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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments filed on 05/06/2025.
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 1-11, 18-41, 47-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more. As per step 1 examiner recognizes the use of a processor, system, or steps stored on a non-transitory medium. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “use one or more neural networks to identify, using one or more media segments of gameplay of a game session of one or more users, one or more scenes, actions, or objects in the one or more media segments based, at least in part, on one or more game interactions by the one or more users during the gameplay of the game session; and generate one or more game recommendations based, at least in part, on the identified one or more scenes, actions, or objects in the one or more media segments.” as being directed to a method and system comprising providing recommendations to a player based on observation of interactions by the player with scenes, actions, or objects during a game session. Specifically this is directed to the mental process of observing a player playing a first game in order to recommend, based on information in the observation, another game. For example if a player plays a first person shooter as a first game where they favor a certain type of weapon then a recommendation for a second title which focuses on that weapon would be a mental step that could be carried out by an individual outside of a computer. For example if a player prefers to use a sniper rifle, an object, then an observer could recommend a game that focuses on sniping to the player. These are mental steps which involve observation of data and applying the data to make a mental determination of a player’s preferences. Examiner notes the steps are performed by a “neural network” however insufficient information is provided regarding the function of the neural network to provide any more than a generic machine performing the mental steps above. Specifically neural network is generically recited as performing mental steps. Additional steps such as found in the dependents such as “the one or more recommendations based in part upon keywords inferred for the identified one or more scenes, actions, or objects in the one or more media segments” are steps regarding observing an environment, including media segments, to determine information about the environment which could be done as a mental step. For example, using the above example, an individual could determine, by watching a first game, that a genre of the first game is a first person shooter based on observing a scene in the game, such as players shooting at each other, and therefore base the recommendations on this. Therefore the dependent claims amount to no more than additional observation or learning steps which are mental steps for providing the recommendation. Therefore neural network at this time does not provide sufficient structure as to make the steps no more than mental steps performed on a generic machine. As per the media segments examiner recognizes that a media segment is a visual or audio representation of a game in the current invention and therefore observing information regarding a media segment involves observing the game. This would include steps performed by an individual such as watching the gameplay and therefore goes towards the mental step of observation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because series of mental steps regarding recommending games to a user based on observing previous gameplay history. Specifically a series of mental steps including observation, learning, and determining how to use the data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the element of neural networks recited in the game lacks sufficient structure as to be no more than a generic computer element included, such as machine learning, without sufficient steps that amount to more than a generic machine performing a mental process. Specifically at this time neural network does not provide sufficient structure as to render the claims with a practical application significantly more than the recited exemption.
As per step 2B examiner recognize the processor, system, non-transitory medium, and network elements are all generic elements found in the gaming art. Therefore these elements do not provide significantly more than a generic machine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As per the previous 101 rejection applicant argues that amended language overcomes the rejection by reciting a specific neural network performing a computer related function. Examiner notes that the limitation has the neural network “identify, using one or more media segments of gameplay of a game session...one or more scenes, actions, or objects in the one or more media segment” without indicating the steps on how the identification occurs. Specifically the neural network performs the task of observation without including the computer steps involved and therefore performs a task that an individual can perform mentally. An individual can observe a game and note information regarding the game including scenes, action, or object. Without further clarification this is broadly claiming a step that is already performed by individuals and therefore the neural network portion does not overcome the rejection under step 2A or 2B since the network is additionally recited in a generic fashion. As per the recommendation portion this again is recited generally as basing the recommendation on the observed information and therefore goes towards what an individual can perform. It is known for individuals to observe information regarding another, including playing of a game, to determine what the individual likes, their skill, or other information in order to provide a recommendation. Reciting a neural network performing this step does not provide more than a generic machine performing the steps of a thinking individual. Additionally the use of keywords in the dependents is no more than classify information regarding the observation without more being recited. An individual performs this step as well. For example if observing a game they can note that an individual prefers the use of sniper rifles as a weapon. This action would be assigning a keyword to the item that identified the item as a sniper rifle. This is an action that individuals perform regularly as a mental process. Therefore the claims do not overcome the rejection under 101. See above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN L MYHR whose telephone number is (571)270-7847. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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.
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 8/12/2025