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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 9/19/2025 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 5 – 7, 9 – 10, 12, 14 – 18 and 20. Therefore, claims 1 – 6, 9 – 18 and 20 are pending.
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 – 6, 9 – 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 18 and 20 are all within at least one of the four categories of invention, and have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1 – 6, 9 – 18 and 20 recites at least one step or instruction for managing game play session, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve concepts performed in the human mind, namely observation, evaluation and judgement, which are mental processes under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 18 and 20 recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A method for establishing a session of gameplay in a cloud computing system, the method comprising:
receiving, over a network connection, at an edge server of the cloud computing system, a request to establish a session of gameplay on a user device (managing personal behavior which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
retrieving, via the edge server, a user profile associated with a user of the user device, wherein the user profile identifies a service level agreement for the session of gameplay (managing personal behavior, which is grouped as a certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
establishing, via the edge server, the session of gameplay based on the identified service level agreement (managing personal behavior which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
evaluating, via the edge server, the service level agreement to determine a first list of available upgrades to the session of gameplay (managing personal behavior which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity and judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process and managing personal behavior under the 2019 PEG); and
providing, over the network connection from the edge server, a user interface to the user device, wherein the user interface allows selection of the determined available upgrades (managing personal behavior which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity and judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process and managing personal behavior under the 2019 PEG).
Independent claim 20 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium, having instructions recorded thereon for establishing a session of gameplay in a cloud computing system, the instructions comprising:
receiving, over a network connection, at an edge server of the cloud computing system, a request to establish a session of gameplay on a user device (managing personal behavior which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
retrieving, via the edge server, a user profile associated with a user of the user device, wherein the user profile identifies a service level agreement for the session of gameplay (managing personal behavior which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
establishing, via the edge server, the session of gameplay based on the identified service level agreement (managing personal behavior which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
evaluating, via the edge server, the service level agreement to determine a first list of available upgrades to the session of gameplay (managing personal behavior which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity and judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process and managing personal behavior under the 2019 PEG); and
providing, over the network connection from the edge server, a user interface to the user device, wherein the user interface allows selection of the determined available upgrades (managing personal behavior which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG).
Accordingly, as indicated in bold above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract
idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2 - 6 and 9 – 18 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 20 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 - 6 and 9 – 18) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 20), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of a computing system, user interface, user device, an edge server as recited in independent Claims 1 and 20 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Furthermore, the edge server and the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims 2 - 6 and 9 – 18) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract
idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.
a cloud computing system, user interface, user device, an edge server as recited in independent claims 1 and 20). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Elmore, US Pub. No. 2015/0012661 A1, discloses media processing in a content delivery network, wherein the edge server may be any conventional computing system capable of manually and/or automatically receiving media content via any transport technique, including pushed or pulled file transfer protocol (FTP), pushed or pulled trivial file transfer protocol (TFTP), hypertext transport protocol (HTTP), really simple syndication (RSS) or other automated syndication (see [0060]).
Vukojevic et al., US Pub. No. 2022/0023755 A1, discloses content adaptive data center in cloud computing environments, wherein some conventional systems rely on content delivery networks (CDNs)—e.g., widely distributed edge servers—to support applications (see [0003]).
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims 2 - 6 and 9 – 18) are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 18 and 20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a cloud computing system, a user device, a processor as recited in independents claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components
which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic
functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as
well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner
(e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev.
Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Like SAP America vs InvestPic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 18 and 20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing
technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a
technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification
for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or
upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide
sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention
as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of
how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the
prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution
that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d
1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide
sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any
technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system of Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 18 and 20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 18 and 20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements
do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified
additional elements in independent Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 18 and 20 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional
elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these
above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed
functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of
generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept
sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the
above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful
limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea
such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 18 and 20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 18 and 20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 18 and 20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the newly amended language that the claims are performed “over a network connection and via an edge server of the cloud computing system” helps overcome the 101 rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
After further review, the independent claims remain to be directed to an abstract idea. Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract
idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.
a cloud computing system, user interface, user device, an edge server as recited in independent claims 1 and 20). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Elmore, US Pub. No. 2015/0012661 A1, discloses media processing in a content delivery network, wherein the edge server may be any conventional computing system capable of manually and/or automatically receiving media content via any transport technique, including pushed or pulled file transfer protocol (FTP), pushed or pulled trivial file transfer protocol (TFTP), hypertext transport protocol (HTTP), really simple syndication (RSS) or other automated syndication (see [0060]).
Vukojevic et al., US Pub. No. 2022/0023755 A1, discloses content adaptive data center in cloud computing environments, wherein some conventional systems rely on content delivery networks (CDNs)—e.g., widely distributed edge servers—to support applications (see [0003]).
According to the October 2019 Update on Eligibility Guidance, the sub-groupings of
certain methods of organizing human activity “encompass both activity of a single person…and
activity that involves multiple people” (p. 5). The October 2019 Update concludes, “thus, certain
activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the ‘certain methods of organizing
human activity’ grouping” (p. 5). Because computer elements do not diminish the recitation of
certain methods of organizing human activity in a claim, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully directs Applicant to claim 3 of Example 37 of the USPTO Section 101 guidelines because a system, processor and an application are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic electronic machine performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same is true for the claimed system. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are therefore directed to the abstract idea.
Further, the October 2019 Update states on pages 4-5 that certain methods of organizing human activity encompass both activity of a single person as well as activity that involves multiple people. The guidance also notes that certain activities between a person and a computer may still fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, the instant claims, which include receiving a request, establishing a session and evaluating service level, are properly construed as certain methods of organizing human activity.
Examiner directs Applicant to the October 2019 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility states “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and “[c]laims 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” (p. 8). Furthermore, the October 2019 Update states, “examiners may review the specification to determine if the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept” (p. 8). Evaluating the service level agreement can merely be a mental process that can be performed by a generic computer or program. Therefore, the limitations are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”), as there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology to technical field.
Therefore, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea for managing game play session executed on generic and conventional computing devices. There is not any indication that the invention provides a technological solution to a technical problem. Rather, the claimed invention merely recites a technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be practiced. Therefore, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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.
/A.D/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715