The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 04/23/2025, the following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application No. 19186641.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 04/23/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2025 and 06/04/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on: 19186641 filed 04/23/2025 is a Continuation of PCT/JP2023/037797 , filed 10/19/2023 claims foreign priority to 2022-172295, filed 10/27/2022.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for storing, means for storing, means for presenting access in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims fall within statutory class of process or machine or manufacture; hence, the claims fall under statutory category of Step 1.
Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions for a program to be executed by a computer including a processor and a memory, the program causing the processor to perform a method, the method comprising: storing information about a plurality of digital cards such that even identical digital cards are uniquely identifiable; storing information about card use, in which any one of the digital cards is used, in association with the used digital card; and presenting, in response to receiving selection of any one of the digital cards, the information about the card use that is associated with the card.
[or]
A method, comprising: storing information about a plurality of digital cards such that even identical digital cards are uniquely identifiable; storing information about card use, in which any one of the plurality of digital cards is used, in association with the used digital card; and presenting, in response to receiving selection of any one of the plurality of digital cards, the information about the card use that is associated with the card.
[or]
An information processing device, comprising: processing circuitry configured to store information about a plurality of digital cards such that even identical digital cards are uniquely identifiable, store information about card use, in which any one of the plurality of digital cards is used, in association with the used digital card, and present, when receiving selection of any one of the plurality of digital cards, the information about the card use that is associated with the card.
[or]
A system, comprising: means for storing information about a plurality of digital cards such that even identical digital cards are uniquely identifiable; means for storing information about card use, in which any one of the plurality of digital cards is used, in association with the used digital card; and means for presenting, when receiving selection of any one of the plurality of digital cards, the information about the card use that is associated with the card.
The claim(s) recite(s) the following summarization of the abstract idea which includes presenting the information about the card use that is associated with the card which is executed by the additional element(s) of non-transitory computer readable storage medium, memory, computer, processing circuitry and/or processor. This falls into at least the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mental Processes since the information can be analyzed by an abstract evaluation judgment process. The above non-boldface portion of the independent claims recites a judicial exception because all of the steps could be performed entirely with the human mind or with pen and paper as a human could store information about a plurality of cards such that even identical cards are uniquely identifiable. Thus, per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity since the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions).
Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium, computer and/or processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic non-transitory computer readable storage medium, computer and/or processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, presenting the information about the card use that is associated with the card by a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, memory, computer, processing circuitry and/or processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B.
Per Step 2B, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: non-transitory computer readable storage medium, memory, computer, processing circuitry and processor. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, presenting the information about the card use that is associated with the card by a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, memory, computer, processing circuitry and/or processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶0209 wherein “basic hardware configuration of a computer 90. The computer 90 includes at least a processor 91, a main storage device 92, an auxiliary storage device 93, and a communication IF 99 (Interface). These components are electrically connected to one another via a communication bus.” Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims).
The dependent claims do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verschoor et al. (US 20220148378 A1) hereinafter referred to as Verschoor in view of Simons (US 20190130701 A1) hereinafter referred to as Simons.
Verschoor teaches:
Claim 1 A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions for a program to be executed by a computer including a processor and a memory, the program causing the processor to perform a method, the method comprising (¶0175 FIG. 5a shows a computer readable medium 1000 having a writable part 1010 including a computer program 1020, the computer program 1020 including instructions for implementing a playing card, authentication device and/or server on a processor system, according to an embodiment. The computer program 1020 may be embodied on the computer readable medium 1000 as physical marks or by means of magnetization of the computer readable medium 1000. However, any other suitable embodiment is conceivable as well. Furthermore, it will be appreciated that, although the computer readable medium 1000 is shown here as an optical disc, the computer readable medium 1000 may be any suitable computer readable medium, such as a hard disk, solid state memory, flash memory, etc., and may be non-recordable or recordable. The computer program 1020 includes instructions for causing a processor system to perform as a playing card, authentication device and/or server. FIG. 5b shows in a schematic representation of a processor system 1140 according to an embodiment of a playing card, authentication device and/or server.):
storing information about a plurality of digital cards such that even identical digital cards are uniquely identifiable (¶0088 If the identifying information on the tag corresponds to the identifying information that is visually printed on the card, it may be concluded that the card is authentic. This solution makes counterfeiting of cards harder since it can require the embedding and writing of an RFID tag in addition to an accurate visual reproduction of a card in order to counterfeit it. For example, a NFC tag may be used for the RFID tag. For example, an MTG playing card may have its unique identifier stored on an RFID chip embedded in the playing card. For example, if one reads out the unique identifier, say 5d8a7f95-ac4c-4113-8bdd-55336b86b98c, one can look-up that this identifier corresponds to a card with a card type which has the so-called multiverseid 193868 and name “Lord of the Pit”. One could also store only the card type identifier, or multiverseid, but this prevents card-specific information to be added on a server, such as experience points or the owner of the card. The link between the unique physical card and its digital representation using the unique identifier is called a digital twin. If the card in question is found or identified as a “Lord of the Pit”, one can conclude that it is likely authentic.);
storing information about card use, in which any one of the digital cards is used, in association with the used digital card (¶0093 a random number is a number that cannot be predicted. For example, authentication data 122 may include a cryptographic key, e.g., a symmetric key, e.g., a private key of a public/private key pair. The counter may be increased whenever the authentication data 122 is involved in an operation, e.g., whenever an authentication operation is performed and/or whenever the authentication data is renewed. The initial value of the counter may be a default number, e.g., zero, which may be the same for all playing cards, e.g., all playing cards of this type; the initial value may be a random value. Memory 120 may store a unique identifier, or additional information such as card type, e.g. its multiverseid.); and
presenting, in response to receiving selection of any one of the digital cards, the information about the card use that is associated with the card (¶0019 For example, the authentication server may generate a web page including information about the card. The information may include the authenticity of the card and/or its current owner. The information may also include the date and time when the authenticity of the card was last verified at the authentication server. The information may also include further information about the card, e.g., a picture, textual information and the like. The computer network address may be a URL. The computer network may be the Internet. The computer network address or the URL may be referred to as a proof link. The proof link may be valid for a limited duration.).
Although not explicitly taught by Verschoor, Simons teaches in the analogous art of management of virtual goods in distributed multi-ledger gambling architecture:
storing information about card use, in which any one of the digital cards is used, in association with the used digital card (¶0038 In some embodiments, the distributed multi-ledger architecture can be used to create, record, and enforce customized bets between multiple parties (e.g., two or more parties). For example, if two parties would like to bet on an event, this bet can be recorded within the ledger. The participants can agree on wager, outcome conditions, validation source, rules, and other conditions or parameters to create a customized bet. In some embodiments, the ledger may include code snippets that when executed evaluate the outcome and automatically transfer money as set forth with the conditions of the bet. By writing the wagering amounts, rules, outcomes, verification details, and the like into the ledger (e.g., a block in a blockchain) the bet can be tracked and verified. FIG. 2 is a block diagram 200 illustrating a distributed multi-ledger gaming architecture that may be used according to embodiments of the present technology. In accordance with various embodiments, the distributed multi-ledger gaming architecture provides a secure ledger system for recording money transfer, play action, bets, analytics, gaming statistics (e.g., payouts, skill levels, etc.), and the like. In some embodiments, servers can retrieve and store information in a distributed ledger that is duplicated multiple times at different nodes.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the management of virtual goods in distributed multi-ledger gambling architecture of Simons with the system for playing card with electronic authenticator of Verschoor for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Verschoor ¶0007 teaches that it is desirable to devise a technical solution for the problem of counterfeiting in the field of playing cards;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Verschoor Abstract teaches a playing card system arranged to authenticate a playing card for playing a card game, and Simons Abstract teaches a gaming platform can be used to provide a secure ledger system for recording money transfer, play action, bets, analytics, gaming statistics, and the like, which are associated with virtual goods; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Verschoor at least the above cited paragraphs, and Simons at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the management of virtual goods in distributed multi-ledger gambling architecture of Simons with the system for playing card with electronic authenticator of Verschoor. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Although not explicitly taught by Verschoor, Simons teaches in the analogous art of management of virtual goods in distributed multi-ledger gambling architecture:
Claim 2 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the information about the card use is information about a battle fought using a deck constructed by combining the cards (¶0037 Some embodiments allow the gaming platforms 110A-110N to utilize a distributed multi-ledger gaming architecture to create a secure ledger system for recording money transfer, play action, bets, gaming statistics (e.g., payouts, skill levels, etc.), code, and the like. In some embodiments, gaming platforms 110A-110N can directly interact with the distributed multi-ledger architecture for secure and transparent transactions which can also be accessed by auditors, tax authorities, partners and/or other entities. Some embodiments may use private and/or public blockchains as part of the distributed multi-ledger gaming architecture. For example, various transactions or other information such as bets, money transfers, records of game play, digital currency, loyalty information, avatars, game states, jackpot amounts, and other transactions may be recorded on the blockchain. ¶0038 In some embodiments, the distributed multi-ledger architecture can be used to create, record, and enforce customized bets between multiple parties (e.g., two or more parties). For example, if two parties would like to bet on an event, this bet can be recorded within the ledger. The participants can agree on wager, outcome conditions, validation source, rules, and other conditions or parameters to create a customized bet. In some embodiments, the ledger may include code snippets that when executed evaluate the outcome and automatically transfer money as set forth with the conditions of the bet. By writing the wagering amounts, rules, outcomes, verification details, and the like into the ledger (e.g., a block in a blockchain) the bet can be tracked and verified. FIG. 2 is a block diagram 200 illustrating a distributed multi-ledger gaming architecture that may be used according to embodiments of the present technology. In accordance with various embodiments, the distributed multi-ledger gaming architecture provides a secure ledger system for recording money transfer, play action, bets, analytics, gaming statistics (e.g., payouts, skill levels, etc.), and the like. In some embodiments, servers can retrieve and store information in a distributed ledger that is duplicated multiple times at different nodes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the management of virtual goods in distributed multi-ledger gambling architecture of Simons with the system for playing card with electronic authenticator of Verschoor for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Verschoor ¶0007 teaches that it is desirable to devise a technical solution for the problem of counterfeiting in the field of playing cards;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Verschoor Abstract teaches a playing card system arranged to authenticate a playing card for playing a card game, and Simons Abstract teaches a gaming platform can be used to provide a secure ledger system for recording money transfer, play action, bets, analytics, gaming statistics, and the like, which are associated with virtual goods; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Verschoor at least the above cited paragraphs, and Simons at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the management of virtual goods in distributed multi-ledger gambling architecture of Simons with the system for playing card with electronic authenticator of Verschoor. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Although not explicitly taught by Verschoor, Simons teaches in the analogous art of management of virtual goods in distributed multi-ledger gambling architecture:
Claim 3 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 2, wherein the information about the battle includes a date of the battle, a result of the battle, an opponent of the battle, information about a deck shuffle during the battle, information about the deck, or information about a tournament (¶0027 Non-limiting examples of the present disclosure relate to management of virtual goods through an electronic gaming application/service. Transactions related to virtual goods may be managed using a transaction ledger that is associated with a gaming platform. In accordance with various embodiments, a transparent gaming platform can be used to provide a secure ledger system for recording money transfer, play action, bets, analytics, gaming statistics (e.g., payouts, skill levels, etc.), and the like, which are associated with virtual goods. ¶0037 Some embodiments allow the gaming platforms 110A-110N to utilize a distributed multi-ledger gaming architecture to create a secure ledger system for recording money transfer, play action, bets, gaming statistics (e.g., payouts, skill levels, etc.), code, and the like. In some embodiments, gaming platforms 110A-110N can directly interact with the distributed multi-ledger architecture for secure and transparent transactions which can also be accessed by auditors, tax authorities, partners and/or other entities. Some embodiments may use private and/or public blockchains as part of the distributed multi-ledger gaming architecture. For example, various transactions or other information such as bets, money transfers, records of game play, digital currency, loyalty information, avatars, game states, jackpot amounts, and other transactions may be recorded on the blockchain. ¶0038 In some embodiments, the distributed multi-ledger architecture can be used to create, record, and enforce customized bets between multiple parties (e.g., two or more parties). For example, if two parties would like to bet on an event, this bet can be recorded within the ledger. The participants can agree on wager, outcome conditions, validation source, rules, and other conditions or parameters to create a customized bet. In some embodiments, the ledger may include code snippets that when executed evaluate the outcome and automatically transfer money as set forth with the conditions of the bet. By writing the wagering amounts, rules, outcomes, verification details, and the like into the ledger (e.g., a block in a blockchain) the bet can be tracked and verified. FIG. 2 is a block diagram 200 illustrating a distributed multi-ledger gaming architecture that may be used according to embodiments of the present technology. In accordance with various embodiments, the distributed multi-ledger gaming architecture provides a secure ledger system for recording money transfer, play action, bets, analytics, gaming statistics (e.g., payouts, skill levels, etc.), and the like. In some embodiments, servers can retrieve and store information in a distributed ledger that is duplicated multiple times at different nodes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the management of virtual goods in distributed multi-ledger gambling architecture of Simons with the system for playing card with electronic authenticator of Verschoor for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Verschoor ¶0007 teaches that it is desirable to devise a technical solution for the problem of counterfeiting in the field of playing cards;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Verschoor Abstract teaches a playing card system arranged to authenticate a playing card for playing a card game, and Simons Abstract teaches a gaming platform can be used to provide a secure ledger system for recording money transfer, play action, bets, analytics, gaming statistics, and the like, which are associated with virtual goods; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Verschoor at least the above cited paragraphs, and Simons at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the management of virtual goods in distributed multi-ledger gambling architecture of Simons with the system for playing card with electronic authenticator of Verschoor. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Verschoor teaches:
Claim 4 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the information about the card use is information about support for another user who uses a deck constructed using a digital card having the same effect as the digital card owned by a user (¶0188 In an embodiment, the system is configured for a method to remotely proof the physical possession of a physical item such as a playing card. For example, scan a card and obtain a unique code from the authentication server. The code may be verified on the server. The unique code may include a computer network address, e.g., a URL, although this is not necessary. The unique code or URL may be sent to another party, e.g., a counterparty, another device, or the online marketplace. This token can be checked to prove whether and optionally when someone physically carried the product.).
Verschoor teaches:
Claim 5 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 4, wherein the information about the support includes another user using the deck, a result of a battle, an opponent of the battle, information about the deck, information about a tournament, or a result of the tournament (¶0188 In an embodiment, the system is configured for a method to remotely proof the physical possession of a physical item such as a playing card. For example, scan a card and obtain a unique code from the authentication server. The code may be verified on the server. The unique code may include a computer network address, e.g., a URL, although this is not necessary. The unique code or URL may be sent to another party, e.g., a counterparty, another device, or the online marketplace. This token can be checked to prove whether and optionally when someone physically carried the product. ¶0190 In an embodiment, an online system is provided in which people register items they possess, and which may be verified using an authentication method. In the marketplace, owners may be regarded as potential sellers, as they have items which they might sell if the price or circumstances are right. For example, each time an owner scans or verifies the item, a field may be updated with the last time someone has interacted with it, and at which time the current owner has interacted with it.).
Verschoor teaches:
Claim 6 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein information about the plurality of digital cards is stored in a distributed ledger formed by a computer network (¶0149 FIG. 3a schematically shows an example of an embodiment of a blockchain 500. Shown are two blocks of the blockchain: block 510 and block 520. The block includes one or more transactions. Shown are transactions 511, 512, 521 and 522 in blocks 510 and 520 respectively. The blocks also include a consensus proof 519 and 529 respectively. The consensus proof is computed by a blockchain device, and may be, e.g., a proof of work, or a proof of stake, or the like. The transactions may indicate the claiming and/or transfer of a playing card. A transaction may indicate an authentication of a playing card.).
Verschoor teaches:
Claim 7 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 6, wherein the information about the card use is stored as a transaction of the corresponding digital card in the distributed ledger (¶0149 FIG. 3a schematically shows an example of an embodiment of a blockchain 500. Shown are two blocks of the blockchain: block 510 and block 520. The block includes one or more transactions. Shown are transactions 511, 512, 521 and 522 in blocks 510 and 520 respectively. The blocks also include a consensus proof 519 and 529 respectively. The consensus proof is computed by a blockchain device, and may be, e.g., a proof of work, or a proof of stake, or the like. The transactions may indicate the claiming and/or transfer of a playing card. A transaction may indicate an authentication of a playing card.).
Verschoor teaches:
Claim 8 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 6, wherein the information about the card use is information about a battle fought using a deck constructed by combining the cards, and the information about the battle is stored as a transaction of the corresponding digital card in the distributed ledger (¶0149 FIG. 3a schematically shows an example of an embodiment of a blockchain 500. Shown are two blocks of the blockchain: block 510 and block 520. The block includes one or more transactions. Shown are transactions 511, 512, 521 and 522 in blocks 510 and 520 respectively. The blocks also include a consensus proof 519 and 529 respectively. The consensus proof is computed by a blockchain device, and may be, e.g., a proof of work, or a proof of stake, or the like. The transactions may indicate the claiming and/or transfer of a playing card. A transaction may indicate an authentication of a playing card.).
Verschoor teaches:
Claim 9 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 6, wherein the information about the card use is information about support for another user who uses a deck constructed using a digital card having the same effect as the digital card owned by a user, and the information about the support is stored as a transaction of the corresponding digital card in the distributed ledger (¶0188 In an embodiment, the system is configured for a method to remotely proof the physical possession of a physical item such as a playing card. For example, scan a card and obtain a unique code from the authentication server. The code may be verified on the server. The unique code may include a computer network address, e.g., a URL, although this is not necessary. The unique code or URL may be sent to another party, e.g., a counterparty, another device, or the online marketplace. This token can be checked to prove whether and optionally when someone physically carried the product. ¶0190 In an embodiment, an online system is provided in which people register items they possess, and which may be verified using an authentication method. In the marketplace, owners may be regarded as potential sellers, as they have items which they might sell if the price or circumstances are right. For example, each time an owner scans or verifies the item, a field may be updated with the last time someone has interacted with it, and at which time the current owner has interacted with it).
Verschoor teaches:
Claim 10 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising: storing information about trading of a digital card in association with the traded digital card (¶0215 When an offer is activated, a notification is sent to the potential seller. This notification may be in the form of a push notification, email, SMS, etc. The potential seller can open the offer in the marketplace using an app or web application. The potential seller may have various options to respond to this offer. For example, his options may include one or more of: The potential seller can accept the offer. The ownership of the item may be transferred directly or when the payment has been confirmed, depending on the terms used for the transaction. If the buyer has pre-paid for the item, or when the buyer's payment details are known, or when the buyer has enough credits in his account, the payment confirmation may be done immediately).
Verschoor teaches:
Claim 11 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 10, wherein the information about the trading includes a date and time of transfer, a user as a transferer, a user as a transferee, or a value of transfer (¶0215 When an offer is activated, a notification is sent to the potential seller. This notification may be in the form of a push notification, email, SMS, etc. The potential seller can open the offer in the marketplace using an app or web application. The potential seller may have various options to respond to this offer. For example, his options may include one or more of: The potential seller can accept the offer. The ownership of the item may be transferred directly or when the payment has been confirmed, depending on the terms used for the transaction. If the buyer has pre-paid for the item, or when the buyer's payment details are known, or when the buyer has enough credits in his account, the payment confirmation may be done immediately).
Verschoor teaches:
Claim 12 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 10, wherein the information about the trading is stored as a transaction of the traded digital card in the distributed ledger (¶0215 When an offer is activated, a notification is sent to the potential seller. This notification may be in the form of a push notification, email, SMS, etc. The potential seller can open the offer in the marketplace using an app or web application. The potential seller may have various options to respond to this offer. For example, his options may include one or more of: The potential seller can accept the offer. The ownership of the item may be transferred directly or when the payment has been confirmed, depending on the terms used for the transaction. If the buyer has pre-paid for the item, or when the buyer's payment details are known, or when the buyer has enough credits in his account, the payment confirmation may be done immediately).
Verschoor teaches:
Claim 13 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising: offering a bonus corresponding to information about the use (¶0152 Saving cards or card transactions on the block chain prevents server side hacks. For example, the transaction lineage may be checked for a transaction. Furthermore, transferring a card twice becomes much harder, since it can be verified on the blockchain who is the owner of a card. The cost of hosting the blockchain devices could eventually be covered by players. For example, a blockchain miner may be rewarded with points that can be exchanged for exclusive mining foils).
Verschoor teaches:
Claim 14 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 13, wherein the information about the card use is information about a battle fought using a deck constructed by combining the cards, the method further comprising: offering a bonus corresponding to the information about the battle (¶0152 Saving cards or card transactions on the block chain prevents server side hacks. For example, the transaction lineage may be checked for a transaction. Furthermore, transferring a card twice becomes much harder, since it can be verified on the blockchain who is the owner of a card. The cost of hosting the blockchain devices could eventually be covered by players. For example, a blockchain miner may be rewarded with points that can be exchanged for exclusive mining foils.).
Verschoor teaches:
Claim 15 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 13, wherein the information about the card use is information about support for another user who uses a deck constructed using a digital card having the same effect as the digital card owned by a user, the method further comprising: offering a bonus corresponding to the information about the support (¶0152 Saving cards or card transactions on the block chain prevents server side hacks. For example, the transaction lineage may be checked for a transaction. Furthermore, transferring a card twice becomes much harder, since it can be verified on the blockchain who is the owner of a card. The cost of hosting the blockchain devices could eventually be covered by players. For example, a blockchain miner may be rewarded with points that can be exchanged for exclusive mining foils. ¶0188 In an embodiment, the system is configured for a method to remotely proof the physical possession of a physical item such as a playing card. For example, scan a card and obtain a unique code from the authentication server. The code may be verified on the server. The unique code may include a computer network address, e.g., a URL, although this is not necessary. The unique code or URL may be sent to another party, e.g., a counterparty, another device, or the online marketplace. This token can be checked to prove whether and optionally when someone physically carried the product. ¶0190 In an embodiment, an online system is provided in which people register items they possess, and which may be verified using an authentication method. In the marketplace, owners may be regarded as potential sellers, as they have items which they might sell if the price or circumstances are right. For example, each time an owner scans or verifies the item, a field may be updated with the last time someone has interacted with it, and at which time the current owner has interacted with it).
As per claims 16 and 17 and 18, the method and device and system tracks the manufacture of claims 1 and 1 and 1, respectively, resulting in substantially similar limitations. The same cited prior art and rationale of claims 1 and 1 and 1 are applied to claims 16 and 17 and 18, respectively. Verschoor discloses that the embodiment may be found as a method and device and system (Figs. 1-5A and ¶0175).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240066910 A1
Kass; Stephen B. et al.
MARK IDENTIFYING A COLLECTIBLE AS ORIGINATED BY ITS CREATOR OR MANUFACTURER
US 20240029512 A1
PARK; Jae Hwan
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PROVIDING GAME CONTENT BY USING CRYPTOCURRENCY
US 20210106920 A1
LIM; Tae Hyun
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR RECORDING GAME RESULT BY CONDUCTING GAME AMONG PLURALITY OF USERS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM
US 9219830 B1
Ciorba; Ilie et al.
Methods and systems for page and spread arrangement in photo-based projects
US 20130296008 A1
Hardison; Ty
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PLAYING CARDS WITH DIGITAL ENHANCEMENTS AND ELECTRONIC INK
US 8517819 B2
Kelly; Bryan M. et al.
System gaming
US 20110275442 A1
Hawkins, III; William M.
NETWORKED COMPUTER GAME SYSTEMS AND METHODS WITH SOCIAL NETWORK FUNCTIONS
US 20080154779 A1
Kunimatsu; Atsushi et al.
ELECTRIC COMIC BOOK DELIVERING SERVER, SYSTEM FOR DELIVERING ELECTRIC COMIC BOOK AND METHOD OF DELIVERING ELECTRIC COMIC BOOK
EP 1936556 A2
KUNIMATSU, ATSUSHI et al.
Electric comic book delivering server, system for delivering electric comic book and method of delivering electric comic book
US 20050227769 A1
Morrow, James W. et al.
Gaming device network managing system and method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURTIS GILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3315. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 PM.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KURTIS GILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights