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 is in response to the amendments filed on 10/2/25. Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 17, and 19 have been amended, claim 9 has been cancelled, and claim 21 has been added. Claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 21 are now pending in the current application.
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 – 8 and 10 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
I. The claims are drawn to apparatus, process and CRM categories.
II. Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2a:
III. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A computer implemented method comprising: receiving user input from a user during gameplay of a virtual experience; rendering a first game state of gameplay of the virtual experience on a user device based on the user input, wherein the first game state is described by a set of properties; generating a list of changes in properties between the first game state and a second game state, wherein the second game state occurred before the first game state; in response to a size of the list of changes exceeding a predetermined size threshold, removing one or more oldest changes in the list; receiving a request from the user to replay the second game state; and rendering the second game state of gameplay by reversing the list of changes between the first game state and the second game state.
The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Commercial or legal interactions
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims are directed towards incentivizing the behavior of users playing a game via group agreements or contract. This is viewed by the Examiner as commercial interaction and managing personal behavior or relationships between people, which are all considered to be abstract ideas according to the 2019 guidelines.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
iii. Although the claims recite additional limitations, such as one or more processors and at least one server, the said additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require
additional limitations such as an interface, processor, and display components.
iv. These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claim language does not recite any additional elements such as a medium storing a program, however, wherein, viewed as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1 – 3, 10, 11 – 13, and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al. (U.S. 2018/0367484).
Regarding claim 1, Rodriguez discloses a computer implemented method comprising receiving user input from a user during gameplay of a virtual experience, rendering a first game state a gameplay of the virtual experience on user device based on the user input, wherein the first game state is described by a set of properties, (“a game application causing display of game data in the embedded interface, wherein the embedded interface is configured to receive input from a user that changes one or more states of the game application, and wherein at least one of the one or more suggested response items includes one or more suggested commands operative to modify at least one state of the game application”, par. 0008), generating a list of changes in properties between a first and second game state, (“a game may be updated to one or more different game states (e.g., a state of the game indicating a different position of a game piece or player character in a game environment, a state of the game indicating a win, loss, or change in a player's score, etc.), a shared list may be updated to add, remove, or change one or more items on the list”, par. 0104), wherein the second game state occurred before the first game state, receiving a request from the user to replay the second game state, (“Registering the synchronized times at which states occur or change in the embedded session may allow accurate replaying of a recorded version of the embedded session at a later time by a different member user”, par. 0164), and rendering the second game state of gameplay be reversing the list of changes between the first and second game states, (“For example, the user information may indicate that the second user has selected to be a player role in an embedded game application, where such a player role allows a user to affect game states in the game”, par. 0156).
Rodriguez discloses updating the list, but is silent on explicitly disclosing removing one or more oldest changes in the list, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to remove the oldest changes in a list in response to exceeding a predetermined threshold, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Regarding claims 2, 17, and 18, Rodriguez discloses displaying a user interface that includes options to replay the gameplay from the second game state to the first game state, display the gameplay backwards from the first game state to the second game state, pause the gameplay, and return to a current game state of gameplay of the virtual experience, (“if the suggestion event is a particular detected type of scene or sequence (e.g., a detected action scene or sequence) that has been detected to have occurred in the media item, suggested commands can include rewinding the playback position a particular amount of time to replay the detected scene or sequence from the start of that scene”, par. 0277).
Regarding claim 3, Rodriguez discloses receiving a selection from the user of an option to display the gameplay backwards from the first game state to the second game state; and decrementing a frame counter while reversing the list of changes from the first game state to the second game state, (“suggested commands can include rewinding the playback position a particular amount of time to replay the detected scene or sequence from the start of that scene”, par. 0277).
Regarding claim 10, Rodriguez discloses wherein the changes between the first game state and the second game state are grouped by a frame number in which one or more of the changes occurred, (“the playback is initiated at the start of a sequence of content data of the media item, e.g., a first frame of a video data segment and/or first portion of an audio segment. In some examples, the playback can include displaying frames of video data in the embedded interface”, par. 0201).
Regarding claim 13, Rodriguez discloses wherein the operations further include determining a player associated with the object based on the list of changes, (“an embedded game application and session can cause an interactive card to be displayed indicating one or more of the following, if user consent has been obtained: the number of players and observers in the game, identifications of member users, current scores of players, game objectives achieved, one or more images showing screenshots or portions thereof of game events or objects, a displayed option to input a comment or rating to the game or to a particular player of the game”, par. 0176).
Regarding claim 16, Rodriguez discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions that, when executed by one or more processors at a user device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: receiving user input from a user during gameplay of a virtual experience; rendering a first game state of gameplay of the virtual experience on a user device based on the user input, wherein the first game state is described by a set of properties, (“a game application causing display of game data in the embedded interface, wherein the embedded interface is configured to receive input from a user that changes one or more states of the game application, and wherein at least one of the one or more suggested response items includes one or more suggested commands operative to modify at least one state of the game application”, par. 0008), generating a list of changes in properties between a first and second game state, (“a game may be updated to one or more different game states (e.g., a state of the game indicating a different position of a game piece or player character in a game environment, a state of the game indicating a win, loss, or change in a player's score, etc.), a shared list may be updated to add, remove, or change one or more items on the list”, par. 0104), wherein the second game state occurred before the first game state, receiving a request from the user to replay the second game state, (“Registering the synchronized times at which states occur or change in the embedded session may allow accurate replaying of a recorded version of the embedded session at a later time by a different member user”, par. 0164), and rendering the second game state of gameplay be reversing the list of changes between the first and second game states, (“For example, the user information may indicate that the second user has selected to be a player role in an embedded game application, where such a player role allows a user to affect game states in the game”, par. 0156), and displaying a user interface that includes options to replay the gameplay from the second game state to the first game state, display the gameplay backwards from the first game state to the second game state, pause the gameplay, (“allow accurate replaying of a recorded version of the embedded session at a later time by a different member user”, par. 0164), and return to a current game state of gameplay of the virtual experience and an option to report a translation error that occurs in the virtual experience, (“a translation bot that translates incoming and outgoing messages, a scheduling bot that schedules events on a user's calendar, etc. In this example, translation bot is activated only upon user's specific permission. If the user does not provide consent, bots within messaging application 103a/103b are not implemented (e.g., disabled, removed, etc.). If the user provides consent, a bot or messaging application 103a/103b may make limited use of messages exchanged between users”, par. 0423).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al. (U.S. 2018/0367484) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Rudi et al. (U.S. 2022/0111297).
Regarding claim 11, Rodriguez discloses a system comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, with instructions stored thereon, (“a system includes a memory and at least one processor configured to access the memory and configured to perform operations”, par. 0010), when executed, cause the processor to receive user input from a user during gameplay of a virtual experience, rendering a first game state a gameplay of the virtual experience on user device based on the user input, wherein the first game state is described by a set of properties, (“a game application causing display of game data in the embedded interface, wherein the embedded interface is configured to receive input from a user that changes one or more states of the game application, and wherein at least one of the one or more suggested response items includes one or more suggested commands operative to modify at least one state of the game application”, par. 0008), and generating a list of changes in properties between a first and second game state, (“a game may be updated to one or more different game states (e.g., a state of the game indicating a different position of a game piece or player character in a game environment, a state of the game indicating a win, loss, or change in a player's score, etc.), a shared list may be updated to add, remove, or change one or more items on the list”, par. 0104).
Rodriguez, however, is silent on the issue of receiving a report of abuse from a user. In a related art, Rudi discloses a system with a processor and a memory, (fig. 1b), wherein Rudi further discloses receiving a report of abuse from the user that includes a recording of the gameplay between the first game state and the second game state, and an avatar or an object associated with the abuse, wherein the recording of the gameplay is a replay of the gameplay from the second game state to the first game state generated by applying the list of changes to the first game state; and providing the report of abuse to a moderator or a machine-learning model to output a determination of abuse, (“a method for verifying behavior associated with play of a game is described. The method includes receiving a characterization of a first player from a user account as being abusive and accessing a recording of the behavior of the first player stored for a pre-determined time period in response to receiving the characterization of the first player. The method further includes analyzing, by an artificial intelligence model, the behavior of the first player to determine whether the behavior is abusive. The operation of analyzing whether the behavior of the first player is abusive is performed to determine whether the characterization of the first player is accurate”, par. 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the reporting of abuse teachings of Rudi into the art disclosed by Rodriguez in order to give less time for a game developer to review a large amount of data during a play of the game to decide whether the player is abusive or praiseworthy, as disclosed by Rudi, (par. 0009).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20, Rodriguez discloses options in a user interface, (fig. 8a), but is silent on disclosing an option of reporting abuse in the video game. In a related art, Rudi discloses a user interface, (fig. 1b), wherein Rudi further discloses that said user interface including an option to report abuse in a virtual experience, (“The processor is configured to receive a characterization of a first player from a user account as being abusive”, par. 0007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 21 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claims 6 – 8 and 21, no prior art rejection was made with respect to these claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715