, 196, 199-200, 204, 207-210, 214-215, associating a first user as an owner of the first content is interpreted as when the first uses initially uses the character in the game); generating second content related to the first content based on at least a part of information of the first content (attributes of the avatar (first content) are changed (creating a modified avatar (second content)). For example, a first user uses the avatar in a game, wherein the avatars initial XP increase due to gameplay)(¶ 8, 57, 66, 132-142, 179, 196, 199-200, 204, 207-210, 214-215); providing the second content to the second user (providing/offering it in a marketplace for sale, ¶ 168, 196, 200, 208-209, 215); and issuing a non-fungible token (NFT) related to the second content to the second user (¶ 168, 196, 200, 208-209, 215).
Reid teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a video game processing program for causing the server device to control the video game, the game program causing the server device to perform functions comprising: progressing the game. Reid at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 9), the game being utilized on a web browser (¶ 194), and progressing the game (¶ 204-205). Furthermore, an analogous art of Shimizu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a video game processing program for causing a server device (¶ 70) in a game system including a terminal device (¶ 72-74, Figs. 1 and 7-8) that executes a video game including one or more contents used in a video game and the server device that is connected to the terminal device via a communication network to control the video game, the game program causing the server device to perform functions comprising: progressing the game (¶ 25-30, 46-54, 71-74, Figs. 1 and 7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the server medium of Reid with the non-transitory recording medium such that the server controls the video game and progresses the game as taught by Shimizu because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing a video game for play by users in which at least Reid is intended (see above). Such a modification would increase the number of people playing the game and improve social aspects of the gaming system (Shimizu - ¶ 2).
Reid in view of Shimizu teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting issuing a non-fungible token (NFT) related to the second content a predetermined time period since the second content is provided to the second user. Reid at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the claimed invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Koch teaches providing content to a second user (offering (31) ) and issuing a non-fungible token (NFT) related to the content a predetermined time period (time period it takes for the external payment application server to generate and send instructions (36) to the ledger server) after the content is provided to the second user (Fig. 3, ¶ 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medium, as it pertains to issuing the NFT, of Ried in view of Shimizu with the payment server and predetermined time period means of Koch because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of issuing a non-fungible token (NFT) related to content after the content is provided to the second user in which at least Reid is intended (see above). Such a modification allows for the exchange of ownership of digital assets (Koch - ¶ 48).
Claim 2: Reid teaches enabling second content to be assigned to second user different from first user when predetermined assignment enabling condition (buying or purchasing of the second content by the second user) is satisfied (¶ 168, 200, 208).
Claim 4: Reid teaches wherein each content of the first content and the second content comprises attribute information, and wherein the generating second content is based on attribute information of the first content (¶ 8, 57, 123, 142, 199-200, 204, 208-209, 215, 219).
Claim 6: Reid teaches wherein the functions further comprise: storing attribute information that is configured for the second content in association with attribute information of the first content, wherein the generating second content comprises generating the second content having the attribute information (¶ 8, 57, 123, 142, 199-200, 204, 208-209, 215, 219).
Claim 7: Reid teaches wherein the functions further comprise issuing another NFT related to the first content before associating the first content with the first user (¶ 168, 178-179, 195-198, 205-207, 217-219, the user creates/purchases the NFT character or purchase the NFT character from a originator/seller).
Claim 8: Reid teaches wherein the functions further comprise registering the second content in a predetermined market for sale to the second user (¶ 200, 204, 207-208, 215, emphasis on ¶ 208, 215).
Claim 9: Reid teaches wherein the functions further comprise giving a benefit for advantageously progressing the game to the second user who possesses the second content corresponding to the issued NFT (¶ 200, 204, 207-208, 215, emphasis on ¶ 208).
Claim 10: Reid teaches wherein an upper limit number is assigned to at least one of the first content or the second content (¶ 168 - The originator may choose a price, royalties, number of tokens which may be issued for the NFT, and which token standard the NFT will utilize (e.g. ERC-721, ERC-1155, ERC-721, or any other known token standard), ¶ 171- “Of further importance, typical in-game collectibles or purchases might have a certain rarity, or difficulty/probability in obtaining such items via drops or other mechanisms which award an item to a player based upon chance, but do not have inherent scarcity which is conferred by minting on the blockchain—the originator may choose to only mint or release a certain number of an item to define its scarcity and, in part, its value.” e.g. the second content is minted at an upper limit/number or amount).
Claim 11: Reid teaches a game system comprising: a terminal device configured to execute a video game including one or more contents (client (game console, web browser, mobile phone) of Fig. 6, ¶ 194-195, 205, 215); a server device configured to connect to the terminal device via a communication network (Figs. 6-7, ¶ 195-198), and at least one processor (¶ 34-35, 204, 206, 215, inherent that a server includes processor and medium/memory) configured to: associate a first user as an owner of the first content )(¶ 8, 57, 66, 132-142, 179, 196, 199-200, 204, 207-210, 214-215, associating a first user as an owner of the first content is interpreted as when the first uses initially uses the character in the game); generate second content related to the first content based on at least a part of information of the first content (attributes of the avatar (first content) are changed (creating a modified avatar (second content)). For example, a first user uses the avatar in a game, wherein the avatars initial XP increase due to gameplay)(¶ 8, 57, 66, 132-142, 179, 196, 199-200, 204, 207-210, 214-215); provide the second content to the second user (providing/offering it in a marketplace for sale, (¶ 168, 196, 200, 208-209); and issue an NFT related to the second content to the second user (¶ 168, 196, 200, 208-209, 215).
Reid teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the server device (having at least one processor) to control the video game and progress the game. Reid at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 9), the game being utilized on a web browser (¶ 194), and progressing the game (¶ 204-205). Furthermore, an analogous art of Shimizu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a video game processing program for causing a server device (¶ 70) in a game system including a terminal device (¶ 72-74, Figs. 1 and 7-8) that executes a video game including one or more contents used in a video game and the server device that is connected to the terminal device via a communication network to control the video game, the game program causing the server device to perform functions comprising: progressing the game (¶ 25-30, 46-54, 71-74, Figs. 1 and 7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Reid with the server controls the video game and progresses the game as taught by Shimizu because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing a video game for play by users in which at least Reid is intended (see above). Such a modification would increase the number of people playing the game and improve social aspects of the gaming system (Shimizu - ¶ 2).
Reid in view of Shimizu teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting issuing a non-fungible token (NFT) related to the second content a predetermined time period since the second content is provided to the second user. Reid at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the claimed invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Koch teaches providing content to a second user (offering (31) ) and issuing a non-fungible token (NFT) related to the content a predetermined time period (time period it takes for the external payment application server to generate and send instructions (36) to the ledger server) after the content is provided to the second user (Fig. 3, ¶ 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medium, as it pertains to issuing the NFT, of Ried in view of Shimizu with the payment server and predetermined time period means of Koch because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of issuing a non-fungible token (NFT) related to content after the content is provided to the second user in which at least Reid is intended (see above). Such a modification allows for the exchange of ownership of digital assets (Koch - ¶ 48).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid (US 2024/0012794) in view of Shimizu (US 2015/0336004) in view of Koch (US 2022/0266148), and in further view of Pacey (US 2015/0024852).
Claim 3: Reid in view of Shimizu in view of Koch teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the generating second content comprises visually changing the appearance of the first content. Reid at least teaches that various modification can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and that various attributes can change digital asset (NFT character) from a first content to a second content (¶ 199 – user plays the game attributes of the NFT character can change as result, ¶ 204, 207-208, 215). Furthermore, an analogous art of Pacey teaches generating second content comprising visually changing an appearance of the first content (¶ 46, 68-70, 107, 111, 115, 120, 159-161, emphasis on ¶ 68-70). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second content of Reid in view of Shimizu in view of Koch such that the second content comprises a change in an appearance of the first content as taught by Pacey because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of generating second content from the first content in which at least Reid is intended (see above). Such a modification can enhance the digital asset in unique ways providing a collectable value thereto (Pacey - ¶ 68).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid (US 2024/0012794) in view of Shimizu (US 2015/0336004) in view of Koch (US 2022/0266148), and in further view of Aoki (US 2023/0394759).
Claim 5: Reid in view of Shimizu in view of Koch teaches the above, in addition to wherein the attribute information comprises a numerically convertible feature quantity set in a plurality of items (¶ 8, 57, 123, 142, 199-200, 204, 208-209, 215, 219, the numerically convertible feature quantity set in a plurality of items being an amount of XP or experience points), but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the generating second content comprises: determining attribute information of second content to be less than the total value of feature amounts included in attribute of first content; and generating the second content having the determined attribute information. Reid at least teaches that various modification can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and that various attributes can change digital asset (NFT character) from a first content to a second content (¶ 199 – user plays the game attributes of the NFT character can change as result, ¶ 204, 208 for example a NFT character can gain XP (experience points) for winning a battle compared to if the character loses the battle e.g. a change from a previous amount of XP to a higher amount of XP). Furthermore, an analogous art of Aoki teaches that characters can lose experience points related to action/activities of the game (¶ 57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second content of Reid in view of Shimizu in view of Koch such that the second content pertaining to a loss of experience points (XP) as taught by Aoki because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of generating second content from the first content in which at least Reid is intended (see above). Such a modification can enhance the digital asset in unique ways including rarity.
Such a modification resulting in determining attribute information of second content to be less than the total value of feature amounts included in attribute of first content; and generating the second content having the determined attribute information (e.g. the character’s initial amount of XP or experiences points of the character (first content) are reduced by a determined amount based on game play (the second content being the character with the reduced amount of XP).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid (US 2024/0012794) in view of Koch (US 2022/0266148).
Claim 12: Reid teaches a control method executed in a game system comprising at least one processor (¶ 34-35, 194-195, 204-206, 215, Fig. 6, server and/or console, mobile phone, PC (web browser) inherently include a processor), the method comprising: proceeding with the game (¶ 194-195, 205, 215); associating the first user as an owner of the first content (avatar) )(¶ 8, 57, 66, 132-142, 179, 196, 199-200, 204, 207-210, 214-215, associating a first user as an owner of the first content is interpreted as when the first uses initially uses the character in the game); generating a second content related to the first content based on at least a portion of the information of the first content (attributes of the avatar (first content) are changed (creating a modified avatar (second content)). For example, a first user uses the avatar in a game, wherein the avatars initial XP increase due to gameplay)(¶ 8, 57, 66, 132-142, 179, 196, 199-200, 204, 207-210, 214-215); providing the second content to the second user (providing/offering it in a marketplace for sale, (¶ 168, 196, 200, 208-209, 215); and issuing an NFT related to the second content to the second user (¶ 168, 196, 200, 208-209, 215).
Reid teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting issuing a non-fungible token (NFT) related to the second content a predetermined time period since the second content is provided to the second user. Reid at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the claimed invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Koch teaches providing content to a second user (offering (31) ) and issuing a non-fungible token (NFT) related to the content a predetermined time period (time period it takes for the external payment application server to generate and send instructions (36) to the ledger server) after the content is provided to the second user (Fig. 3, ¶ 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as it pertains to issuing the NFT, of Ried with the payment server and predetermined time period means of Koch because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of issuing a non-fungible token (NFT) related to content after the content is provided to the second user in which at least Reid is intended (see above). Such a modification allows for the exchange of ownership of digital assets (Koch - ¶ 48).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
