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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 01/28/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1 and 21-39 remain pending, Claims 21-39 have been newly added, and Claims 2-20 have been currently canceled. Currently, Claim 1 has been amended. No new matter appears to have been entered.
The amendment to Claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the corresponding 35 USC 112 rejection. The 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 34 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 34 and 37 state, “transmitting, by the storyline developer tool, the first portion of the storyline for output through the developer tool user interface user interface on the user device” and “transmitting, by the storyline developer tool, the additional prompt for output through the developer tool user interface user interface of the user device” in lines 15, 21 and 14, 20, respectively. (emphasis added)
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 31 and 32 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 31 recites the limitation "wherein the first portion of the storyline is a full storyline for the interactive application" in line 2. (emphasis added) There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "interpreting, by the GAI model, the one or more prompts to determine at least one of: (i) the type of game the user wishes to develop, and (ii) the subject matter of the game" in line 6. (emphasis added) There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 and 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 21-39 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 34 recites, in part, the limitations of […]; and […]: receiving, […], one or more prompts entered by a user […]; providing, […], the prompts as input […] to generate storylines for developing interactive applications from prompts; receiving, […], a first portion of a storyline that includes (i) a first set of thumbnails providing visual representation of the storyline, and (ii) text content providing a description of content included in each thumbnail of the first set of thumbnails; transmitting, […], the first portion of the storyline for output […]; receiving, […], data indicating a selection of a specific portion of the first portion of the storyline; generating, […], an additional prompt based on one or more attributes of the specific portion of the first portion of the storyline; transmitting, […], the additional prompt for output […]; receiving data indicating a selection of a particular additional prompt […]; providing, […], the particular additional prompt as input […]; and receiving, […], a modified storyline. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 34 (wherein the limitations are substantially similar to those of independent claim(s) 1 and 37). 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 34 recites the additional element(s) of “A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving, by a storyline developer tool, […] a developer tool user interface on a user device; providing, by the storyline developer tool, […] a storyline developer generative artificial intelligence (GAI) model that is trained to […]; 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 user interface for user interaction and user selection can be implemented on a generic computer.
[0075] Users access the remote services with client devices, which include at least a CPU, a display and I/O. The client device can be a PC, a mobile phone, a netbook, a PDA, etc...
As such, the steps, 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. 75).
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. 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 34, 1, and 37 are rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 21-33, 35-36, and 38-39 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 34 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 21-33, 35-36, and 38-39 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 34. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 34, Claims 21-33, 35-36, and 38-39 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 amended, the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Rinearson et al. (US 2013/0173531) discloses the concept of user-submitted content (e.g., stories) may be associated with descriptive metadata (intersection metadata), such as a timeframe, location, tags, and so on, story content is presented in a virtual space, such as a forum, chatroom, or the like, and users submit collaborative content as the story is presented in the virtual space.
Uriostegui et al. (US 2018/0143741) discloses the concept of a mobile application includes a user interface for creating video or hypervideo content comprising a plurality of visual cards, and user text input is received for display on one of the visual cards, and text analysis information comprising a tone of the text and a topic of the text and/or one or more keywords of the text is identified based on the text input.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s “Remarks” do not point out disagreements with the Examiner’s contentions regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection. While Claim 1 has been amended and Claims 21-39 are new, the 101 rejection has been maintained. Thus, amended Claim 1 and newly added Claims 21-39 have been rejected as shown above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights