DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to claims 1 - 20 filed in this application Teo, U.S. Patent Application No. 18/400,556 (Filed December 29, 2023) claiming priority to Singapore Application No. SG10202260544V (Filed December 21, 2022).
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
1. Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed inventions do not fall within a statutory category of invention because they are neither a process, machine, manufacture, nor composition of matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a “Mental Processes” abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “for a node of the one or more of the connected nodes, at least one of: setting, according to an interaction with a user with an input connection point, a breakpoint at the input connection point, and setting according to an interaction with the user with an output connection point, a breakpoint at the output connection point; and performing a test run of the game logic” covers performance of the limitation that can be performed in the mind or by pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting additional elements of generic computer components as well as insignificant pre- and post-solution data storage and display nothing in the claim elements precludes the setting from being performed by a user using the computer as a tool to record the setting. See MPEP 2106.05(g); see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the setting limitation is the “at least one of” limitations performed rather than the limitations included in the “test run.” As drafted, the claimed process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and insignificant pre- and post-solution data storage and display, which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite generic computing components, insignificant pre- and post-solution data storage, and routine display of data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, 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.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the identified additional elements that use generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claims 2 - 20 contains the same abstract idea as claim 1 and do not contain any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
2. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed inventions do not fall within a statutory category of invention because they are neither a process, machine, manufacture, nor composition of matter.
Claims 20 recites a “computer-readable medium” which the claims or specification fail to limit to non-transitory embodiments. Teo at ¶ 0018 (no limitation of MRSM to non-transitory or non-signal). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, computer-readable medium or storage medium (or media), may be interpreted to include transitory media, which includes a signal per se, particularly when the storage medium is explicitly defined in the specification as a signal. See MPEP 2106 (II) & 2106.03. Claims covering signals per se must be rejected as non-statutory subject matter. See Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, U.S. Patent and Trademark Off. (Aug. 24, 2009), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-25_interim_101_instructions.pdf; see also In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). Examiner suggests amending the claims to read “non-transitory computer-readable medium.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected as being indefinite. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “each graph.” Only one graph has been previously introduced the claim or in a claim from which it depends. Claims 3, 4, and 12 - 14 are rejected for similar reasoning. Claims 2 – 19 are rejected as depending respectively on claims 2, 3, 4, and 12 – 14.
35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a processing unit configured to perform operation for”, in claims 11, 15, and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §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.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vigneau et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0004319 (Published January 7, 2021, filed September 23, 2020) (“Vigneau”) in view of Gouskova et al., United States Patent No. 10,282,280 (Patented May 7, 2019, filed March 29, 2018) (“Gouskova”).
Claims 1, 11, and 20
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 20, Vigneau teaches the invention as claimed including a method for debugging [a video game], comprising: representing [game] logic [of a video game] as a graph; visually presenting the graph in a graphical user interface as one or more connected nodes, wherein the one or more connected nodes each comprise an input connection point and an output connection point, and wherein each of the one or more connected nodes represents processing for a variable supplied at its input connection point, to a result, output by the node at its output connection point, according to the [game] logic; {A visual programming graphical user interface is presented displaying a control flow graph that may be manipulated by the user to specify input and output data flow between functional modules represented as linked nodes in the graph to construct an application. Vigneau at ¶ 0003; id. ¶¶ 0020 – 0022 & 0077 - 0081 (visual programming GUI, functional module nodes, links); id. at ¶¶ 0086 & 0087 (input/output and data flow); id. at fig 1B.}
and for a node of the one or more of the connected nodes, at least one of: setting, according to an interaction with a user with an input connection point, a breakpoint at the input connection point, and setting according to an interaction with the user with an output connection point, a breakpoint at the output connection point; and {Breakpoints may be added to input and/or output points of function module nodes such as just before a function is executed or just after it completes execution. Vigneau at ¶ 0093 and fig. 1B.}
performing a test run of the [game] logic wherein, for each breakpoint at an input connection point of the node, a state of the variable whose processing is represented by the node comprising an input connection point which the variable has before processing by the node is displayed in the graphical user interface together with the visually presented graph; and for each breakpoint at an output connection point of the node, a state of the variable whose processing is represented by the node comprising the output connection point which the variable has after processing by the node is displayed in the graphical user interface together with the visually presented graph. {EN: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the setting limitation is the “at least one of” limitations performed rather than the limitations included in the “test run.”
During testing a breakpoint inspector GUI is displayed for each input/output breakpoint of the graph including displaying variable state information such as file name variable values. Vigneau at ¶ 0002; id. at ¶¶ 0095, 0115, & 0116 (input breakpoint GUI) & ¶¶ 0096 & 0138 - 140 (output breakpoint GUI); id. at fig. 1D, 1E, & 8.}
However, Vigneau doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
a video game {Gouskova does teach this limitation. Gouskova teaches that the method for testing an application by using breakpoints in a graph of the application functions, as taught in Vigneau, may include where the application being tested by using a graph representation is a video game. Gouskova at col. 1 ll. 39 - 47.
Vigneau and Gouskova are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software testing, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to model the application under test.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine testing an application by using breakpoints in a graph of the application functions, as taught in Vigneau, with where the application is a video game, as taught in Gouskova. Gouskova teachs that video games are large applications which require frequent testing. Vigneau at col. 1 ll. 6 - 25. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine testing an application by using breakpoints in a graph of the application functions, as taught in Vigneau, with where the application is a video game, as taught in Gouskova, for the purpose of using a known graph based model for testing an application with a video game testing method that requires using a graph based model.}
Claims 2 and 12
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Vigneau and Gouskova, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein each graph comprises at least one source node having an output connection point but no input connection point. {Node 1A in figure 1 has an output but no input. Vigneau.}
Claims 3 and 13
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Vigneau and Gouskova, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein each graph comprises at least one sink node having an input connection point but no output connection point. {Node 1h in figure 1 is a sink node that has an input but no output. Vigneau.}
Claims 4 and 14
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Vigneau and Gouskova, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein, for each graph, the connected nodes are connected between the at least one source node and the at least one sink node by connections, wherein each connection is connected to an input connection point of one of the nodes and an output connection point of another one of the nodes. {Nodes 1b and 1c are connected via inputs and outputs between a source node 1a and sink node 1d. Vigneau at fig. 1A.}
Claims 5 and 15
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Vigneau and Gouskova, teach the invention as claimed including:
creating the graph according to user input via the graphical user interface. {User utilizes graphical user interface to manipulate the control flow graph. Vigneau at ¶¶ 0019 & 0020.}
Claims 6 and 16
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Vigneau and Gouskova, teach the invention as claimed including:
providing, for each node, program code implementing node logic realizing processing represented by the node. {Nodes of the graph represent functional modules of the application that are executed when the application is run. Vigneau at ¶¶ 0020, 0080, 0088.}
Claims 7 and 17
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Vigneau and Gouskova, teach the invention as claimed including:
comprising, for at least one of the connected nodes, setting parameters of the node logic according to user input via the graphical user interface. {Parameters of the nodes may be edited by the user to alter the performance of the node function. Vigneau at ¶ 0092.}
Claims 8 and 18
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Vigneau and Gouskova, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the variable is a variable {Parameters of the nodes may be edited by the user to alter the performance of the node function. Vigneau at ¶ 0092.}
including information about movement of a character or non-player character, a degree of success of an action or skill or a character or non-player character, a state of a character or non-player character or about a state of a game world, or a combination thereof. {The nodes of the graph include variable representing actions performed by the player in the video game including actions such as running, jumping, or firing an arrow. Gouskova at col. 1 ll. 39 – 47; id. at col. 11 ll. 10 - 26.}
Claims 9 and 19
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Vigneau and Gouskova, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the interaction of the user with the input connection point comprises a marking of the input connection point by a mouse click or touch by the user. {Connection points may be selected by the user to set a breakpoint or edit a parameter; such selection may be performed by means of a click or touch such as “tactile input.” Vigneau at ¶¶ 0094, 0096, 0169, 0171.}
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, Vigneau and Gouskova, teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the interaction of the user with the output connection point comprises a marking of the output connection point by a mouse click or touch by the user. {Connection points may be selected by the user to set a breakpoint or edit a parameter; such selection may be performed by means of a click or touch such as “tactile input.” Vigneau at ¶¶ 0094, 0096, 0169, 0171.}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE E HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
//T.H./ September 21, 2025
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/DUY KHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199