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
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 01/15/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth herein; therefore, this action is made Final.
Claims 14, 21-26 were cancelled.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
Claims 1-13, 15-20, and 27 are now 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 1-13, 15-20, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1-13, 15-20, and 27 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a method and a system in claims 1-13, 15-20, and 27. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Independent Claim 1 (and similarly recited Claim 27) recites the following: “1. (Currently Amended) A method for sharing gaming experiences through a social media platform, the method comprising:
detecting a first user has launched a gaming session on a gaming platform, the first user having associated profile data, wherein the associated profile data comprises historic gaming data and social media profile data;
generating a proxy user based on the associated profile data;
receiving a request to join the proxy gaming session with the proxy user from a second user, the second user from the social media platform; and
establishing the proxy gaming session with the second user and the proxy user on the gaming platform.”
Claim 27 recites: “27. (Currently Amended) A system for sharing gaming experiences through a social media platform comprising:
data storage and processing circuitry, the processing circuitry configured to execute computer-readable instructions that configure the computing system to:
detect a first user has launched a gaming session on a gaming platform, the first user having associated profile data, wherein the associated profile data comprises historic gaming data and social media profile data;
generate a proxy user with a model stored in the data storage based on the associated profile data;
generate, on the social media platform via the first user's social media profile, an invitation ;
receive a request to join the proxy gaming session with the proxy user from a second user, the second user from the social media platform; and
establish the proxy gaming session with the second user and the proxy user on the gaming platform.”
The underlined portions of representative claim 1 generally encompass as a whole, describe collecting, analyzing, and using information to facilitate interaction between users, including generating a representation of a user and enabling others to interact with that representation. The abstract idea of the claims may be viewed, for example, as:
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., social interaction, gaming participation, advertising to users) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; and/or
mental processes/data processing, including collecting data, analyzing it, and providing results, as discussed in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is abstract).
Further, dependent Claims 2 to 13, and 15 to 20 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.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, and 27 (and their respective dependent Claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., data storage and processing circuitry as claimed). 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. Additionally the additional elements of: data storage and processing circuitry, the processing circuitry configured to execute computer-readable instructions that configure the computing system are generically recited computer elements in the claims that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Additionally, for example, 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. Furthermore, the additional elements do not 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. The claim merely uses generic computing systems as tools to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent Claims is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements recite a data storage and processing circuitry, the processing circuitry configured to execute computer-readable instructions that configure the computing system. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. 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. Additionally, the “proxy user” is defined functionally and at a high level of abstraction, without any specific technical implementation or improvement. The claim merely invokes generic computing components to achieve a desired result.
As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
Furthermore, the recitation of the above-identified generic computer limitations in Claims 1 to 13, 15 to 20 and 27 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) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). 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. Therefore, none of the Claims 1 to 13, 15 to 20 and 27 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1 to 13, 15 to 20 and 27 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 the 2019 PEG.
AIA Notice
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0064968 A1 to Youm et al. (hereinafter Youm) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0015746 A1 to Mooney et al. (hereinafter Mooney).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claim 27, (Currently Amended) Youm discloses a method for sharing gaming experiences through a social media platform, the method comprising:
detecting a first user has launched a gaming session on a gaming platform, the first user having associated profile data, wherein the associated profile data comprises historic gaming data and social media profile data (paras. [0088]-[0089], [0176]-[0178]);
profile, an invitation the gaming session for a plurality of users of the social media platform to join a proxy gaming session with the proxy user (paras. [0275]-[0276]);
receiving a request to join the proxy gaming session with the proxy user from a second user, the second user from the social media platform (paras. [0112], [0276], [0285]-[0286]); and
establishing the proxy gaming session with the second user and the proxy user on the gaming platform (paras. [0112], [0276], [0285]-[0286]).
However, Youn does not explicitly disclose generating a proxy user based on the associated profile data. In a related invention, Mooney discloses a similar interactive gaming system in which systems and methods generate proxies for players in a game. Mooney discloses generating a proxy user based on the associated profile data (paras. [0042]-[0043], [0048] discloses where a player and a friend are playing in real time with each other, the game engine can create a proxy of the friend as soon as the friend logs off from the game, such that the player can continue play without losing the benefits derived from playing with his friend. For example, Player 105 and Friend 3.sub.1 120 can play together in a multiuser online game at the same time and thereby assist each other within the game).
Youm generally discloses a hybrid synchronous (i.e. live)-asynchronous (i.e. simulated live, or apparently live) game play based in part on prior game play, where game records may be downloaded by all live players prior to game play. Mooney generally discloses systems and methods to generate proxies for players in a game are described. In some embodiments, a method accesses social network information associated with a player of a game. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Youm to include the proxy player as disclosed in Mooney in order to improve realism and personalization of virtual players when substituting for another player.
Regarding Claim 2, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the proxy user is generated using a reinforcement learning algorithm based on the historic gaming data (Youm, paras. [0088]-[0089]).
Regarding Claim 3, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a proxy gaming profile for the proxy user (Mooney, paras. [0042]-[0043], [0048]).
Regarding Claim 4, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
creating a cloud-based interface between the gaming platform and the social media platform (Youm, para. [0175]-[0178]); and
associating the first user's gaming profile and social media profile (Youm, para. [0175]-[0178]).
Regarding Claim 5, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising:
extracting computing device data from a first user computing device, the data comprising at least one or more of: video game console model, PC hardware capabilities, mobile device hardware capabilities, gaming platform data, games library data, purchased games data, downloaded games data, or save game data (Youm, paras. [00869], [0089]);
transmitting the computing device data through the cloud-based interface to the social media platform (Youm, paras. [00869], [0089]); and
filtering content on the social media platform based on the extracted computing device data (Youm, paras. [00869], [0089]).
Regarding Claim 6, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising: displaying gaming profile data on the social media platform, the game profile data comprising one or more of: skill level, game statistics, hours played, platform of choice, kill/death ratio, character choice, or play style (Youm, paras. [0208], [0261]-[0264]).
Regarding Claim 7, (Currently Amended) Youm in view of Mooney discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising:
extracting social media data from the first user's social media platform, the social media profile data comprising one or more of: a verification badge, follower count, like count, comments, sharing features, or a profile picture (Youm, paras. [0101], [0270]);
transmitting the social media data through the cloud-based interface to the gaming platform (Youm, paras. [0101], [0270]); and
displaying the social media data on the gaming platform (Youm, paras. [0101], [0270]) [[,]].
Regarding Claim 8, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
monitoring, during a future gaming session, gameplay data of the first user (Youm, paras. [0096]);
storing the gameplay data (Youm, paras. [0096]); and
updating the proxy user based on the gameplay data (Youm, paras. [0096]).
Regarding Claim 9, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
requesting feedback, from the second user, on the performance of the proxy user in the proxy gaming in session (Youm, paras. [0091], [0140]-[0141]); and
receiving the feedback on the performance of the proxy user from the second user (Youm, paras. [0091], [0140]-[0141]).
Regarding Claim 10, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:
determining a social score of the closeness of the second user to the first user, wherein the social score is based on one or more of: watch time, follow time, subscriber status, comments, likes, or direct message count (Mooney, paras. [0042], [0044]);
assigning a weighting to the feedback on the performance of the proxy user based on the social score (Mooney, paras. [0042], [0044]); and
updating the proxy user based on the weighted feedback (Mooney, paras. [0042], [0044]).
Regarding Claim 11, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: in response to the feedback of the performance of the proxy user, adjusting a difficulty level of the proxy user's gaming profile (Youm, para. [0092]).
Regarding Claim 12, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney discloses the method of claim 11, wherein adjusting of the difficulty of the proxy user improves at least one of: accuracy, decision making speed, or reaction time, of the proxy user (Youm, para. [0092]).
Regarding Claim 13, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney discloses the method of claim 11, wherein adjusting the difficulty of the proxy user does not change at least one of: playstyle, weapon choice, or strategy choice, of the proxy user (Youm, para. [0092]).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0015746 A1 to Mooney et al. (hereinafter Mooney) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0064968 A1 to Youm et al. (hereinafter Youm) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0306638 A1 to Fear et al. (hereinafter Fear).
Regarding Claim 15, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
recording voice data from the first user;
extracting features from the voice data; and
training a custom voice model to represent the first user's voice.
In a related invention, Fear discloses
recording voice data from the first user (paras. [0005]-[0009]);
extracting features from the voice data (paras. [0005]-[0009]); and
training a custom voice model to represent the first user's voice (paras. [0005]-[0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Fear with the gaming system of Youm and Mooney in order to improve game data collection to further enhance game play enjoyment among multiple players and multiple interactions among different players of the game.
Regarding Claim 16, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney in view of Fear discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising:
generating, with a natural language model, real-time gameplay commentary during the proxy gaming session (Fear, paras. [0005]-[0009], [0039]-[0040];
generating, with the custom voice model, a sound clip based on the gameplay commentary (Fear, paras. [0005]-[0009]); and
broadcasting, from the proxy user, the sound clip during the proxy gaming session (Fear, paras. [0005]-[0009]).
Regarding Claim 17, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney in view of Fear discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the commentary discusses at least one or more of: play styles of the first user, skill level of players, game statistics of the proxy gaming session, kill/death ratio of the second user, kill/death ratio of the proxy user, character choice of the proxy user profile, insults, compliments, jokes, and strategies for playing with the proxy user (Fear, paras. [0005]-[0009]).
Regarding Claim 18, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney in view of Fear discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a request to replay the proxy gaming session from the second user after the proxy gaming session has ended (Youm, paras. [0083], Fear, paras. [0005]-[0009], [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding Claim 19, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney in view of Fear discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising replaying the proxy gaming session with the second user, and the proxy user (Fear, paras. [0005]-[0009], [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding Claim 20, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney in view of Fear discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the proxy gaming session further comprises a plurality of other users, and the method further comprising: generating a proxy user for each other user from the proxy gaming session (Mooney, paras. [0042]-[0044]); and replaying the proxy gaming session with the second user, and all proxy users (Youm, paras. [0083]).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as it pertains to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101. On page 7, Applicant contends that Claims 1 and 27 are “directed to a technological improvement to computer gaming technology”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention of claim 1 isn’t explicitly performed on a machine and does not recite limitations that are beyond the ability of a human with the benefit of pen and paper. The involvement of social media as a platform as in recited in Applicant specification notes in [0007] “A social media platform may be any website, application, or infrastructure that enables internet-based communication between users of the platform.”. So while it is a consideration, the phrase is so broadly presented that it doesn’t limit the technical environment beyond the mere use of a computer. The use of a reinforcement learning algorithm appears to be limited to only to claim 2, and appears merely as extra solution activity that is not critical to the invention as claimed and is not specific enough in nature to be tied to any specific advantage or overcoming any stated problem. Thus, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
Claims 1-13, 15-20, and 27 are examined above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights