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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 07/01/2026.
Claims 1-13, 15-20, and 27 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 is objected to because it recites “… the proxy in game session,” which appears to be a typographical error. It should instead read “… the proxy gaming session.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “… the game profile data…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites “… the proxy user profile …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, Prong 1
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).
The limitations of the claim recite detecting that a first user launched a gaming session, inviting the first user’s social media contacts to join, receiving a request generated when one contact accepts, and based at least in part on that request, generating a stand-in (proxy user) from the user’s historic gaming and social media data. These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Additionally, the limitations recite detecting that a session began and evaluating a person’s recorded history to decide how a proxy should behave. These are considered a series of steps which can be practically performed in the human mind through mental processes (for example, observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion)(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The limitations of the independent and dependent claims include the following abstract ideas below in italicized claim language:
Independent Claim 1 recites: “1. (Currently Amended) A method for sharing gaming experiences through a social media platform, the method comprising:
detecting, at a gaming platform, a first user gaming profile has launched a gaming session gaming profile having associated profile data, wherein the associated profile data comprises historic gaming data and social media profile data (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
generating, by[[on]] the social media platform via the first user's a first user social media profile associated with the first user gaming profile, an invitation for a plurality of users social media profiles of the social media platform to join a proxy gaming session, wherein each social media profile of the plurality of social media profiles is associated with a respective gaming profile with the proxy user (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
receiving, at the gaming platform, a request to join the proxy gaming session with the proxy user from a second user, wherein the request is generated in response to a second user social media profile of the plurality of social media profiles accepting the invitation the second user from the social media platform (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people), [[and]]
based at least in part on the request to join the proxy gaming session, generating, by the gaming platform, a proxy user based on the associated profile data of the first user gaming profile (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
establishing, by the gaming platform, the proxy gaming session with [[the ]]a second user gaming profile associated with the second user social media profile of the plurality of social media profiles and the proxy user (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
wherein the proxy user is generated using a reinforcement learning algorithm based on the historic gaming data (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
further comprising generating a proxy gaming profile for the proxy user (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
further comprising creating a cloud-based interface between the gaming platform and the social media platform; and linking the first user[['s]] gaming profile and the first user social media profile (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
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 (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
transmitting the computing device data through the cloud-based interface to the social media platform (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
filtering content on the social media platform based on the extracted computing device data (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
displaying gaming profile data of the first user gaming profile on the social media platform, the game profile data of the first user gaming profile comprising one or more of: skill level, game statistics, hours played, platform of choice, kill/death ratio, character choice, or play style (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
extracting social media profile data associated with the first user gaming profile from the (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
transmitting the social media profile data through the cloud-based interface to the gaming platform (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
displaying the social media profile data on the gaming platform (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
monitoring, during a future gaming session, gameplay data of the first user gaming profile (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
storing the gameplay data (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
updating the proxy user based on the gameplay data (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
requesting feedback, from the second user gaming profile, on the performance of the proxy user in the proxy gaming in session (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
receiving the feedback on the performance of the proxy user from the second user gaming profile (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
determining a social score of[[ the]]_a closeness [[of ]]between the second user social media profile to the first user social media profile, wherein the social score is based on one or more of: watch time, follow time, subscriber status, comments, likes, or direct message count (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
assigning a weighting to the feedback on the performance of the proxy user based on the social score (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
updating the proxy user based on the weighted feedback (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
in response to the feedback of the performance of the proxy user, adjusting a difficulty level of [[the ]]a proxy gaming profile of the proxy user's gaming profile (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
wherein adjusting of the difficulty level of the proxy gaming profile of the proxy user improves at least one of: accuracy, decision making speed, or reaction time, of the proxy user (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
wherein adjusting the difficulty level of the proxy gaming profile of the proxy user does not change at least one of: playstyle, weapon choice, or strategy choice, of the proxy user (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
recording voice data from the first user gaming profile (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
extracting features from the voice data (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
training a custom voice model to represent [[the ]]a first user's voice of the first user gaming profile (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
generating, with a natural language model, real-time gameplay commentary during the proxy gaming session (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
generating, with the custom voice model, a sound clip based on the gameplay commentary, and broadcasting, from the proxy user, the sound clip during the proxy gaming session (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
wherein the real-time gameplay commentary discusses at least one or more of: play styles of the first user gaming profile, skill level of players, game statistics of the proxy gaming session, kill/death ratio of the second user gaming profile, kill/death ratio of the proxy user profile, character choice of the proxy user profile, insults, compliments, jokes, and strategies for playing with the proxy user profile (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
receiving a request to replay the proxy gaming session from the second user gaming profile after the proxy gaming session has ended (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
replaying the proxy gaming session with the second user gaming profile, and [[the ]]a proxy gaming profile of the proxy user (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people),
wherein the proxy gaming session further comprises a plurality of user gaming profiles, and the method further comprising generating a proxy user for each other user gaming profile of the plurality of user gaming profiles from the proxy gaming session (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people), and
replaying the proxy gaming session with the second user gaming profile, and all proxy [[users]]user gaming profiles (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
The steps/limitations identified above are akin to a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus falls within the groupings of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
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 (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
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 (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims are the gaming platform, the social media platform, data storage, processing circuitry, a cloud-based interface, a computing device (claims 4-5), a reinforcement learning algorithm (claim 2), and a custom voice model and natural language model (claims 15-16). These additional elements
are recited at a high level of generality and merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The platforms and circuitry perform the ordinary functions of receiving, storing, and transmitting data. This is mere instruction to apply the exception on generic computers. The receiving and monitoring steps is a form of data gathering and the displaying steps is the mere display of information, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, these additional elements in the claims do no more than automate the organizing activities needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality).
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
Here, 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. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), 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 (i.e. video gaming/game scene/environment), such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 27, and their dependent claims, as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1-13, 15-20, and 27 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements are indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) by the following considerations:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
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 (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).; and
The examiner also evaluates whether the additional elements add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)), which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present.
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)); generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)); or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo)).
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 identified under Prong 2, are generically claimed. Displaying , determining, receiving , updating, transmitting, and outputting data are among the functions recognized as conventional in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 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.
Furthermore, taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in the claims do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. The above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 1-13, 15-20, and 27 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 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) and further in view of U.S. Patent 10,940,393 B2 to Somers.
Regarding Claim 1, (Currently Amended) Youm discloses a method for sharing gaming experiences through a social media platform, the method comprising:
detecting, at a gaming platform, a first user gaming profile has launched a gaming session gaming profile having associated profile data, wherein the associated profile data comprises historic gaming data and social media profile data (paras. [0088]-[0089], [0176]-[0178] discloses receiving a request for game play 150, the request including desired opponent information relating to a desired opponent, (2) in response to the request, cause game play data to be retrieved, where the game play data was stored in response to prior game play 152 of a game player that meets the requirements identified by the desired opponent information, and (3) in further response to the request, provide an asynchronous game play environment where an active participant 130AP, who made the request, is able to play against and interact with, at least more than once during an active period of game play, an apparently live participant 158 based on the game play data. );
generating, by[[on]] the social media platform via the first user's a first user social media profile associated with the first user gaming profile, an invitation for a plurality of users social media profiles of the social media platform to join a proxy gaming session (paras. [0273]-[0276] discloses a hybrid synchronous (i.e. live)-asynchronous (i.e. simulated live, or apparently live) game play based in part on prior game play. That is, an online game of the present invention may provide for a combination, or hybrid, of real-time `live` players and apparently live players that are not playing in real-time. If a user is in a state where they can participate in a real-time game, an invite button may appear on top of their profile picture. Pressing the invite button may cause one or more invite screens to pop-up, as in FIG. 36. For example, the user who did the inviting may have an invite screen 3602 pop-up that indicates they are waiting for a response from the invited user. ), wherein each social media profile of the plurality of social media profiles is associated with a respective gaming profile
receiving, at the gaming platform, a request to join the proxy gaming session with the proxy user from a second user (paras. [0112], [0276], [0285]-[0286] discloses upon receiving a game initiation request from an initiating live participant, provides a computer generated multi-player game environment in which the initiating live participant can play a game and invite at least one additional participant to join the game; wherein in response to receiving a second participant invitation from the live participant, requesting a second live participant to join the game; and following the second participant invitation, providing a wait period for receiving acceptance of a second live participant to join the game prior to starting the game), wherein the request is generated in response to a second user social media profile of the plurality of social media profiles accepting the invitation
based at least in part on the request to join the proxy gaming session, generating, by the gaming platform, a proxy user based on the associated profile data of the first user gaming profile; and
establishing, by the gaming platform, the proxy gaming session with [[the ]]a second user gaming profile associated with the second user social media profile of the plurality of social media profiles and the proxy user
Youm does not explicitly disclose: “ … wherein each social media profile of the plurality of social media profiles is associated with a respective gaming profile … wherein the request is generated in response to a second user social media profile of the plurality of social media profiles accepting the invitation, … and based at least in part on the request to join the proxy gaming session, generating, by the gaming platform, a proxy user based on the associated profile data of the first user gaming profile.”
In a related invention, Mooney discloses … wherein each social media profile of the plurality of social media profiles is associated with a respective gaming profile … wherein the request is generated in response to a second user social media profile of the plurality of social media profiles accepting the invitation (paras. [0030], [0034] discloses inviting anyone from a player’s social network to join an online multiplayer game … paras. [0041] discloses giving the invited friend an opportunity to accept or decline, with an individual request and subsequent approval… and para. [0048], fig. 5 discloses generating proxies from profile information retrieved from the social networking system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Youm with the teachings of Mooney in order to obtain the invited player’s agreement before joining and to further expand game play participation through the user’s social network.
The combination of Youm and Mooney does not explicitly disclose based at least in part on the request to join the proxy gaming session, generating, by the gaming platform, a proxy user based on the associated profile data of the first user gaming profile.
In a related invention, Somers discloses Systems and methods are disclosed for training a machine learning model to control an in-game character or other entity in a video game in a manner that aims to imitate how a particular player would control the character or entity. Somers discloses based at least in part on the request to join the proxy gaming session, generating, by the gaming platform, a proxy user based on the associated profile data of the first user gaming profile (Col. 14:53-Col. 15:7, Col. 16:21-45 discloses training a custom model to imitate a player using the player’s gameplay data…Col. 9:14-22 in association with a player’s account… Col. 5:47-65 and uses it to control a character that behaves as that player would; Col. 5:57-65, at the player or another player’s request, the model is deployed; Col. 3:29-36, Col. 10:59-63, Col. 13:42-47 discloses enable the particular player to play against or cooperatively with an NPC that behaves like a particular friend of the player or a well-known player).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Youm and Mooney to generate the proxy user based at least in part on the second user’s request as taught by Somers so that members of the first user’s network could play with a virtual version of the first user that behaves as the first user would, in the first user’s absence, to continue playing the game.
Regarding Claim 2, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney and Somers discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the proxy user is generated using a reinforcement learning algorithm based on the historic gaming data (Somers, Col. 16:36-45, Col. 14:53 – Col.15:7 discloses training the custom model may include employing reward maximization techniques, such as using generative adversarial imitation learning (GAIL) to reward behavior of the custom behavior model that a discriminator trained within the GAIL modeling labels as an action of the player (as opposed to an artificial action of an AI character). In other embodiments, other forms of reinforcement learning may be used to improve the custom model).
Regarding Claim 3, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney and Somers discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a proxy gaming profile for the proxy user (Mooney, para. [0048] discloses the group of proxies can be assembled by accessing 502 Player 105's social network 100 and selecting 504 one or more friends (or their PCs) from the social network according to a computer-implemented game logic).
Regarding Claim 4, (Currently Amended) Youm in view of Mooney and Somers discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
creating a cloud-based interface between the gaming platform and the social media platform (Youm, paras. [0175]-[0178] discloses the type of game may be associated with a platform including a console, …, social network, cloud gaming and the like); and
linking the first user[['s]] gaming profile and the first user social media profile (Youm, paras. [0175]-[0178] discloses a user profile may be created for a user. The user profile may be created based on one or more historical sequences of a computer game play. The user profile may allow the process 1600 to make predictions regarding the tendencies/moves/strategies, during the game. At step 1610, the gaming facility may be accessed by the process 1600 to identify tendencies associated with the user's profile. These identified tendencies may be used for controlling aspects of the game, when the user is virtually present).
Regarding Claim 5, (Original) Youm in view of Mooney and Somers 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. [0086], [0089], Somers, Col. 9:38-52 discloses the player computing system 102 may include any type of computing device(s), such as desktops, laptops, game application platforms, game console systems, virtual reality systems, augmented reality systems);
transmitting the computing device data through the cloud-based interface to the social media platform (Youm, paras. [0291]-[0292] discloses receiving, at a server, a request from a client for prior game play data relating to another user's prior live game play; (b) retrieving the prior game play data and transmitting the prior game play data to the client; (c) causing the client to store the prior game play data such that the client can retrieve the prior game play data at a later time; and (d) presenting a multi-player game environment where a live gaming participant using the client can play against and have two-way interactions with an apparently live opponent); and
filtering content on the social media platform based on the extracted computing device data (Youm, paras. [0082]-[0086] discloses since games played may be stored and managed based on the user data, that information may be utilized to pick out the best match for that person, or filter out the optimal kind of opponents that the person is wishing to play, Somers, Col. 9:38-52).
Regarding Claim 6, (Currently Amended) Youm in view of Mooney and Somers discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising:
displaying gaming profile data of the first user gaming profile on the social media platform, the game profile data of the first user gaming profile 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] discloses various game data belonging to each player profile such as skill level, game history, etc.).
Regarding Claim 7, (Currently Amended) Youm in view of Mooney and Somers discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising:
extracting social media profile data associated with the first user gaming profile from the can be matched with appropriate user information and game information. The matching engine 120 may select prior game interaction data from the memory 112. The prior game interaction data may include metadata identifying the user, user characteristics, prior game identification information, and the like. The matching engine 120, in this example, may rely mainly on the metadata to make the user match);
transmitting the social media profile data through the cloud-based interface to the gaming platform (Youm, paras. [0101], [0270] discloses the asynchronous game facility 110 that coordinate the user's interactions with the new game that is playing along with predicting and presenting reactions and actions for the opponent based on how the opponent has played prior games); and
displaying the social media profile data on the gaming platform (Youm, paras. [0082], [0101], [0270] discloses the player social media profile once they log in).
Regarding Claim 8, (Currently Amended) Youm in view of Mooney and Somers discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
monitoring, during a future gaming session, gameplay data of the first user gaming profile (Somers, Col. 5:34-41, Col. 10:44-48, Col. 16:21-45 discloses layers or levels may then be trained with reference to a particular player's gameplay data to customize the generic model to emulate behavior of the particular player rather than play of a generic or typical player. The approaches described herein may enable generation of a customized player-specific behavior model in a manner where the customized model is initially usable with relatively little personal training data for a particular player (such as by relying on generic behavior for game states not yet observed in the personalized training data), but which converges towards behavior of the particular player during further observation of the player's gameplay);
storing the gameplay data (Somers, Col. 5:34-41, Col. 10:44-48, Col. 16:21-45 discloses At block 310, once at least an initial training of the custom model has occurred, the custom model component 105 may store a trained custom model for emulating gameplay of the first player, where the custom model includes or relies on the frozen layers or levels of the generic model); and
updating the proxy user based on the gameplay data (Somers, Col. 5:34-41, Col. 10:44-48, Col. 16:21-45 discloses training of the custom model may generally include providing the training input data observed from the player (gathered above at block 304) to the initial custom model). Training the custom model may include updating a Markov model to reflect updated player behavior statistics for a given game state or similar game states. For example, the model may be updated in view of particular input training data to reflect a higher likelihood than previously that the player will perform the given action or command in similar future game states).
Regarding Claim 9, (Currently Amended) Youm in view of Mooney and Somers discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
requesting feedback, from the second user gaming profile, on the performance of the proxy user in the proxy gaming in session (Youm, paras. [0091], [0140]-[0141] discloses store the asynchronous game play data in memory along with an association with the category such that the asynchronous game play data can be retrieved based on a request for asynchronous game play with an opponent that matches attributes of the category); and
receiving the feedback on the performance of the proxy user from the second user gaming profile (Youm, paras. [0092], [0140]-[0141] discloses parameters that may be altered, such as to improve the players game experience, include adjustment for difficulty level, past play experience, recent wins verses loses, a satisfaction score, …, such as player’s performance).
Regarding Claim 11, (Currently Amended) Youm in view of Mooney and Somers 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 ]]a proxy gaming profile of the proxy user's gaming profile (Youm, para. [0092] discloses parameters that may be altered, such as to improve the players game experience, include adjustment for difficulty level, past play experience, recent wins verses loses, a satisfaction score).
Regarding Claim 12, (Currently Amended) Youm in view of Mooney and Somers discloses the method of claim 11, wherein adjusting of the difficulty level of the proxy gaming profile of the proxy user improves at least one of: accuracy, decision making speed, or reaction time, of the proxy user (Youm, para. [0092] discloses parameters that may be altered, such as to improve the players game experience, include adjustment for difficulty level, past play experience, recent wins verses loses, a satisfaction score, speed of enemies, health of enemies, frequency of enemies, frequency of power-ups, power of player, power of enemies, duration of game-play experience, the rate of successful shots or hits, the number of won and lost pieces, life points, evolution/co-evolution (such as in matching ability levels between player and opponent), time to complete some task, number of weapons, recovery of life points, number of opponents, abilities of the opponent).
Regarding Claim 13, (Currently Amended) Youm in view of Mooney and Somers discloses the method of claim 11, wherein adjusting the difficulty level of the proxy gaming profile of the proxy user does not change at least one of: playstyle, weapon choice, or strategy choice, of the proxy user (Youm, para. [0092] discloses parameters that may be altered, such speed of enemies, health of enemies, frequency of enemies, frequency of power-ups, power of player, power of enemies, duration of game-play experience, the rate of successful shots or hits, the number of won and lost pieces, life points, evolution/co-evolution (such as in matching ability levels between player and opponent), time to complete some task, number of weapons, recovery of life points, number of opponents, abilities of the opponent. A game parameter may be adjusted based on prior game play of a user and this parameter may effect, not only a parameter within the user's game, but it may also effect which players, whether asynchronous players (i.e. virtual players), hybrid player participants (e.g. live participants, and virtual participants), are selected to play against).
Claims 15-17 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) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent 10,940,393 B2 to Somers and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0306638 A1 to Fear et al. (hereinafter Fear).
Regarding Claim 15, (Currently Amended) Youm in view of Mooney and Somers discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
recording voice data from the first user gaming profile;
extracting features from the voice data; and
training a custom voice model to represent [[the ]]a first user's voice of the first user gaming profile.
In a related invention, Fear discloses:
recording voice data from the first user gaming profile (paras. [0005], [0050], [0052], [0062] discloses the game session data collected for each game or play period may include image data, audio data such as voice commands);
extracting features from the voice data (paras. [0005], [0050], [0052], [0062] discloses the game session data collected for each game or play period may include image data, audio data, and any user inputs—including, without limitation: keys pressed on a keyboard, cursor movement and/or actuation, head or body movement (as detected by sensors in a head-mounted display, for example) and audio inputs, such as voice commands … a player may toggle a button or other interface element to begin recording game session data, which the player can re-toggle to stop further recording (a game session ending may likewise automatically stop further recording). The recorded game data can be used to train a player model, which can be used by the game engine 128 to instantiate a bot…. ); and
training a custom voice model to represent [[the ]]a first user's voice of the first user gaming profile (paras. [0005], [0050], [0052], [0062] discloses a player may toggle a button or other interface element to begin recording game session data, which the player can re-toggle to stop further recording (a game session ending may likewise automatically stop further recording). The recorded game data can be used to train a player model).
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 combined gaming system of Youm, Mooney and Somers in order to improve game data collection and further enhance game play enjoyment among multiple players.
Regarding Claim 16, (Original) Youm, Mooney, Somers and 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. [0039]-[0042] discloses profile server(s) 116 may include a training module 118 for learning playstyle patterns of users and/or aggregate playstyle patterns of groups or categories of users. For example, the training module 118 may be used to train any type of machine learning model … Game session data may be applied to machine learning model(s) of the training module 118, where the machine learning model(s) learn the playstyle patterns and/or the aggregate playstyle patterns from the game session data);
generating, with the custom voice model, a sound clip based on the gameplay commentary; and broadcasting, from the proxy user, the sound clip during the proxy gaming session (Fear, paras. [0039]-[0042], [0052], [0062] discloses game session data may be applied to machine learning model(s) of the training module … game session data may include game state data, user input data, player data, environment data, image data, audio data, and/or other data representing game sessions of a game).
Regarding Claim 17, (Currently Amended) Youm, Mooney, Somers and Fear discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the real-time gameplay commentary discusses at least one or more of: play styles of the first user gaming profile, skill level of players, game statistics of the proxy gaming session, kill/death ratio of the second user gaming profile, kill/death ratio of the proxy user profile, character choice of the proxy user profile, insults, compliments, jokes, and strategies for playing with the proxy user profile (Fear, paras. [0039]-[0042], [0052], [0062] discloses the game session data may include game state data, user input data, player data, environment data, image data, audio data, and/or other data representing game sessions of a game. For example, the game state data may include data snapshots representative of a game session at each point in time and/or in response to changes to the game sessions (e.g., objects moving or being left behind, values changing, such as health of players, hit counts, etc., characters moving about the environment, etc.)).
Claims 18-20 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) and further in view of U.S. Patent 10,940,393 B2 to Somers and U.S. Patent 10,864,446 B2 to Borovikov.
Regarding Claim 18, (Currently Amended) Youm in view of Mooney and Somers discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving a request to replay the proxy gaming session from the second user gaming profile after the proxy gaming session has ended.
In a related invention, Borovikov discloses receiving a request to replay the proxy gaming session from the second user gaming profile after the proxy gaming session has ended (Col. 15:59 – Col. 16:4, 8-24, Col. 16:61 – Col. 17:3 discloses the historical game session data stored for one session may be sufficiently detailed for the player to play back a full replay of every action taken by the player).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include replay feature of Borovikov with the combined system of Youm, Mooney and Somers in order to allow players to revisit past sessions with model of past plays to further improve upon their gameplay).
Regarding Claim 19, (Currently Amended) Youm in view of Mooney, Somers and Borovikov discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising replaying the proxy gaming session with the second user gaming profile, and [[the ]]a proxy gaming profile of the proxy user (Borovikov, Col. 16:61 – Col. 17:4 discloses the time capsule models discussed above may be selected by a player to play against herself (e.g., by loading a time capsule of hers to control an NPC opponent) or with herself (e.g., by loading a time capsule of hers to control an NPC teammate). In some embodiments, the player can make her time capsules shareable with other players, which may provide a way to practice against champions or particularly skilled players as they performed in the past or currently perform).
Regarding Claim 20, (Currently Amended) Youm in view of Mooney, Somers, and Borovikov discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the proxy gaming session further comprises a plurality of user gaming profiles, and the method further comprising:
generating a proxy user for each other user gaming profile of the plurality of user gaming profiles from the proxy gaming session (Somers, Col. 4:1-8, Col. 13:39-42 discloses operations may further comprise generating a plurality of custom models each configured to imitate gameplay of a different player, where each of the plurality of custom models include the same portions of the generic player behavior model as each other. The operations may further comprise tracking character success in the video game of characters controlled by each of the plurality of custom models in gameplay against actual player competitors); and
replaying the proxy gaming session with the second user gaming profile, and all proxy [[users]]user gaming profiles (Borovikov, Col. 15:59 – Col. 16:4, 8-24 discloses the historical game session data stored for one session may be sufficiently detailed for the player to play back a full replay of every action taken by the player).
Claim 10 is not rejected over the prior art of record, is it does not teach or suggest “… determining a social score of[[ the]]_a closeness [[of ]]between the second user social media profile to the first user social media profile, wherein the social score is based on one or more of: watch time, follow time, subscriber status, comments, likes, or direct message count; assigning a weighting to the feedback on the performance of the proxy user based on the social score; and updating the proxy user based on the weighted feedback.” The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Office Action of April 3, 2026 is withdrawn. Claim 10 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and is not indicated as allowable.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered.
On page 8, Applicant argues that “ … independent claims 1 and 27, as amended, are directed to statutory subject matter at least because they amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea … As opposed to separate gaming and social media platforms, the generation of an invitation by the social media platform for a plurality of social media profiles associated with respective gaming profiles represents a technical improvement related to integration of a system of platforms (i.e., a gaming platform and a social media platform).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued improvement is generic messaging – one platform generates an invitation and another receives a request. No platform is modified, and no mechanism, or data structure is recited. The “respective gaming profile” clause characterizes stored data.
On page 8, Applicant further argues that “… As opposed to a generation of proxy users before acceptance of an invitation to a proxy gaming session has been received (e.g., causing a waste of resources by generating proxy users that do not end up being used), the amendments provide an improvement to computational efficiency as the proxy user is generated only after a second user has accepted the invitation to join the proxy gaming session.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification does not describe the asserted improvement. It discusses efficiency only regarding the choice of training technique (paras. [0011], [0068], ][0105]), server selection for latency (paras. [0071]-[0072]) and compute allocation (para. [0083]), but not proxy generation to avoid unused proxies. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
On page 9, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant argues that Mooney creates a proxy logoff (para. [0043[) independently of any invitation. The argument is moot as to proxy generation, which the new ground of rejection now uses Somers for this limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References cited.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights