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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2 was previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 3 – 7, and 9 – 15 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3 – 15 are 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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-11 are drawn to a system.
Claims 12 – 14 are drawn to a method.
Claims 15 is drawn to a computer readable medium.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1, 3 - 11 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. (Original) A game selection system, comprising:
an emotion processor configured to obtain a current emotional state of a user of an entertainment device based on:
an indication of mood from a psychometric or behavioral test embedded within a game or other app executed by the user on the entertainment device within a predetermined prior period wherein the psychometric or behavioral test comprises presenting, by the game or app through a display device connected to the entertainment device, game or app related content options to the user, a selection of each being indicative of a different emotional state, and generating the indication of mood based on selections made by the user among the presented game or app related content options;
a descriptor processor configured to obtain one or more emotion descriptors associated with a plurality of games;
an evaluation processor configured to predict an emotion outcome for the user for each game of the plurality of games, based upon the current emotional state of the user and the one or more emotion descriptors associated with each game of the plurality of games; and
a selection processor configured to automatically launch a first game of the plurality of games on the entertainment device in response to determining that the emotion outcome for the first game meets at least a first predetermined criterion set by a developer of the first game.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Processes
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the selection of games responsive to a user’s emotional state. This falls under the grouping of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims fail to recite additional limitations that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed processors, interfaces, input/entertainment devices and/or displays/graphical user interfaces. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Hutchinson-Kay (US 2008/0039207) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0017] The Figures illustrate examples of a system, a method and a computer program product in accordance with the invention. The system components are implemented by means of computer technology comprising data processors, memory means, data communications interfaces, control programs, input/output interfaces etc. in a per se well known manner. Different functions and features that are specific for the present invention are preferably realized by means of specific combinations and configurations of hardware components and/or computer program code executed on data processing means.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0013] Referring now to the drawings, wherein like reference numerals designate identical or corresponding parts throughout the several views, Figure 1 shows an entertainment system 10, for example a computer or console such as the Sony ® PlayStation 5 ® (PS5), configurable as game launching system (and/or equally a game selection system) in accordance with embodiments of the present description.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 -15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beisel et al (US 11,373,446) in view of Chung et al (US 2012/0143693)
As per claim 1, Beisel discloses:
an emotion processor configured to obtain a current emotional state of a user of an entertainment devices based on ; ( Beisel discloses at least a camera that is configured to capture the emotional state of a user and the device analyzes the captured images to determine the emotional state of the user) ( Beisel 15:34 – 51)
a descriptor processor configured to obtain one or more emotion descriptors associated with a plurality of games; ( Beisel discloses intended emotional states (I.e. emotional descriptors) associated with one or more contents. ( Beisel 16:8 – 13). Beisel further discloses that the content may be game that the user may interact with ( Beisel 9: 38 – 59, 15:36 – 46),wherein the content may be different types of content ( Beisel 10:8 – 14)).
an evaluation processor configured to predict an emotion outcome for the user for each of the plurality of games, based upon the current emotional state of the user and the one or more emotion descriptors associated with each game of the plurality of games and ( Beisel discloses the use of machine learning models to predict that a user will end up displaying a targeted emotion by utilizing a emotion profile that indicates the types of content that causes certain emotions in a user or groups of users ( Beisel 13:24 – 31), wherein the content at that is selected for the user is based upon how more or less likely the content will cause the user to display a targeted emotion based upon the users current emotional state and the emotional descriptor of the upcoming content) ( Beisel 13:31 – 53)
Beisel fails to specifically disclose:
based on one or more of:
ii. an indication of mood from a psychometric or behavioral test embedded within a game or other app executed by the user on the entertainment device within a predetermined prior period; wherein the psychometric or behavioral test comprises presenting, by the game or app through a display device connected to the entertainment device, game or app related content options to the user, a selection of each being indicative of a different emotional state, and generating the indication of mood based on selections made by the user among the presented game or app related content options;
a selection processor configured to automatically launch a first game of the plurality of the games on the entertainment device in response to determining that the emotion outcome for the first game meets at least a first predetermined criterion set by a developer of the first game.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chung teaches the monitoring of a user’s activities, analyzing them to determine the users emotional context (i.e. behavioral test) and selecting advertisements (i.e. content) to be delivered and presented to the user based upon the user’s emotion level matching a criteria of emotion set by the advertiser that is associated with the advertisement to be selected and presented to the user (Chung 0005 – 0006, 0014, 0017, 0018, 0027, 0028, 0030 - 0032). Chung further teaches that the interactions that are monitored are interactions associated with app content such as news article selections or webpage selections etc. (Chung 0036 – 0041)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Beisel in view of Chung to provide a means to provide content such as game that are executed using a known technique by analyzing a user’s interactions with content to test or determine a user’s emotional state and provided them with content that matches that user’s emotional state. In this way a user can be provided with tailored content that they are more likely to enjoy engaging with.
As per claim 3,
in which: the emotion processor is further configured to estimate the current emotional state of the user based upon one or more of: i. one or more physiological measurements of the user; ii. one or more behaviors of the user; iii. body language of the user; iv. one or more facial expressions of the user; v. one or more expressions spoken by the user; and vi. use by the user of a user input device relative to a baseline use. ( Beisel discloses estimating current emotional level based upon at least facial expressions and body language) ( Beisel 10:15 – 48)
As per claim 4, in which: the one or more emotion descriptors for each game of the plurality of games are associated with one or more of: i. the game; ii. respective quests or levels of the game; and iii. respective playing modes of the game. (Beisel discloses intended emotional states (I.e. emotional descriptors) associated with one or more contents. ( Beisel 16:8 – 13). Beisel further discloses that the content may be game that the user may interact with ( Beisel 9: 38 – 59, 15:36 – 46),wherein the content may be different types of content ( Beisel 10:8 – 14)).
As per claim 5, in which: the descriptor processor further configured to retrieve the one or more emotion descriptors associated with the plurality of games in response to determining that the plurality of games are currently accessible by the user. (Combination of Beisel in view of Chung, Beisel discloses intended emotional states (I.e. emotional descriptors) associated with one or more contents. ( Beisel 16:8 – 13). Beisel further discloses that the content may be game that the user may interact with ( Beisel 9: 38 – 59, 15:36 – 46),wherein the content may be different types of content that are accessible to the user ( Beisel 10:8 – 14)). Chung teaches the retrieving of emotion tags that are associated with a plurality of different content or advertisements that are accessible to the user upon presentation) (Chung Fig 2, 0005 – 0006, 0014, 0017, 0018, 0027, 0028, 0030 - 0032).
As per claim 6, in which: the evaluation processor is configured to predict emotion outcome for each game of the plurality of games based on a previously determined correlation between at least a first aspect of an emotion descriptor, at least a first aspect of the obtained current emotional state of the user, and a corresponding emotion outcome. ( Beisel discloses the use of machine learning models to predict that a user will end up displaying a targeted emotion by utilizing a emotion profile that indicates the types of content that causes certain emotions in a user or groups of users ( Beisel 13:24 – 31), wherein the content at that is selected for the user is based upon how more or less likely the content will cause the user to display a targeted emotion based upon the users current emotional state and the emotional descriptor of the upcoming content ( Beisel 13:31 – 53). Beisel discloses the utilization of historical user data that indicates how significant the transition (i.e. a correlation) from one emotion to a target emotion may be based on the current emotional state ( Beisel 17:5 – 8).
As per claim 7, wherein the previously determined correlation is based upon emotion data from a corpus of previous players. ( Beisel discloses that the correlation may be based upon a plurality of emotion profiles (i.e. corpus of players) ( Beisel 7:31-37, 17:5-8)
As per claim 8, in which: the predetermined criterion is one or more of: i. the predicted emotional outcome matching a desired emotional outcome indicated by the user; ii. the predicted emotional outcome being in a predetermined group of emotional outcomes that includes a desired emotional outcome indicated by the user; and iii. the predicted emotional outcome being in a predetermined group of emotional outcomes selected as being positive. ( Beisel discloses the system criterion that is based upon being more likely (i.e. positive) to cause desired emotional state ( Beisel 13:40 – 44)
As per claim 9, in which: the predetermined criterion is one or more of: i. the predicted emotional outcome matching a desired emotional outcome indicated by the game; and ii. the predicted emotional outcome being in a predetermined group of emotional outcomes that includes a desired emotional outcome indicated by the first game. ( Beisel discloses a criterion that that is determined indicated by the game wherein the game or content comprises targeted emotional states ( Beisel 13:31 – 40).
As per claim 10, in which: the selection processor is configured to select one of: a shortlist of game quests or levels currently accessible by the user; a shortlist of game quests or levels currently accessible by the user in respective play modes; and a shortlist of games currently accessible by the user. ( Beisel discloses the selection of content wherein the content may be a game that the use is interacting with( Beisel 9: 38 – 59, 15:36 – 46), wherein the content may be different types of content (i.e. different games) ( Beisel 10:8 – 14)).
As per claim 11, in which: the selection processor is configured to launch the first game in further response to determining that the first game is one of a: i. a quest or level of a game currently accessible by the user; ii. a game currently accessible by the user in a particular play mode; and iii. a game currently accessible by the user. ( Beisel discloses the launching and presentation of content wherein the content may be a game that the use is interacting with ( Beisel 9: 38 – 59, 15:36 – 46), wherein the content may be different types of content (i.e. different games) ( Beisel 10:8 – 14)).
Independent claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are obvious over Beisel and Chung based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 13 is/are obvious over Beisel and Chung based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 6, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 14 is/are obvious over Beisel and Chung based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 7, which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3 - 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see above rejection in view of Chung.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues that the “invention provides a computer-specific solution to this computer-specific problem by enabling the entertainment system itself to determine a user's current emotional state, predict emotional outcomes for a plurality of games, and automatically launch a game that satisfies developer- defined emotional criteria.” (Remarks page 10)
Applicant further states “Amended claim 1 recites several such computer-implemented features that operate together to address this technological problem. For example, the claim requires that a psychometric or behavioral test be embedded within a game or app executed by the entertainment system, and that this test present game-related content options to the user, each associated with a different emotional state. The claim further recites that the system generates the indication of mood based on the user's selections among these presented content options. This is not an abstract observation of user behavior but a specific, implemented mechanism within a running game or application, relying on content rendered by the entertainment system and on user interaction with that content. The entertainment system must execute code to present the options, receive the user's selections, and generate an emotional-state indication from those selections. These are concrete operations tied to the functioning of the entertainment system.” (Remarks page 11)
Applicant further states “ As explained in paragraphs [0072] and [0073], this allows developers to influence the user's emotional trajectory through game experiences, which the entertainment system implements by executing the selection and launch operations automatically, without requiring manual browsing or user trial-and-error. The integrated sequence of obtaining emotional state via an embedded test, predicting emotional outcomes using processor-implemented evaluation, and automatically launching a game based on those computed predictions constitutes a specific improvement to the functioning of an entertainment system. It provides precisely the type of "practical application" (Remarks page 11)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can clearly be seen, even from the Applicant’s own statements (Examiner highlighted above), the claimed invention is clearly directed towards a mental process, specifically that of a test or observation of a user’s, emotional state, the making of a prediction of an emotional outcome and the providing (i.e. launching) of a game based upon the predicted emotional state. This is clearly in the realm of what a human can perform utilizing manual means such as observing a user’s current emotions as they are playing a game, predicting an emotion outcome of the user and matching that outcome to a game that is to be subsequently launched or played. This is akin to the matching of a person’s emotional state to an appropriate activity is something a person or friend can do without computer involvement The use of a computer in this instance is merely used for its conventional functions processing data, displaying data (i.e. games) does not provide a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, but rather amounts to the automation of a mental process. The Applicant’s claims other than the mere allegation and restatement of the claim functions fails to show improvements such as and improvement to how the gaming platform processes data, improves memory usage, processing efficiency, or network architecture etc. The computer functions exactly as a generic computer conventional has, such as merely being used to provide a game recommendation idea based upon matching user emotions. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
3/26/2026 /KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights