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 amendments dated 8/18/26 are hereby 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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or claim the rules of a game and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular technological environment.
In regard to Claims 1, 10, and 17 the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or recite claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24); in terms of the Applicant claiming:
a […] method for providing accessibility features for a game using an accessibility service, the method comprising:
receiving a selection of an accessibility feature for the game;
receiving current gameplay data;
providing, as input, the current gameplay data to a [statistical/mathematical] model;
generating, using the [statistical/mathematical] model, an accessibility command to implement the accessibility feature in the game, based on the input; and
[implementing] the accessibility command [in] the game, wherein [implementing the accessibility command] comprises applying the accessibility command in combination with player input to implement a gameplay action based on the player input and the accessibility command, thereby causing implementation of the accessibility feature during gameplay, wherein
the selection of the accessibility feature is additionally provided to the [statistical/mathematical] model in the input, or the [statistical/mathematical] model is selected from a plurality of [statistical/mathematical] models to implement the accessibility feature; and
the accessibility command is a gameplay command or a game state command.
In regard to Claims 1, 10, and 17, Applicant claims employing generative machine learning models, which the CAFC has identified as being an abstract idea in, e.g., Recentive Analytics.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or claim the rules of a game and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., using computer vision, a user interface, a computer storage medium, employing generative machine learning models, and/or a processor, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., using computer vision, a user interface, a computer storage medium, employing generative machine learning models, and/or a processor, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., p24 in Applicant’s PGPUB regarding using computer vision, p52 regarding a user interface; e.g., p72 regarding a computer storage medium and/or a processor; and/or, e.g., p21 regarding employing generative machine learning models.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PGPUB US 20210043031 A1 by Keilwert et al (“Keilwert’).
In regard to Claim 1, Keilwert teaches a computer-implemented method for providing accessibility features for a game using an accessibility service, the method comprising:
receiving a selection of an accessibility feature for the game;
(see, e.g., p66, user inputs user parameter; and F3, 302);
receiving current gameplay data;
(see, e.g., F3, 302; p58, 65, and p69 regarding receiving game session parameters);
providing as input the current gameplay data to a generative machine learning model;
(see, e.g., p58, 60 and F3, 306);
providing the accessibility command to an input execution engine for execution by the game, wherein execution of the accessibility command comprises applying the accessibility command in combination with player input to implement a gameplay action based on the player input and the accessibility command, thereby causing implementation of the accessibility feature during gameplay, wherein
(see, e.g., p70-72);
the selection of the accessibility feature is additionally provided to the generative machine learning model in the input, or the generative machine learning model is selected from a plurality of generative machine learning models to implement the accessibility feature; and
(see, e.g., p66, user inputs user parameter; p58, 60, and F3, 306);
the accessibility command is a gamplay command or a game state command
(see, e.g., p70-72).
In regard to Claim 2, Keilwert teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p63.
In regard to Claim 5-7, Keilwert teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p61-62.
In regard to Claim 8, Keilwert teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p63 and 69.
In regard to Claim 17, see rejection of Claim 1.
In regard to Claim 18-20, see rejections of Claims 5-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilwert, in view of PATENT US 9998664 B1 to Long et al (“Long”).
In regard to Claims 3-4, while Keilwert teaches receiving various gameplay data (see, e.g., p63), it may not teach receiving a current view of the game and/or processing that view using computer vision, however, Long teaches that functionality (see, e.g., C15, L60-67);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have captured views of the game and processed them using computer vision in order to provide an additional dimension of gameplay data to the machine learning model.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilwert, in view of admitted prior art.
In regard to Claim 9, while Keilwert teaches employing trained machine learning models it may not teach then further adjusting the training of those models, however,
the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that adjusting the training of a machine learning model was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for additional learning by the model. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to allow for additional learning by the model;
Furthermore, the Applicant failed to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of official notice in a prior Office action and, therefore, these claimed limitations are now admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilwert, in view of PGPUB US 20070202945 A1 by Stopford et al (“Stopford”).
In regard to Claims 10-11, Keilwert teaches the claimed limitations (see rejection of Claim 1) with the exception of employing a software program including a user interface to receive an accessibility feature selection particular to the user profile, however, Stopford teaches that functionality (see, e.g., p43);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the functionality taught by Stopford to the method otherwise taught by Keilwert in order to make receiving user input easier.
In regard to Claim 12, Keilwert teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p65.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilwert, in view of Stopford, further in view of PGPUB US 20130288777 A1 by Short et al (“Short”).
In regard to Claims 13-14, Short teaches modifying and/or supplementing user input based on a user’s accessibility needs and the user’s gameplay control command (see, e.g., p115);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the functionality taught by Short to the method otherwise taught by Keilwert in order to provide additional customization to the user’s needs.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilwert, in view of Stopford, further in view of PGPUB US 20200183957 A1 by Signorelli et al (“Signorelli”).
In regard to Claim 16, the combination of Keilwert and Stopford teaches these limitations with the exception of receiving a suggestion in regard to an accessibility feature, however, Signorelli teaches that functionality (see, e.g., p37);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the functionality taught by Signorelli to the method otherwise taught by the combination of Keilwert and Stopford in order to provide an additional avenue to provide new accessibility features.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 10 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 102:
PNG
media_image1.png
268
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Applicant’s PGPUB at, e.g., p65 discloses examples of “game state commands” as being “e.g., commands to change the state of the game such as game difficulty, the visual state of a game such as highlighting items or adjusting for colorblindness, or provide gameplay tips or hints”, emphasis added. Keilwert teaches providing such highlighting and adjusting at, e.g., p70-72 and, therefore, is within the BRI of the claimed limitations.
Applicant specifically argues on page 14 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image2.png
208
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Collecting data regarding user inputs in order to analyze that data and then provide a differential visual output based on that analysis is abstract as a mental process. See, e.g., the CAFC’s decision in Yousician (non-precedential) holding the subject matter therein to be patent ineligible under the Mayo test where the claims were directed to gathering input data from a human game player, analyzing that data in comparison to a metric, and then providing a differential visual output based on that comparison. Applicant’s other similar arguments are, likewise, unpersuasive for the same reason.
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 extension fee 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 Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights