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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 06/10/2025. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-30 remain pending, no Claims have been newly added, and no Claims have been canceled. Currently, Claims 1-30 have been amended. No new matter appears to have been entered.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-30 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of […] generate video game content to be used in one or more video games based, at least in part, on: […] user interaction with content in the one or more video games, […] using information corresponding to the user interaction and information corresponding to the content in the one or more video games; […]; and […]. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1 (substantially similar to claims 7, 13, 19, and 25). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “one or more processors”, “circuitry”, “one or more neural networks”, “an autoencoder of the one or more neural networks is to encode the encoding…”, and “memory for storing”. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because they are all recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to implement or perform the steps of the abstract idea. The additional elements when considered alone and in combination amount to no more than using generic computing components to apply the judicial exception. The recitations “game data, accessed from storage…”, and “one or more video frames, generated using one or more neural networks, …” are insignificant extra-solution activity i.e., data gathering and/or data output. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2, No). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, an autoencoder, as provided in amended claim 1, can relate to components having features that are generic, conventional, and well-known in the art of machine learning and/or neural networks that represent a field of use and/or extra-solution activity.
For example, Kim et al. (2020/0390778 A1) discloses output model(s) 3116 and/or pre-trained model(s) 3206 may include any types of machine learning models depending on implementation or embodiment and machine learning models used by system 3200 may include machine learning model(s) using linear regression, logistic regression, decision trees, support vector machines (SVM), Naïve Bayes, k-nearest neighbor (Knn), K means clustering, random forest, dimensionality reduction algorithms, gradient boosting algorithms, neural networks (e.g., auto-encoders, convolutional, recurrent, perceptrons, Long/Short Term Memory (LSTM), Hopfield, Boltzmann, deep belief, deconvolutional, generative adversarial, liquid state machine, etc.), and/or other types of machine learning models (See Para. 363 of Kim).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A - Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and the insignificant extra-solution activity of consuming a first online gaming message published onto a first message data stream is no more than data gathering and data output. The same analysis applies here in step 2B and does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B, No).
Additionally, the specification makes it clear that the method and system can be implemented on generic computers.
[0048] …In at least one embodiment, client device 202 may include or comprise a device such as a desktop computer, notebook computer, gaming console, smart phone, tablet computer, VR headset, AR goggles, a wearable computer, or a smart television….
As such, the processor, one or more circuits, and one or more neural networks for generating modified game content based on user interaction with content in another game, may require no more than generic, conventional, and well-known computer devices such as a general purpose computer (as evidenced in Para. 48 above).
The dependent claims fail to add “significantly more” because they merely represent further use of generic computers for routine data-processing functions related to steps/rules for generating modified game content based on user interaction with content in another game (Claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-18, 20-24, and 26-30).
Additionally, as previously noted, the claimed invention does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. There is no technical solution to a technical problem disclosed for which the claims could reflect and using a plurality of computing devices, recited at a high level of generality, to implement the abstract idea, is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Data gathering and data output does not add a meaningful limitation to the process, system, or non-transitory computer readable medium.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on the claims as currently presented, the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Rico et al. (US 2020/0289943 A1) discloses the concept of recording gameplay data from a first session of a video game, the first session defined for interactive gameplay of a user; training a machine learning model using the gameplay data, wherein the training causes the machine learning model to imitate the interactive gameplay of the user; after the training, determining a classification of the machine learning model by exposing the machine learning model to one or more scenarios of the video game, and evaluating actions of the machine learning model in response to the one or more scenarios; using the classification of the machine learning model to assign the user to a second session of the video game.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without something significantly more. In the Office Action, the claims are generally addressed as falling within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas, based on an alleged broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant respectfully submits that "generat[ing] video game content to be used in one or more first video games," as recited in amended claims herein, is not something that can be done with the human mind. Furthermore, using "an autoencoder of the one or more neural networks is to encode. to a feature space
information corresponding to the content in the one or more video games," as recited in amended claims herein, is not generic machines or computing components that can reasonably be said to be replaceable with a human using pencil and paper. Further, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is directed to a specific technological improvement in the field of video game content generation. By using neural networks to generate images of gameplay, the claim addresses the technical problem of generating interactive content based on user interactions to enhance the gaming experience. This is a technological improvement over traditional methods of game content generation.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations outlined above, that exclude the additional elements, are limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind, and are considered certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The additional elements identified above are being used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). Providing additional game content based, at least in part, on user interaction with a game is not a technical solution to a technical problem e.g. something specific to improvements to the functioning of a computer or a neural network, etc., but rather provides additional content for a game. Generating game content (including content based on a user interaction with content) pertains to following rules or instructions pertaining to organizing human activity and/or a mental process. The applicant’s disclosure (¶ 2) does provide support for the benefits to providing an alternative means to hiring personal coaches, automated coaching, and video sharing, for improving a player’s abilities or to provide training to a player; however, such disclosure does not relate to the actual improvement of the technology, but rather a means for reducing the cost of coaching and/or providing practice to players. The claims at issue lack integration into a practical application. Applicant’s claimed abstract idea lacks or fails to suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (i.e., improvements to a neural network). The Examiner contends that the claims do not provide an improvement to the technology in which it is generically applied. Additionally, Applicant purports that, “the claim addresses the technical problem of generating interactive content based on user interactions to enhance the gaming experience.” Not only does this not appear to be an improvement to a technical problem as outlined above, the argument and the claims, fail to demonstrate how generating more content, based at least in part, on user interaction with content enhances a user experience. If, for example, a user is interacting with content in a game that they do not enjoy and the system creates more content based on the unenjoyable interaction, this would appear to only create a further unenjoyable experience. The claims simply claim generating game content based, at least in part, on user interaction with content in the game. Nothing in the claim shows an enhanced user experience. More content does not necessarily equate to a better or enhanced experience.
At least based on the above, the 101 rejection of claims 1-20 are herein maintained.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments, see remarks, filed 06/03/2025, with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of claims 1-30 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571)272-7673. 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715