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 9/15/25. Claims 1 – 20 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are 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 - 20 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 method implemented on a server, the method comprising: receiving sensor data generated by a sensor of a user device; generating session data of a gameplay session between the user device and the server, the gameplay session including the server sending content to the user device; generating one or more inferences regarding user qualities based at least in part on the sensor data and the session data; generating, a set of moderation parameters based at least in part on the user qualities and the content modifying the content based at least in part on the set of moderation parameters; and causing the user device to present the modified content in the gameplay session.
The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract idea 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 a commercial interactions 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 a processor, interface, memory 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 recite a user device, however, this 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 § 102
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 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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Chappell et al. (U.S. 2023/0047787).
Regarding claim 1, Chappell discloses a method implemented on a server, (fig. 1), the method comprising receiving sensor data generated by a sensor of a user device, (“sensor data can be collected and processed locally, and transmitted to a server that processes biometric sensor data from one or more subjects”, par. 0045), generating session data of a gameplay session between the user device and the server, the gameplay server including the server sending content to the user device (“client devices may be, or may include, computers used by users to access video games or other applications facilitating social interaction provided via a server”, par. 0049), generating one or more inferences regarding user qualities based at least in part on the sensor data and the session data, (“The method may include receiving sensor data from at least one sensor positioned to sense a neuro-physiological response of at least one user”, par. 0009), generating, a set of moderation parameters based at least in part on the user qualities and the content, modifying the content based at least in part on the set of moderation parameters, and causing the user device to present the modified content in the gameplay session (“FIG. 10 illustrates aspects of a method 1000 for controlling a social interaction application using biometric sensor data. The method may apply to various different games and ways of social interaction, in which any one or more of the following occurs: (1) the user receives an indication of one or more CNS measurements for himself or herself; (2) other players, spectators or monitors receive an indication of the user's CNS measurements, or (3) the application changes operating parameters, game play, or takes some other action”, par. 0099).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Chappell discloses wherein the one or more inferences regarding user qualities indicate include at least one of: an age, a maturity level, a demographic, a geographic locality, a culture, a language, or a diction, (“the baseline neuro-physiological responses may be obtained from a database of biometric data (e.g., 610: FIG. 6), and it may be specific to a given player (to the extent the database already contains baseline data previously obtained from the player), or alternatively, a set of generic baseline data may be assigned to the specific player based on a set of baseline data attributable to the cultural or demographic category to which the player belongs”, par. 0106).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Chappell discloses wherein the one or more inferences regarding user qualities indicate include at least one of an energy level, a mood, an emotional state, or a mental state, (“consumers of video games or social interaction applications from which a system node collects neuro-physiological response data for use in determining a digital representation of emotional state for use in the game”, par. 0048).
Regarding claim 5, Chappell discloses wherein the sensor data includes one or more audio segments sent over a communication network from the user device, (“The microphone can be used as a sensor for detection of neuro-physiological (e.g., emotional) state and as a device for user input of verbal commands, or for social verbal responses to other users”, par. 0060).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Chappell discloses wherein the method further comprises updating the set of moderation parameters after a threshold duration of time by applying the trained a machine-learning model to updated sensor data to generated updated inferences, (“As a result, the analysis server 1230 may determine that the absolute value of (Valence Predict—Valence Measured) is now close to zero and the arousal error now exceeds the threshold. Such updated error values may indicate that the player actor 2004 is finding the VR game or the social experience more realistic, interesting, fulfilling, and amusing”, par. 0188).
Regarding claim 7, Chappell discloses wherein the set of moderation parameters includes instructions for at least one of: language moderation, graphic content moderation, gameplay difficulty settings, or other gameplay moderation, (“the application changes operating parameters, game play, or takes some other action”, par. 0099).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 18, and 19, Chappell discloses wherein the set of moderation parameters includes instructions for mimicking a user of the user device and receiving feedback via a user interface of the user device that indicates one or more modifications to the inferences; and updating the set of moderation parameters based at least in part on the indicated one or more modifications to the inferences, wherein a subsequent gameplay session with the user device is moderated according to the modified updated set of moderation parameters, (“Other applications may use biometric feedback in a strategy game involving obfuscation of the strength of a player's standing, for example, regarding military unit or equipment strength, anticipation of attacks, retreats, ruses, ambushes and bluffs. Availability of biometric feedback for all the players in the strategy game may be provided to human or computer opponents to enhance the determined accuracy of an opponent or opponents' state and intent, to increase the challenge of the game”, par. 0117).
Regarding claims 10 – 12, Chappell discloses moderating future gameplay sessions and modifying one or more NPCs within the gameplay session according to the set of moderation parameters, (“Other applications may use biometric feedback in a strategy game involving obfuscation of the strength of a player's standing, for example, regarding military unit or equipment strength, anticipation of attacks, retreats, ruses, ambushes and bluffs. Availability of biometric feedback for all the players in the strategy game may be provided to human or computer opponents to enhance the determined accuracy of an opponent or opponents' state and intent, to increase the challenge of the game”, par. 0117).
Regarding claim 13, Chappell discloses communication interface that communicates over a communication network with a user device, one or more storage media storing instructions, (fig. 1), to receive sensor data generated by a sensor of the user device, (“sensor data can be collected and processed locally, and transmitted to a server that processes biometric sensor data from one or more subjects”, par. 0045), generate session data of a gameplay session between the user device and the server, the gameplay server including the server sending content to the user device (“client devices may be, or may include, computers used by users to access video games or other applications facilitating social interaction provided via a server”, par. 0049), generate one or more inferences regarding user qualities based at least in part on the sensor data and the session data, (“The method may include receiving sensor data from at least one sensor positioned to sense a neuro-physiological response of at least one user”, par. 0009), generate a set of moderation parameters based at least in part on the user qualities and the content, modify the content based at least in part on the set of moderation parameters, and cause the user device to present the modified content in the gameplay session (“FIG. 10 illustrates aspects of a method 1000 for controlling a social interaction application using biometric sensor data. The method may apply to various different games and ways of social interaction, in which any one or more of the following occurs: (1) the user receives an indication of one or more CNS measurements for himself or herself; (2) other players, spectators or monitors receive an indication of the user's CNS measurements, or (3) the application changes operating parameters, game play, or takes some other action”, par. 0099).
Regarding claim 14, Chappell discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the computing apparatus to generate a user interface based at least in part on output from a machine learning model applied to a user profile associated with the user device, (“The correlation module 206 may include instructions that when executed by the processor 202 and/or 214 cause the server to correlate biometric sensor data to one or more neuro-physiological (e.g., emotional) states of the user, using machine learning (ML) or other processes”, par. 0052).
Regarding claim 20, Chappell discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having embodied thereon instructions executable by a computer to perform a method for content moderation, (fig. 1), the method comprising: receiving, by a server, sensor data generated by a sensor of a user device(“sensor data can be collected and processed locally, and transmitted to a server that processes biometric sensor data from one or more subjects”, par. 0045), generate session data of a gameplay session between the user device and the server, the gameplay server including the server sending content to the user device (“client devices may be, or may include, computers used by users to access video games or other applications facilitating social interaction provided via a server”, par. 0049), generate one or more inferences regarding user qualities based at least in part on the sensor data and the session data, (“The method may include receiving sensor data from at least one sensor positioned to sense a neuro-physiological response of at least one user”, par. 0009), generate a set of moderation parameters based at least in part on the user qualities and the content, modify the content based at least in part on the set of moderation parameters, and cause the user device to present the modified content in the gameplay session (“FIG. 10 illustrates aspects of a method 1000 for controlling a social interaction application using biometric sensor data. The method may apply to various different games and ways of social interaction, in which any one or more of the following occurs: (1) the user receives an indication of one or more CNS measurements for himself or herself; (2) other players, spectators or monitors receive an indication of the user's CNS measurements, or (3) the application changes operating parameters, game play, or takes some other action”, par. 0099).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 – 20, Applicants argue that the newly amended claims “recite significantly more than a judicial exception because such elements are not well-understood, routine, and conventional activities for the relevant game content moderation industry”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to this, while the Examiner acknowledges the recent claim amendments, the current claim language still does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. The claims are directed towards an apparatus that receives sensor data generated by a user device and generating inferences with respect to the received sensor data. The claims are clearly directed towards commercial interactions, and managing personal relationships. The claimed additional components such as a server are well-known, routine, and conventional that does not add anything significantly more to the abstract idea, wherein, furthermore, the claim language is absent of any interface and display components. All the elements claimed, does not mean the claimed invention is rooted in a gaming environment. The Applicants are fully encouraged to contact the Examiner regarding claim language in order to help further prosecution. Viewed as a whole, the present claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the present invention is not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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