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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Parts 310, 312, 314, and 320 of fig. 3 are not mentioned in the Specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 therefore, 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 into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 11 are directed towards a method, (process), and claims 12 - 20 are directed towards an apparatus and a medium, (machine), 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.
1. A method of providing a game service by a game providing apparatus, the method comprising: determining a first reward quantity representing a quantity of a first item to be provided in a first reward cycle for content within the game service; determining a second reward quantity representing a quantity of the first item to be provided in a second reward cycle for the content based on the first reward quantity and a quantity of the first item provided in the first reward cycle; and providing the first item in the second reward cycle for the content based on the second reward quantity.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 12 and 20. Dependent claims 2 – 11 and 13 - 19 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:
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
Certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming service that provides first and second reward quantities corresponding to first and second items in a first and second reward cycle. The claimed invention can be practically performed as a mental process by a human managing game rewards and game items of a game service. A human can take control of the game rewards and items and make game determinations in their mind. (Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming service that determines first and second reward quantities representing first and second items to be provided in first and second reward cycles. The claims recite instructions with these features. Here, a human can observe the reward quantities, the reward items and the reward cycles and the items, and then determine which items will be rewarded based on the reward cycles. For example, in the event that a user is playing a mobile strategy game comprising weekly reward events, a human can observe the weekly reward events, (reward cycles), and the rewards associated with the weekly event, (reward quantities), and then make the determination of whether to participate in the weekly reward events. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor and memory, (claim 12), along with instructions that generates and presents rewards and reward cycles in a gaming service, 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, memory, gaming rewards, and gaming items, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Rudi et al. par. 0042 regarding virtual rewards and items in a video game as being well-known in the art). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Pacey et al. (U.S. 2015/0024852).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20 Pacey discloses a method, apparatus, and a medium of providing a game service by a game providing apparatus, (“FIG. 2 illustrates a relationship between an example digital platform 90 and various computers providing media sources. Computers embodied in each of a video game console”, par. 0052, wherein the Examiner views the video game console as being equivalent a game providing apparatus providing a game service), comprising, determining a first reward quantity representing a quantity of a first item to be provided in a first reward cycle for content within the game service, (“When the "events" icon is selected, the display 380 is switched to the display 394 in FIG. 13, an events screen 396 overlays over the meta-guild hall view, and the background is blurred. Example events, which in this example are PVP weekly events”, par. 0146 and fig. 13, part 398, wherein the Examiner views the PVP weekly event as being equivalent to a reward cycle, wherein as described in fig. 13, part 398, stating that players earn rewards while competing against each in the in the weekly event, as being equivalent a first reward quantity of a first item in a first reward cycle), determining a second reward quantity representing a quantity of the first item to be provided in a second reward cycle for the content based on the first reward quantity and a quantity of the first item provided in the first reward cycle, (“When the "events" icon is selected, the display 380 is switched to the display 394 in FIG. 13, an events screen 396 overlays over the meta-guild hall view, and the background is blurred. Example events, which in this example are PVP weekly events”, par. 0146, wherein the Examiner views the PVP events being scheduled weekly as a plurality of reward cycles, which is viewed by the Examiner as meeting the claim limitation of a second reward cycle), and providing the first item in the second reward cycle for the content based on the second reward quantity, (“When the "events" icon is selected, the display 380 is switched to the display 394 in FIG. 13, an events screen 396 overlays over the meta-guild hall view, and the background is blurred. Example events, which in this example are PVP weekly events”, par. 0146 and fig. 13, part 398, wherein the Examiner views the PVP weekly event as being equivalent to a reward cycle, wherein as described in fig. 13, part 398, stating that players earn rewards and trophies while competing against each in the in the weekly events, as being equivalent to providing reward items in reward cycles).