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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/13/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 3/31/26. Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 11, and 13 – 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: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 12 are directed towards a method, (process), and claims 13 – 20 are directed towards an apparatus and medium, (machine), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
1. 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, based at least in part on the sensor data and the session data, a first inference associated with a first user quality and a second inference associated with a second user quality, the second user quality having a different expected rate of change as compared to the first user quality; generating a first set of moderation parameters based at least in part on the first inference and the content; determining, from a profile of a user associated with the user device, a second set of moderation parameters based at least in part on the second inference; modifying the content based at least in part on the first set of moderation parameters and the second set of moderation parameters; and causing the user device to present the modified content in the gameplay session.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 1, 13, and 20. Dependent claims 2 – 12 and 14 - 29 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims recite limitations which can practically be performed by one or more human through a mental process, (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic server that receives data from a generic sensor which then generates and determines parameters based on the received data, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
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: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite server and sensor components, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements 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 as the claims do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application or add an “inventive concept” beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and functions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 102 rejection of claims 1 – 20 in the final rejection dated 1/2/26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of claims 1 - 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 1 - 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 – 20, Applicants argue that “the amended claims do not recite patent ineligible subject matter”. It is also argued that “amended claim 1 integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application at least because claim 1 includes additional elements that result in an improvement to the technical field”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims are directed towards a system and method that generates inferences based on observation of player data during a game session, wherein this data is used to determine parameters to modify content in a game session. This is directed to the mental process of observing a player playing a game in order to recommend changes to be made in play of a game. For example, an individual could provide, by watching a game being played, a recommendation or opinion about what part of the game should be modified. This is viewed as a mental activity, wherein the amended claim language does not reflect an improvement gaming technology nor does it provide a solution to a technical problem. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that claims 1 – 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights