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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4 recites “one or more one or more learning” should be “one or more learning”.
Line 14 recites “the designated embeddings”, the Examiner suggests “the one or more designated embeddings” for consistency throughout the claims.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4 recites “the schema description”, the Examiner suggests “the schema description of objects” for consistency throughout the claims.
Line 4 recites “the one or more learning objectives”, the Examiner suggests “the one or more learning system objectives” for consistency throughout the claims.
Line 5 recites “the schema”, the Examiner suggests “the schema description of objects” for consistency throughout the claims.
Line 5 – 6 recites “the one or more learning objectives, the Examiner suggests “the one or more learning system objectives” for consistency throughout the claims.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 4 -5 recites “virtual entities”, the Examiner suggests “the virtual entities”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites “said designated embeddings”, the Examiner suggest “said one or more designated embeddings” for consistency throughout the claims.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 5 recites “the schema description, the Examiner suggests “the schema description of objects” for consistency throughout the claims.
Line 17 recites “the designated embeddings”, the Examiner suggests “the one or more designated embeddings” for consistency throughout the claims.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 recites “the schema description”, the Examiner suggests “the schema description of objects” for consistency throughout the claims.
Line 4 recites “the one or more learning objectives”, the Examiner suggests “the one or more learning system objectives” for consistency throughout the claims.
Line 5 recites “the schema”, the Examiner suggests “the schema description of objects” for consistency throughout the claims.
Line 5 recites “the one or more learning objectives, the Examiner suggests “the one or more learning system objectives” for consistency throughout the claims.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites “virtual entities”, the Examiner suggests “the virtual entities”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites “said designated embeddings”, the Examiner suggest “said one or more designated embeddings” for consistency throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the received schema" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the one or more embeddings" in lines 9, 10 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "said second device " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the second user device" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the edges" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the entities" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “contextualized embedding” in line 4. It is not clear if this is the same element or a distinct element to the same named element of claim 6, line 2. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the one or more embeddings" in lines 11,12 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the edges" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the entities" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “contextualized embedding” in line 3. It is not clear if this is the same element or a distinct element to the same named element of claim 15, lines 1 - 2. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
All dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend and are similarly rejected for the same reason.
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 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 – 18 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 – 18 recites at least one step or instruction for collecting, organizing and analyzing data using machine learning techniques, 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 and following rules or instructions, which are methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 18 recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising the steps of:
generating, on a server, a storage layer in the form a graph drawn according to a schema description of objects and relationships in a virtual game environment;
producing, at the server, from the received schema and one or more one or more learning system objectives, one or more instructions;
transmitting, via a network, from the server to a gaming device configured to execute an interactive software, the one or more instructions;
applying, by the gaming device, the one or more instructions on raw data generated by the interactive software to create the one or more embeddings;
returning, from the gaming device to the server, the one or more embeddings;
storing, at the server, the one or more embeddings in the graph;
retrieving, at the server, by a machine learning algorithm, one or more designated embeddings from the graph;
performing, at the server, one or more data inference tasks on the designated embeddings by one or more machine learning algorithms to produce one or more predictive outputs; and
adjusting, at the gaming device, one or more parameters of the interactive software in accordance with the one or more predictive outputs.
Accordingly, as indicated in bold above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea. Further, dependent Claims 2 – 9 and 11 - 18 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 and 10 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 9 and 11 - 18) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 10), 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 server, a network, gaming device as recited in independent Claims 1 and 10 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, 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 and 10 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 9 and 11 - 18) 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.
server, a network, gaming device as recited in independent claims 1 and 10). 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 and 10 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 – 9 and 11 - 18) are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the Claims 1 – 18 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, a network, gaming device as recited in the independent claims.
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 – 18 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, Claims 1 – 18 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 – 18 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 and 10 (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 – 18 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 – 18 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea
itself.
Accordingly, claims 1 – 18 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.
Further, the claims are directed to abstract ideas including collecting, organizing and analyzing data using machine learning techniques and using the results to make decisions. The claims do not recite an improvement to computer technology, but instead merely use generic computing devices to perform conventional data processing steps. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. According, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Closest Applicable Prior Art
Cmielowski et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0114401 A1) is interpreted to teach a computer program product for predicting an impact of an adjustment to a machine learning model to key performance indicators, and a forecasting engine. The computer-implemented method may comprise receiving a proposed adjustment to a machine learning model, calculating, using a regression machine learning model to ingest the proposed adjustment, a set of value components for a key performance indicator (KPI), calculating a plurality of results for the KPI using the set of value components, automatically determining whether the plurality of results exceeds a performance threshold, and recommending the proposed adjustment based on the determination.
Abraham et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0044182 A1) is interpreted to teach obtaining deep learning model embedding for each instance present in a dataset, the embedding incorporating a measure of concept similarity. An identifier of a first instance of the dataset is received. A similarity distance is determined based on the respective embeddings of the first instance and a second instance. Similarity distances between embeddings, represented as points, imply a graph, where each instance's embedding is connected by an edge to a set of similar instances' embeddings. Sequences of connected points, referred to as walks, provide valuable information about the dataset and the deep learning model.
However, the prior arts does not expressly disclose the steps of generating, on a server, a storage layer in the form a graph drawn according to a schema description of objects and relationships in a virtual game environment; producing, at the server, from the received schema and one or more one or more learning system objectives, one or more instructions; transmitting, via a network, from the server to a gaming device configured to execute an interactive software, the one or more instructions; applying, by the gaming device, the one or more instructions on raw data generated by the interactive software to create the one or more embeddings; returning, from the gaming device to the server, the one or more embeddings; storing, at the server, the one or more embeddings in the graph; retrieving, at the server, by a machine learning algorithm, one or more designated embeddings from the graph; performing, at the server, one or more data inference tasks on the designated embeddings by one or more machine learning algorithms to produce one or more predictive outputs; and adjusting, at the gaming device, one or more parameters of the interactive software in accordance with the one or more predictive outputs.
Conclusion
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