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Pacey discloses when a first payment quantity representing the quantity of the first item provided in the first reward cycle is less than the first reward quantity, (“For example, an online game purchase can provide a user with a "spirit class" of virtual character. However, such users, for instance, can be limited to a range of capabilities until upgrading”, par. 0082, wherein the Examiner views the online purchase of a virtual character with limited capabilities as being equivalent to a payment quantity representing an item being less than a first reward quantity ), determining the second reward quantity as a value obtained by adding a first remaining quantity representing a difference between the first reward quantity and the first payment quantity to a preset basic quantity for providing the first item in the second reward cycle, (“In this example, the outcome is that the object character is stronger in some key characteristics like strength or abilities and as a result wins the battle and earns experience points which are added to the object characters characteristics information as well as unlocking a new addition item to the digital asset's inventory as a special reward”, par. 0092, wherein the Examiner views adding experience points to a game player’s characteristics as well as unlocking a special reward as being equivalent determining a second reward quantity as a value and adding to the first quantity representing a difference between the first reward and payment quantity).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Pacey discloses determining a second item different from the first item, as an item, to be provided in a third reward cycle for the content, (“When the "events" icon is selected, the display 380 is switched to the display 394 in FIG. 13, an events screen 396 overlays over the meta-guild hall view, and the background is blurred. Example events, which in this example are PVP weekly events”, par. 0146 and fig. 13, part 398, and “Though each item 412 shown in FIG. 15 is unique”, par. 0160 fig. 15, part 412, wherein the Examiner views the PVP weekly event as being equivalent to a reward cycle, wherein as described in fig. 13, part 398, stating that players earn rewards and trophies while competing against each in the in the weekly events, as being equivalent to providing reward items in reward cycles wherein the items rewarded are unique and different).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Pacey discloses when the second reward quantity is exhausted at a certain point in time within the second reward cycle, stopping the providing of the first item from the certain point in time to an end of the second reward cycle, (Fig. 13, part 398, wherein the Examiner views displaying of the weekly event, “March 10th – March17th, as being equivalent to the reward quantity being exhausted at a certain point in time).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Pacey discloses determining at least one user who is to be provided with the first item from among users who perform the content at an end of the second reward cycle, (“Fig. 13, part 398, stating that players earn rewards and trophies while competing against each in the in the weekly events, as being equivalent to determining at least one user to be provided an item from among other users).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Pacey discloses displaying item information for at least one item to be provided in the second reward cycle, and quantity information for the at least one item to be provided in the second reward cycle, (Fig. 13, part 398, wherein the Examiner views fig. 13 displaying players earning personal rewards, trophies, guild-wide bonuses during the weekly events as being equivalent to displaying item information for at least one item to be provided and quantity information for the at least one item to be provided reward cycles).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Pacey discloses wherein the content is provided in a unit of any one of a map, a reward layer, and a set of reward layers, (“ Further, from the town hub 230, the players can receive quests and view a world map 240”, par. 0121).
Regarding claim 9, Pacey discloses wherein the content includes at least one of field hunting, a dynamic field, boss hunting, an area quest, a party quest, or a growth quest, (“Further, from the town hub 230, the players can receive quests”, par. 0121).
Regarding claim 10, Pacey discloses wherein a total quantity of the first item provided within the game service is preset, and the preset total quantity of the first item is unchangeable, (“Fig. 13, part 398, stating that players earn rewards and trophies while competing against each in the in the weekly events, as being equivalent to the quantity of rewards items as being preset).
Regarding claim 11, Pacey discloses displaying a remaining time until an end of the first reward cycle, (Fig. 13, part 398, wherein the Examiner views displaying of the weekly event, “March 10th – March17th, as being equivalent to a remaining time until an end of a reward cycle).
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 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pace yet al. (U.S. 2021/0322876) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Simons (U.S. 2019/0130701).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Jarrett, as cited above, discloses a game service comprising game rewards and items, however, Paceys silent upon disclosing the game items being an NFT. In a related art, Simons discloses a method of providing a gaming service by a game providing apparatus, (“FIG. 1 illustrates an environment where an interactive gaming system”, par. 0008), comprising game rewards, (“a state of a virtual good may be updated, for example, based on winning a bet, achieving a reward in gameplay”, par. 0029), and game items, (“allows the gaming clients to play one or more games that can include virtual goods (or items). “, par. 0058), wherein Simons further discloses gaming items may include NFTs, (“For example, in accordance with various embodiments, skins can include paint jobs, cosmetics, articles of clothing (e.g., hats, jackets, boots, gloves, pants, shirts, backpacks, etc.), digital items, virtual items, crypto collectables, non-fungible tokens (NFTs)”, par. 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the NFTs of Simons into the art disclosed by Pacey in order to provide player driven economies by providing creating true player ownership and to enable secondary markets.
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