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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/24/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 5/18/26. Claims 1, 5, 11 – 17, and 21 – 24 have been amended, claims 8 – 10 and 18 – 20 have been cancelled, and claims 25 and 26 have been added. Claims 1 – 7, 11 – 17, and 21 – 26 are now pending in the current application.
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 – 7, 11 – 17, and 21 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 7, 21, and 22 are directed towards a method, (process) and claims 11 – 17, 23, 25, and 26 are directed towards a computer-readable media and system, (machine), which are a statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, at a networked computer device, information from a social media feed of a user; analyzing, at the networked computer device, the information from the social media feed to determine a sentiment of the user; selecting, using the networked computer device and based on the sentiment of the user, a scene of a video game from among a plurality of video games each having a plurality of scenes, the selection being based on a mapping of different possible user sentiments to the plurality of scenes of the plurality of video games; identifying, by the networked computer device, an asset used in the selected scene of the video game; generating, by the networked computer device and based on the sentiment of the user, a prompt for a generative artificial intelligence (Al) for modifying the identified asset; modifying, by the generative Al and based on the prompt, an appearance of the asset to generate a modified asset related to the sentiment of the user; in response to modifying the appearance of the asset, determining whether a functionality of the modified asset satisfies a functionality criteria for the video game; in response to determining whether the functionality of the modified asset satisfies the functionality criteria for the video game, storing the modified asset to an asset library or regenerating modifications of the asset; and initiating gameplay of the selected scene using either the modified asset from the asset library or a regenerated modified version of the asset.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 11 and 25. Dependent claims 2 – 7, 12 – 17, 21 – 24, and 26 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of managing personal behavior which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a system that monitors the social media feed of a user to determine a sentiment of a user corresponding to a selection of a scene of a video game, wherein the system further discloses a generative artificial intelligence model that modifies an appearance of an asset in the scene of the video game, wherein after the modified asset is stored, the system initiates gameplay of the scene using the modified asset. Providing new or modified game features based on a player’s social media activity by invoking an AI model, represents managing personal behavior. (use of machine learning machine in a given environment, see Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed Cir. 2025).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention is drawn towards monitoring a user’s social media feed and to determine a sentiment of a user and identifying an asset and to generate a prompt to modify the appearance of the asset that is used by the user in a video game, wherein the modification is based on the sentiment of the user. The claims recite instructions for controlling a game with these features. Here, a human can observe and determine that the appearance of the asset has been modified. For example, in the event that a user’s social media feed shows that the user is celebrating Christmas, a human can create a prompt, (text instruction), for Christmas themed clothing and observe that the clothing of a game asset, (game character), has been changed to Christmas clothing, wherein a human can then make the determination that the clothing has been changed based the user’s celebration of Christmas. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic computer device along with instructions that generate and present a video game to a user, wherein a user’s social media activity is monitored to determine a sentiment of the user, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a computer device and a storage device, (claim 25),, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. The claims further recite the use generative AI arranged in conventional ways. Nothing in the claims provide details about specific or improved learning models, rather they apply particular game information to existing machine learning models to process game information. In light of Recentive, the courts determined that claims are not made patent-eligible merely because they execute tasks with greater speed or efficiency. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argue that “checking for functionality criteria of a video game integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim language reciting monitoring a user’s social media feed to determine a user’s sentiment, does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. The courts have determined that claims that are directed to data collection, recognition, and transmission are abstract ideas and is a well-known practice, (See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank (776 F.3d 1343) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (830 \text{ F.3d 1350, Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicants further argue that “improving a mere modification of video game assets using generative Al”, “solves a problem that is unique to the technical field of video games and, particularly, to the generative Al modification of video game assets”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely invoking a generative AI to modify game assets is not viewed as solving a technical problem, but rather a solution artistic or business problems. The generative AI context is a field-of-use limitation, steps like “generating” and “modifying” are generic instructions to apply an abstract commercial scheme using conventional components. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (data gathering) and 2106.05(g) (insignificant extra-solution activity).
Regarding claim 11, Applicants argue that “the operations are more than instructions to implement machine learning, such as generative Al for video game element modification. Rather, the operations include selecting . .. a scene of a video game based on a mapping of user sentiments to the plurality of scenes of the plurality of video games" and "selecting, based on the sentiment of the user, a particular asset from a plurality of stock assets in the selected scene of the video game." That selected asset is then modified where gameplay can then be initiated "using the modified version of the selected asset instead of a corresponding stock asset”, are significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Generic computer devices that receive, analyze, and identify gaming information are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) computer functions. See Alice (generic computer). The amended claim language does not recite how “computer device” improves performance or reliability. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the current claim language does not recite steps that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field nor do the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of processing data, because the additional elements, processor, memory, and input device, are recited generically. Their collective functions provide conventional computer implementation of an abstract process. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/E.M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights