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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/25 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 10-14 and 29-52 are pending. Claims 10, 31, and 38 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative presents arguments to address the rejections under 35 USC 101. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative assets that the limitation “transferring…via an application programming interface (API)…the event state information to cause the selected to cause the selected computer-executable program to execute with an initial execution state being based on the event state information” as providing additional ways to extend their video content beyond social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions that i) is not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 9); ii) provides a specific function that improves upon conventional technology that integrates the claim into a practical application under Step 2a-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 10); and iii) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the argument under Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims, such as features recited in claim 10, amount to more than “managing a social activity” but is directed to additional ways to extend their experience with video content beyond social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions (see Remarks, pg. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite managing a game including rules and/or instructions to present an option to execute a starting point of the game. The steps such as “transferring…via an application programming interface (API)…the event state information to cause the selected computer-executable program to execute with an initial execution state being based on the event state information” recites additional element of managing a game that amounts to execute the software of the game which is analogous to invoking a computer as a tool and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea which is discussed below. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the additional limitations recite computing states and operation of a computing device. In particular, the Applicant’s representative disagrees with the characterization of the Office Action and asserts that the claims recite a specific structure to improve conventional technological or technological processes (see Remarks. pg. 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional limitation such as “selecting, based on the metadata, a computer-executable program…transferring…the current event state information to cause the selected computer-executable program to execute an initial state being based on the event state information” and “from the computing device, to the selected computer-executable program, and via an application programming interface (API)” does not establish meaningful limitations that integrate the claim into a practical application. A review of the limitations are found to recites result-oriented functional limitations that attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem of selecting a starting point for a computer game but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The remaining elements such as “the computing device” and “selected computer-executable program via an application programming interface (API),” recite limitations directed to highly-generalized computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Each of these elements are recited use in their ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) that does not integrate the claim into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). It follows that these additional limitations are not found to recite an improvement to computer functionality and/or to any other technology or technical field but to manage a starting point in a game that is merely invoke a computing environment as a tool and/or provide field of use to perform the abstract idea in a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)).. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 2 has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative maintains that the claims, when considered as a whole, provide a specific manner for the additional elements to perform a function that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The purported function recited in the claims is directed to managing a selection of a starting point of the game. This is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The additional elements which when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements amount to mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool and/or provide a technological environment because they were found to invoke highly-generalized and commercially available components that perform the ordinary and known functions to manage the claimed video game (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2B has been maintained below.
Claim Objections
Claims 31 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 15 of claim 31 which recites “the selected computer-executable program via an API associated with” and in lines 14-15 of claim 37 “the selected computer-executable program, and via an API associated with” contain an acronym that does not have proper antecedent basis in the claim. The Examiner suggest that the claim be amended to “the selected computer-executable program via an application program interface (API) associated with” and “the selected computer-executable program, and via an application programming interface (API) associated with”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10-14 and 29-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to groupings of abstract ideas without significantly more. With respect to Independent claim 10, the claim recites limitations such as “identifies titles of a plurality of different computer-executable programs” – certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process; “selecting, based on the metadata, a computer-executable program from the plurality of different computer-executable programs;” -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process; and “cause output of an option to execute the selected computer-executable program with a starting point based on a current position in the video stream” – certain method of organizing human activity.
With respect to independent Claims 31 and 38, the claim recite limitations such as “identifies titles of a plurality of different computer-executable programs;” – certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process; “select, based on the metadata, a computer-executable program from the plurality of different computer-executable programs;” -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process; “cause output of an option to execute the selected computer-executable program with a starting point based on a current position in the video stream;” – certain method of organizing human activity.
The recited limitations of independent Claims 10, 31, and 38 are found to be directed to a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite concepts directed to managing a social activity (e.g., a computer-executable program/video game that supports simulation of an event in a video stream) including rules and/or instructions to select and manage a computer-executable program/ video game (see MPEP 2106.04(a) II). For at least the reasons provided above, the claims are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of independent Claims 10 and 38 such as “receiving, by a computing device, a video stream and metadata associated with the video stream, wherein the metadata identifies titles of a plurality of different computer-executable programs;” “retrieving event state information corresponding to the current position in the video stream”, and “transferring, from the computing device, to the selected computer-executable program, and via an API associated with the selected computer-executable program using the event state information” amounts to steps and/or instructions to invoke a general-purpose computer as tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity of the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)).
Furthermore, with respect to independent Claim 31, the additional limitations such “receiving metadata associated with a video stream, wherein the metadata identifies titles of a plurality of different computer-executable programs;” “retrieve event state information corresponding to the current position in the video stream;” and “transfer, to the selected computer-executable program via an API associated with the selected computer-executable program, the event state information to cause execution of the selected computer-executable program, the event state information to cause execution of the selected computer-executable program using the event state information” amounts to steps and/or instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform extra solution activity of the abstract idea, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(g)). For at least these reasons, the additional elements of independent Claims 10, 31, and 38 do not integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional components such as “a computing device” of independent Claim 1, “one or more processors” and “memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to:” recited by independent Claim 31 and “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause:” recited by independent Claim 38, amount to steps and/or instructions to invoke the computer as a tool similar to the type of general purpose computing components found in Alice v. CLS which when considered individually or in combination does not amount to an inventive concept but to a technological environment and/or field of use to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)) For instance, the Specification discloses that the computing device is implemented “using basic computing devices and components” and the user device is a streaming device which may be a smart television, mobile computing device, desktop computer, and/or any computing device configured to execute code (see Specification, Figs. 2-3, 26, 35). Similarly, an Application Program Interface (API) as disclosed in the Specification appears to be highly generalized and commercially available API known to one of ordinary skill in the art to facilitate communication between a server and streaming device which is analogous to providing a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For instance, Wikipedia’s “Representational state transfer” discloses that a RESTful API to provide communication between devices over standard HTTP methods was known to one of ordinary skill in the API arts (see Wikipedia “Representational state transfer” published to Internet on 9/1/18 and retrieved via Wayback machine). For at least these reasons, the additional element of an “API” to perform its conventional and well-known functions does not amount to significantly more but mere instructions to invoke a computer as tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
With respect to dependent claims 11-14, 29-30, 32-37, and 39-52, the limitations have been evaluated and are directed to additional steps of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoke a general-purpose computer as tool, extra solution activity, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that the claims 10-14, 29-52 are found to recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 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, 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715