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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses an environment in claims 1-15 and a method in claims 16-22 (i.e., process). Claims 16-22 are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of Step 1. Claims 1-15 are not directed to one of the four statutory categories and do not meet the requirements of Step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The instant invention is broadly directed to “recreational environments” (Specification, Page 1, para 0001).
Claim 16 recites the following (with emphasis added):
A method for enabling users to enhance certainty of acquiring requisite assets during an interactive session in a multi-user recreational environment (100), the method comprising:
providing visual components including an array of positioning units, a set of selection objects and one or more categories of user identifiers, to each user in the session via a user interface associated with the each user;
generating varying selection objects for the provided set, at the initiation of each round of interaction in the session; and
receiving user input indicative of user preference from the set of the selection objects;
repositioning at least one first category user identifier associated with a user, within the array of positioning units, based on the received user input associated with the one or more selection objects in the provided set; and
estimating a count of assets to be assigned to one or more users associated with the repositioning of the at least one first category user identifier within the array of positioning units.
Claim 16 encompasses the abstract idea and had substantially similar features as claim 1, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-15 and 17-22.
Claims 1-22 recites rules for playing a game. The environment and method are directed to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite collecting, analyzing, and sending data pertaining to a game. Thus, the steps are directed to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implemented on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field is not considered integration into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claims include no additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a user device and user interface. The conventional computers over a generic network as presented are directed to the components of a system amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for the process of a game.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires ‘more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words ‘apply it.’’" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims do not include the additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any potentially technical aspects of the claims are well-known, generic computational components performing conventional functions (e.g., Specification, [0032], “The user device may include, without any limitation, a personal computer, a mobile phone and a console”). The present claims have been analyzed both individually and in combination and, the instant claims do not provide any improvement of the functioning of the computer or improvement to computer technology or any other technical field. There do not appear to be any meaningful limitations other than those that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Thus, the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on generic devices. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more," and thus not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornik [US20090318218A1] and Aoki [US20060079319A1].
Regarding claim 1, Hornik discloses:
A multi-user recreational environment (100) to enable users to enhance certainty of acquiring requisite assets during an interactive session (Hornik, [0010], “The wagering game includes a feature having a plurality of selectable elements associated with respective outcomes.”), the environment (100) comprising:
an interface module (102) to:
provide visual components including
an array of positioning units (Hornik, [0052], “FIG. 5 shows a marker 78 that is adapted to move along the spaces 74 of the path 72.”),
a set of selection objects (Hornik, [0045], “a secondary display 16 (or primary display 14) displays an array 68 of player-selectable elements 70.”) and
one or more categories of user identifiers (Hornik, Marker 78);
a communication module (104) to:
generate varying selection objects for the set, at the initiation of each round of interaction in the session (Hornik, “array 68 of player-selectable elements 70”);
receive user input indicative of user preference from the set of the selection objects (Hornik, [0008], “The gaming system further comprising a player input device for successively selecting different ones of the selectable elements.”);
a positioning module (106) to:
reposition at least one first category user identifier associated with a user, within the array of positioning units, based on the received user input associated with the one or more selection objects in the provided set (Hornik, [0053], “After the player's first selection 80 is made, the marker 78 moves ahead one space 74 on the path 72”); and
an event detector (108) to:
estimate a count of assets to be assigned to one or more users associated with the repositioning of the at least one first category user identifier within the array of positioning units (Hornik, [0053], “an award of 25 credits, that award is multiplied by a factor of three, to modify the award for a total of 75 credits.”).
Hornik discloses the limitations of claim 1 as cited above, but Hornik does not explicitly disclose each user being displayed selectable elements.
Aoki, however, recites:
each user in the session via a user device associated with the each user (Aoki, [0049], “displays the identical bonus game 40 as the main display 26”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Aoki to Hornik would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Aoki to the teachings of Hornik would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such multi-user capabilities into similar systems/methods. Further, applying the ability of presenting concurrently to a plurality of users at respective networked terminals to Hornik with terminals prepared accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a shared gaming experience and sense of group achievement expressly identified by Aoki as the object of its invention.
Regarding claim 3, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the visual components are provided to the each user based on the number of users in the session (Aoki, [0055], “adjusted to reflect the number of players that are at participating gaming terminals.”) and customization data of the each user (Hornik, [0026], “as that player collects points in his or her player-tracking account.”).
Regarding claim 4, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 1,
wherein one of:
the same set (Aoki, [0049], “displays the identical bonus game 40”) and a different set of selection objects is provided to each of the users engaged in the session.
Regarding claim 5, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the user input indicative of user preference from the set of the selection objects and repositioning of the at least one first category user identifier associated with the user input is one of:
indicated and hidden to all the other users engaged in the session in real-time (Aoki, [0049], “at the same time as it is being played, or “real-time.””).
Regarding claim 9, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the event detector (108) is to detect a type of positioning event associated with the repositioning of the first category user identifier for estimating the count of assets to be assigned to the one or more users (Hornik, [0053], “lands on a space 74 that is associated with an active special rule”).
Regarding claim 10, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 1, further comprises a user coordination module (110) to at least one of:
enable and disable in a pre-defined sequence during a round of interaction, the input elements of a certain number of users corresponding to the number of objects in the provided set (Aoki, [0048], “the game is passed to a second gaming terminal 10”) until all the objects in the set for the round are selected (Hornik, [0055], “all of the player-selectable elements 70 have been selected”).
Regarding claim 11, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 10,
wherein during a subsequent round of interaction, the input elements of other users in the pre-defined sequence uncovered in the prior round are at least one of:
enabled and disabled in the pre-defined sequence and are then continued with the first user again based on the number of users in the session, in a cyclical pattern, until all the objects in the re-generated set for the round are selected (Aoki, [0043], “This series of selecting and passing continues until a game-terminating object is selected.”).
Regarding claim 12, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 10,
wherein the input elements allow selection of at least one of:
an object from the provided set, one or more categories of revision objects and one or more primary category user identifiers (Hornik, Claim 24, “using a player input device to accept input from the player”).
Regarding claim 13, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 10,
wherein the user coordination module (110) is to further disable an object from the set for selection, to all the users in a round of interaction, upon each selection of an object from the set by a user (Aoki, [0050], “no longer eligible for selection by subsequent players.”).
Regarding claim 14, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 10,
wherein the user coordination module (110) is to further disable a number of objects in the provided set for selection by all the users in a round of interaction, upon occurrence of a corresponding number of end session events for one or more users engaged in the round (Aoki, [0055], “the grid may be made smaller if less players are available”).
Regarding claim 15, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the each user in the session selects an object from the provided set, first among all the users, for equal number of turn events during the various rounds of the session (Aoki, [0042], “The order of qualification may be random or based on certain criteria” and Aoki, [0044], “only a fixed number of players at gaming terminals 10 are eligible” and Aoki, Claim 5, “random selection of said second gaming terminal from a plurality of gaming terminals made by a controller.”).
Claims 2, 6-8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornik and Aoki, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Heymann [US20090286586A1].
Regarding claim 2, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the visual components further include user progress indicators (Aoki, [0047], “the award amount is indicated at the bonus indicator 46.”) and one or more categories of revision objects (Heymann, [0051], “A purchase refill button 900 can be pressed by the player”).
Hornik/Aoki does not explicitly disclose one or more categories of revision objects.
Heymann, however, discloses:
the visual components further include one or more categories of revision objects (Heymann, [0051], “A purchase refill button 900 can be pressed by the player”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a player-selectable regeneration option as in Heymann in the system executing the method of Hornik/Aoki with the motivation of reducing player frustration that occurs from a rising probability of selecting a termination symbol as a displayed set is consumed as taught by Heymann over that of Hornik/Aoki.
Regarding claim 6, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the communication module (104) is to further receive user input indicative of user preference to regenerate one or more objects from the provided set via selection of one or more categories of revision objects associated with the user (Heymann, [0009], “if the player elects to pay a refill purchase price, then replacement selectable elements are displayed”).
See claim 2 for the rationale on motivation to combine Hornik/Aoki with Heymann.
Regarding claim 7, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 6,
wherein the all the selection objects available in the set are regenerated for the user selection of a primary revision object (Heymann, Claim 1, “replacing all selected icons with respective replacement selectable icons.”).
Regarding claim 8, Hornik/Aoki discloses:
The environment (100) as claimed in claim 6,
wherein a specific object selected by the user from the set is regenerated for the user selection of a secondary revision object (Heymann, Claim 13, “replace less than all previously selected elements”).
Regarding claims 16-22, the claims share similar limitations to claims 1-15. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claims 1-15 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights