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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 12/19/25.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 1, 6, 10, 14, 17-20.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are added.
Claim(s) 9 is/are cancelled.
Currently, claim(s) 1-8, 10-22 is/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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-8, 10-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-22 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-8, 10-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 14,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “processing at least one of (a) the media data and (b) data derived from the media data according to one or more goals defined for a first user of the one or more users by an account holder for the first user to obtain an identification of portions of the media data”, are considered to fall within the mental processes grouping. The recited limitations, as drafted, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. one or more processors and a memory having executable instructions encoded thereon). That is, other than reciting one or more processors and a memory, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2, 4-9, 13-15, 17, 19-20 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 are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, initiating an online gaming experience with one or more users, receiving media data generated by the online gaming experience, an artificial intelligence model or a LLM, transforming the portions of the media data into one or more media files, providing the one or more media files to the account holder”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these 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 above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Cheng (2017/0065889) teaches the recited additional elements (¶¶0017-0018, 0021, 0038, 0041, 0064, 0070, 0107).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-8, 10-22, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE,.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-8, 10-22 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gary (2016/0151713).
Re Claim 1,
Gary discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations (Fig 3, 7, ¶¶0038-0043, 0047-0051) comprising:
initiating an online gaming experience with one or more users (Fig 2, 4, ¶¶0023, 0038, 0042; players play an instance of a video on different gaming devices);
receiving media data generated by the online gaming experience (¶¶0027, 0046; the system receives the indicator based on the video gaming instance);
processing at least one of (a) the media data and (b) data derived from the media data by an artificial intelligence model according to one or more goals defined for a first user of the one or more users by an account holder for the first user to obtain an identification of portions of the media data (Fig 6, ¶¶0025, 0046; the system determines if the received indicator has met or exceeded a predetermined goal in a portion of a video game);
transforming the portions of the media data into one or more media files; and providing the one or more media files to the account holder (¶¶0029, 0046; the system receives the indicator and generates a message, wherein the message is transmitted to another user).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 14, 16-18, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (2017/0065889) in view of Gary (2016/0151713).
Re Claim 1,
Cheng discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations (Fig 1-2, 8, ¶¶0017-0018, 0021, 0107) comprising:
initiating an online gaming experience with one or more users (¶0033; a video game is provided to one or more players);
receiving media data generated by the online gaming experience (¶¶0038-0039; concept detector is configured to detect video game concepts for a video game);
processing at least one of (a) the media data and (b) data derived from the media data by an artificial intelligence model to obtain an identification of portions of the media data (¶¶0015, 0033, 0038-0039, 0040, 0068, 0083, 0106; concept detector can include one or more concept classifiers trained by machine learning to detect game concepts based on the ontology and taxonomy of a video game, wherein relevant concepts are detected based on a user's preferences, i.e,. processing data to obtain a portions of the media data, for example, a fight, a chase);
transforming the portions of the media data into one or more media files; and providing the one or more media files to the account holder (¶¶0041, 0070; a highlight generator is configured to generate game highlights using at least a subset of game concepts. Furthermore, the system can refer to a user profile for requesting game video highlight, wherein a highlight combiner is configured to combine highlights into a highlight compilation for one or more users observing the play of a video game, in other words, a user different from the actual game player).
However, Cheng does not explicitly disclose one or more goals defined for a first user of the one or more users by an account holder for the first user, wherein the one or more goals relate to one or more behavioral focus areas for the first user.
However, Gary teaches one or more goals defined for a first user of the one or more users by an account holder for the first user, wherein the one or more goals relate to one or more behavioral focus areas for the first user (Fig 5A-5B, ¶¶0008, 0025-0026, 0029, 0044-0045; the predetermined goal can be a goal set up by the game developer, a gaming community group, or it can be a custom set up by the friends, wherein each goal requires a player’s behavior in the game, for example, number of enemies killed in a minute, minimal length of time to defeat the first boss). Gary further teaches such a configuration stimulates game play and enhances interest in certain video game titles for users who are less competitive (¶0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gary into the system of Cheng in order to stimulate game play and enhance interest in certain video game titles for users who are less competitive.
Re Claims 3, 16,
Cheng discloses the account holder is not playing one of the one or more users (¶0033).
Re Claims 5, 17,
Cheng discloses the media data includes at least one of audio, video, and chat data (¶¶0015, 0033, 0038-0039, 0040, 0068, 0083).
Re Claims 6, 18,
Cheng discloses generating a speech-to-text transcription of the media data; and processing the transcription by the artificial intelligence module to obtain the identification of the portions of the media data (¶¶0062).
Re Claim 8,
Cheng discloses compositing (¶0070).
Re Claims 10, 20,
Cheng discloses the one or more behavioral focus areas include at least one of building skill, communication skills, balancing emotions, accomplishments, or learning opportunities (¶¶0039, 0068, 0106).
Re Claim 14,
Claim is substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection.
Re Claim 21,
Cheng discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on before initiating the online gaming experience: receiving a user input, from the account holder, defining the one or more behavioral focus areas for the first user, and identifying the one or more goals defined for the first user based on the user input defining the one or more behavioral focus areas for the first user. However, Gary teaches before initiating the online gaming experience: receiving a user input, from the account holder, defining the one or more behavioral focus areas for the first user, and identifying the one or more goals defined for the first user based on the user input defining the one or more behavioral focus areas for the first user (Fig 5A-5B, ¶¶0008, 0025-0026, 0044-0045). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 22,
Cheng discloses all limitations as set forth above including highlight reels but is silent on the media files include details about the behavioral patterns of the first user, summaries about behavioral goals provided by the account holder. However, Gary teaches the media files include details about the behavioral patterns of the first user, summaries about behavioral goals provided by the account holder (Fig 5A-5B, ¶¶0008, 0025-0026, 0028-0030, 0032, 0035, 0044-0045). See claim 1 for motivation.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (2017/0065889) in view of Gary (2016/0151713), further in view of Sullivan (2014/0288683).
Re Claims 2, 15,
Cheng as modified by Gary discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the account holder is at least one of a parent, a mentor, a coach, a monitor, or a supervisor. However, Kopf teaches the account holder is at least one of a parent, a mentor, a coach, a monitor, or a supervisor (¶0034). Sullivan further teaches such a configuration allows third part users such as relatives and coaches to witness game action that are not otherwise broadcast (¶0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Kopf into the system of Cheng as modified by Gary in order to allow third part users such as relatives and coaches to witness game action that are not otherwise broadcast.
Re Claim 4,
Cheng as modified by Gary discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the first user is a child. However, Sullivan teaches the user is a child (¶¶0028, 0034). See claim 2 for motivation.
Claim(s) 7, 11-12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (2017/0065889) in view of Gary (2016/0151713), further in view of Butler et al. (2020/0139237).
Re Claims 7, 19,
Cheng as modified by Gary discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on transcoding the portions of the media data. However, Butler teaches transcoding the portions of the media data (¶0063). Butler further teaches such a configuration allows a user to easily share the video with another user (¶0005). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Butler into the system of Cheng as modified by Gary in order to allow a user to easily share the video with another user.
Re Claim 11,
Cheng as modified by Gary discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on a plurality of users and the media data includes a plurality of streams of media data, each stream of the plurality of streams of media data corresponding to a user of the plurality of users. However, Butler teaches a plurality of users and the media data includes a plurality of streams of media data, each stream of the plurality of streams of media data corresponding to a user of the plurality of users (Fig 1A-3, ¶¶0050-0055, 0060, 0063-0064, 0070-0076). Butler further teaches such a configuration allows multiple users to access a number of games on a gaming site over a network (¶0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Butler into the system of Cheng as modified by Gary in order to allow multiple users to access a number of games on a gaming site over a network.
Re Claim 12,
Cheng as modified by Gary discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on receiving the media data from a game server and forwarding the media data to one or more devices of the one or more users (Fig 1A-3, ¶¶0050-0055, 0060, 0063-0064, 0070-0076). See claim 11 for motivation.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (2017/0065889) in view of Gary (2016/0151713), further in view of Gong (2020/0342236).
Re Claim 13,
Cheng as modified by Gary discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on a large language model. However, Gong teaches training language model on a large external text dataset (¶0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gong into the system of Cheng as modified by Gary in order to increase efficiency by handling vast amounts of data. In addition, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for choosing LLM, since Applicant has not disclosed that LLM solves any stated problem is appears that the invention would perform equally with any artificial intelligence model.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 12/19/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8, 10-22 under the 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715