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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 3/2/2026 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claims 1, 3 – 4, 10, 12 and 17 and cancelled claims 2 and 11. Therefore, claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 – 20 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.
Claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 – 20 are all within at least one of the four categories of invention, and have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 – 20 recites at least one step or instruction for obtaining users live gameplay information for spectators to view, which is grouped as a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve concepts performed in the human mind, namely observation, evaluation and judgement which are mental processes and managing personal behavior which are certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 – 20 recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A method to livestream a virtual game, performed by a livestreaming system comprising at least one server, comprising:
obtaining, by a gam server, live operation information associated with a first player and a watcher of a game session from a game server (managing personal behavior which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity and judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process and managing personal behavior under the 2019 PEG);
generating, by the game server, a first video stream corresponding to the first player and a second video stream corresponding to the watcher player based on the live operation information (managing personal behavior which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity and judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process and managing personal behavior under the 2019 PEG); wherein the generating the first video stream comprises:
creating a simulated game sessions based on the live operation information;
rendering the first video stream based on the simulated game sessions; and
rendering the second video stream based on the simulated game session;
transmitting, to a live platform, the first video stream and the second video stream;
transmitting, in a first transmission by the livestream platform, the first video stream to a first push address associated with the first player;
transmitting, in a second transmission by the livestream platform, the second video stream to a second push address associated with the watcher;
transmitting, in a third transmission by the livestream platform and to an audience terminal, the second video stream for rendering; and
based on receiving a user instruction for viewing a first player view, causing a switch of a rendered video stream on the audience terminal to the first video stream by transmitting, in a fourth transmission by the livestream platform and to the audience terminal, the first video stream.
Accordingly, as indicated in bold above, the above-identified claim 1 (method) and claim 10 (apparatus) and claim 17 (non-transitory computer readable medium) recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 3 – 9, 12 – 16 and 18 – 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.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 10 and 17 (and their respective dependent Claims 3 – 9, 12 – 16 and 18 – 20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 10 and 17), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of game server, memory, processor as recited in independent Claims 1, 10 and 17 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements 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.
Furthermore, the game server and the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the
abstract idea on a computer/computing device. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea
identified above in independent Claims 1, 10 and 17(and their respective dependent claims 3 – 9, 12 – 16 and 18 – 20) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract
idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.
game server, processor, memory as recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 17). 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/computing device.
Additionally, 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. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 10 and 17 (and their respective dependent claims 3 – 9, 12 – 16 and 18 – 20) are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the Claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 – 20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: server, memory, processor as recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 17.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components
which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic
functions of automating mental tasks. 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.
Like SAP America vs InvestPic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 – 20 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) and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 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.
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.
For at least the above reasons, the system of Claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 – 20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method 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). In other words, none of Claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 – 20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 independent Claims 1, 10 and 17 (and their dependent 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. When viewed as a combination, these
above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed
functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of
generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept
sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, 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. Thus, Claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 – 20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a
technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 – 20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 – 20 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 2019 PEG.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims cannot recite a mental process because the limitations directed to “generating, by the game server, a first video stream…,” “creating a simulated game session…,” “rendering the first/second video stream…,” and the various transmitting steps cannot be performed in the human mind. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As set forth in the October 2019 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and “[c]laims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (p. 8). The recited “obtaining” step involves observation and data gathering. The “generating… a first video stream corresponding to the first player and a second video stream corresponding to the watcher based on the live operation information” step recites a result-oriented function, determining what each viewer should see based on the observed state of gameplay, which at the claimed level of generality is fundamentally an evaluation/judgment that a human can perform (e.g., a referee or spectator mentally tracking what each participant is observing during a game).
The newly added limitations do not change this analysis, “creating a simulated game session based on the live operation information” describes, at a high level of generality, the conceptual modeling of a game state, which is itself an evaluation/observation. “Rendering the first/second video stream based on the simulated game session” recites only the output result of that conceptual process, with no particular technical detail of how the rendering is performed. Reciting that these steps are performed “by the game server” merely links them to a generic computing environment and does not remove the underlying concept from the mental process category.
Applicant argues that the rendering and transmitting limitations do not fall within any of the concepts identified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as “methods of organizing human activity.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to coordinating the live viewing of gameplay among multiple people (a first player, a watcher, and an audience) and enabling the audience to switch between the players’ respective perspectives. This is within “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The October 2019 Update (pp. 4–5) confirms that certain methods of organizing human activity encompass activities involving multiple people, and that activities between a person and a computer may still fall within this category. The instant claims involve coordinating interactions between at least three roles (player, watcher, audience), including delivering tailored views to each and permitting the audience to switch perspectives between them (the type of multi-person social/spectating activity contemplated by this category).
These limitations describe how information about the organized viewing activity is routed to each participant. Reciting that this routing occurs over generic computing infrastructure does not remove the underlying concept from the enumerated category; rather, it merely links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Applicant argues that, even if the claims recite an abstract idea, the amended claims recite “detailed and specific limitations defining how video stream is rendered from the perspective of a player and a watcher, which is then transmitted to an audience terminal for a user to switch views/perspectives while watching the livestream of a virtual game,” and that this is a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The newly added limitations are part of the abstract idea. “Creating a simulated game session based on the live operation information” and “rendering the first/second video stream based on the simulated game session” recite the conceptual modeling of game state and the production of an output representation thereof. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and describe only a result; they do not recite any particular technical mechanism, algorithm, or improvement to how a computer simulates or renders. See Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Applicant’s specification does not describe any technical improvement realized by the claimed invention over the prior art, nor does it identify any technical problem solved by an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claims. The specification describes the use of conventional game servers, livestream platforms, and terminals to perform the recited functions. Like Affinity Labs, the specification fails to provide sufficient detail regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement.
The additional elements (game server, memory, processor, livestream platform, push addresses, audience terminal) are generic computer components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (obtaining, generating, simulating, rendering, transmitting). The newly added “creating a simulated game session” and “rendering… based on the simulated game session” limitations describe conventional functions of a game server/graphics pipeline at a high level of generality and do not constitute an inventive concept. Whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights