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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 05/07/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-13, 16, and 18-26 remain pending, Claims 21-26 have been newly added, and Claims 3-4, 6, 14-15, and 17 have been canceled. Currently, Claims 1, 5, 7-12, 16, and 18-20 have been amended. No new matter appears to have been entered.
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 1-2, 5, 7-13, 16, and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-13, 16, and 18-26 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of […]: displaying, […] associated with a first spectator account, an interactive control element […], the interactive control element being configured to trigger an interaction […] associated with the first spectator account and […] associated with one or more other spectator accounts, […]; in response to receiving a trigger operation on the interactive control element, displaying first interactive content […] selecting, from a first spectator group, a first subset of the one or more other spectator accounts based on a first ratio when a quantity of accounts in the first spectator group is within a first range and a second ratio when the quantity of accounts in the first spectator group is within a second range, and sending, […], a new interaction request […] to initiate a current interaction session, […] being configured to transmit a first interaction request based on the first interactive content to a first subset of […] associated with the first subset of the one or more other spectator accounts; and when the first interactive content is displayed, receiving, […] quantity information indicating quantities calculated […] based on at least (i) a first number of spectator accounts among the first subset of the one or more other spectator accounts that accept the first interaction request and (ii) a second number of spectator accounts among the one or more other spectator accounts that interact with one or more other interaction requests based on the first interactive content at different times during current interaction session; displaying the quantities indicated by the quantity information […] during the current interaction session, receiving an end interaction instruction […] indicating an end of the current interaction session, and stopping display of the quantity information. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1 (and similarly in claims 12 and 20). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found 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” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., 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), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of “A spectator interaction method, comprising: displaying, on a display of a first terminal […] the first user interface of the first terminal […] and one or more other user interfaces of one or more other terminals […], the first user interface and the one or more other user interfaces […]; […], […], and sending, by processing circuitry of the first terminal, a new interaction request to a backend device […], the backend device being configured to transmit […]; and […], receiving, from the backend device, […] calculated by the backend device […]; displaying […], […], and […]. These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to 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. Using a computer to generate data, compute a result, and return the result to a user amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The 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 (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
Additionally, the specification makes it clear that the apparatus for displaying the management of spectator interactions can be implemented on a generic computer.
[0235] FIG. 12 is a structural block diagram of a terminal 1200 according to an exemplary embodiment of this application. The terminal 1200 may be: a smartphone, a tablet computer, a Moving Picture Experts Group Audio Layer III (Moving Picture Experts Group Audio Layer III, MP3) player, and a Moving Picture Experts Group Audio Layer IV (Moving Picture Experts Group Audio Layer IV, MP4) player, a notebook computer or a desktop computer. The terminal 1200 may also be referred to as another name such as user equipment, a portable terminal, a laptop terminal, or a desktop terminal, or the like.
As such, the apparatus, for implementing the abstract idea, may require no more than generic, conventional, and well-known computer devices such as a general purpose computer (as evidenced in Para. 235).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. For instance, 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 and the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying on a display, initiating transmission, and displaying on the first user interface, is no more than data gathering and/or data output. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Thus, Claims 1, 12, and 20 are rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 2, 5, 7-11, 13, 16,18-19 and 21-26 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 1 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2, 5, 7-11, 13, 16,18-19 and 21-26 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1, Claims 2, 5, 7-11, 13, 16,18-19 and 21-26 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on the claims as currently presented, the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Noimark et al. (US 2023/0065298 A1) discloses the concept of a spectator system may provide for spectating in online gaming, wherein the spectator system may receive, at a spectator server, game state data from a game simulation server hosting an online game for one or more players, generate one or more spectator game state data corresponding to one or more spectator devices and output the one or more spectator game state data to the spectator devices.
Soman et al. (US 2022/0329881 A1) discloses the concept of viewer interaction data are received from the respective electronic devices associated with the plurality of viewers in response to a detected event in the livestreaming content, wherein the viewer interaction data includes viewer responses of the plurality of viewers in response to the detected event, the viewer interaction data received from the plurality of viewers are aggregated, and a cheering audio is synthesized in relation to the detected event based on the aggregated viewer interaction data.
Uehara et al. (US 2022/0314130 A1) discloses a watching system by which a game video is distributed to display devices of a plurality of watching users has: a computer; the computer accepting viewer operations by the plurality of watching users; the computer evaluating a mutual relationship of input of the viewer operation by each of the plurality of watching users; and the computer controlling an operation effect corresponding to the viewer operation so as to change based on evaluation result of the mutual relationship.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Moreover, even assuming arguendo that independent Claim 1 recites judicial exceptions under MPEP § 2106, the aforementioned features recited in independent Claim 1 improve the computer performance and reduce computational resources by selecting a subset of terminals based on a ratio for relaying requests and collecting responses. As such, it is respectfully submitted that independent Claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations outlined above, that exclude the additional elements, are limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind, and are considered certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found 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” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The additional elements identified above are being used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The advance (i.e., including selecting a subset of accounts based on a ratio) lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). Providing a means of interaction and quantifying a quantity of interaction (as claimed in amended claims 1, 12, and 20) is not a technical solution to a technical problem e.g. something specific to improvements to the functioning of a computer etc., but rather provides an improved user experience for a spectator. Managing and maintaining spectator interactions, including selecting a subset of spectator accounts based on a ratio, pertains to managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions pertaining to organizing human activity and/or a mental process. The Applicant’s disclosure (¶ 64) does provide support for user engagement, wherein, determining the first spectator set from the spectator group can enable the first spectator account to perform spectator interaction with a spectator account that supports a same battling party, which improves the effectiveness of interaction (e.g., cheering for the same supported group) and setting a duration of interaction to allow a spectator to perform another operation (¶ 191); however, such disclosure does not relate to the actual improvement of the technology, but rather a means for improving user interaction, as any spectator would only want to cheer with a group supporting the same team or party and not with the opposing group supporting an opposing team or party (i.e., a subset of spectator accounts). Additionally, besides being a mental process and/or method of human activity, filtering or limiting information from a group or pool of information is what computers do (i.e., querying data and returning results). Thus, the claims at issue lack integration into a practical application. Applicant’s claimed abstract idea lacks or fails to suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The Examiner contends that the claims do not provide an improvement to the technology in which it is generically applied.
At least based on the above, the 101 rejection of claims 1-2, 5, 7-13, 16, and 18-26 are herein maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10-6).
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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights