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(s) 8-16 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1-7 and 17-20 have been cancelled. This action is Non-Final.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 2 – Claim(s) 8-16 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
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 data analytics device comprising a data analytics tool (as noted support for this is found in Applicant’s Specification - FIG. 4, ⁋[0017], ⁋ [0080] and ⁋ ⁋ [0101]-[0102]) in claim(s) 8 and 11.
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 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.
Claim(s) 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 8-16 are directed to a machine. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 8, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
receive at least one content report from at least one of a plurality of user computing devices, wherein the at least one content report is initiated by a user associated with the at least one associated user computing device via an in-app content reporting feature; and
update the identification and classification data of the plurality of application users based on the at least one content report.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 8 includes store identification and classification data of a plurality of application users; and data analytics configured to: receive at least one content report from at least one of a plurality of user computing devices, wherein the at least one content report is initiated by a user associated with the at least one associated user computing device via an in-app content reporting feature; and update the identification and classification data of the plurality of application users based on the at least one content report, thus, claim 8 falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 8, i.e., a system w/ database and a data analytics device w/ a tool; nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 8, includes store identification and classification data of a plurality of application users; and data analytics configured to: receive at least one content report from at least one of a plurality of user computing devices, wherein the at least one content report is initiated by a user associated with the at least one associated user computing device via an in-app content reporting feature; and update the identification and classification data of the plurality of application users based on the at least one content report, which, encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 8 recites i.e., a system w/ database and a data analytics device w/ a tool. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋[0101]). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 8 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 8 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 8 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 8, i.e., a system w/ database and a data analytics device w/ a tool; thus, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 8 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 8 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 9-16, claims 9-16 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite further concepts of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) i.e., further features related to “data analytics” and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., Claim 11 – JSON Data, Claim 14 - serverless function, Claim 16 – devices). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mescon et al. (US 2013/0252737 A1).
Regarding Claim 8;
Mescon discloses a system, comprising:
a database configured to store identification and classification data of a plurality of application users ([0027] - Turning to FIG. 3, a more detailed diagram of the statistics server system 1700 is shown. The statistics server system 1700 generally receives data from the game files database 1510 delivered by a local server manager 1600 via a local server manager interface 1740. The statistics server system 1700 includes a statistics server engine 1730 that receives the game files data from the local server manager 1600 and generates in-game statistics and metrics for storage in its own database 1710 and [0032]-[0033] - The report server system 1800 includes a reporting engine 1820 component that is configured to receive reports submitted by users, via the game client interface 1830, and store them in a report archive database 1810, which can be a relational-type database, such as MySQL... From this report archive database 1810, not only can a specific report be derived, but also the identification of particular users that have been most frequently reported (e.g., top accused offenders or top rated players)... Moreover, in the case of undesirable behavior, one or more "harassment scores" may be derived based on the frequency and type of report received... In the case of exceptional behavior, a positive player rating may be established based on the frequency of positive reports and [0038]-[0039] and [0041]);
a data analytics device comprising a data analytics tool ([0036] - Turning to FIG. 5a, a more detailed diagram of an arbitration server system 1900 is shown... To that end, the game system 1000 includes an arbitration server system 1900 having an arbitration engine 1920 that generates case files to be presented to a user that wishes to arbitrate a particular report. The arbitration engine 1920 queries a report from the reporting server system 1800, via a report server interface 1960 (also an application interface known in the art), and generates a case file that merges the queried report with data from the particular game at issue. This data is retrieved from the statistics server system 1700 via the statistics server interface 1950 using the identification of the particular game at issue) configured to:
receive at least one content report from at least one of a plurality of user computing devices ([0030]-[0031] - In the case where a second user wishes to report undesirable behavior, the second user can use a reporting user interface included in the game client 1100, an example of which is shown in FIG. 4b... In the case where a second user wishes to report desirable and/or exceptional behavior or skill, the second user can use a reporting user interface 1150 included in the game client 1100, an example of which is shown in FIG. 4c....), wherein the at least one content report is initiated by a user associated with the at least one user computing device via an in-app content reporting feature ([0030]-0031] - ...in the game client...); and
update the identification and classification data of the plurality of application users based on the at least one content report ([0039] - Moreover, the system 1000 may incorporate this statistic to reduce the "performance rating" for a particular user and/or reward issued and [0040] - These results can then enable an administrator and system 1000 to verify the "performance rating" in the report server system 1800 and issue certain rewards for the particularly exceptional players, such as issuing a certificate or adding special game play features exclusively for the players who exhibit exceptional skill or behavior The process for determining what reward to issue can optionally include relevant voting statistics described above, if available, for example vote as to type of reward and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 9;
Mescon discloses the system of claim 8.
Mescon further discloses wherein the at least one content report includes telemetry event data (FIG. 4B and FIG. 4C and [0030]-[0031]).
Regarding Claim 10;
Mescon discloses the system of claim 8.
Mescon further discloses wherein the at least one content report includes in-app purchase event data, session start/end event data, install event data, custom event data, or a combination thereof ([0025] - Upon the completion of a session-based game between multiple users... [0030]-[0031] - Upon completion of a game where the one or more offending users displayed undesirable behavior, the second user, with the user interface shown in FIG. 4b, may identify the one or more offending users, specify the undesirable behavior displayed, and add additional comments... Upon completion of a game where the one or more exceptional users displayed desirable behavior or skill, the second user, with the user interface shown in FIG. 4c, may identify the one or more exceptional users, specify the behavior or skill displayed, add a rating, for example, a score from 1-5, and add additional comments and [0066]).
Regarding Claim 12;
Mescon discloses the system of claim 8.
Mescon further discloses wherein the data analytics device is further configured to: receive, from an external device, at least one result based on the at least one content report ([0038] – From all of this data, the arbitrating user then has the option to either vote for punishment, vote for exoneration ("Don't Punish"), skip vote, or end arbitration ("Done for now"). Other options include more "soft" votes, e.g., the arbitrating user can also vote as to whether such behavior is simply unacceptable without rendering a punishment vote. Moreover, the arbitrating user can also vote as to type of punishment, e.g., whether to simply issue a warning, disable certain features, issue a temporary ban, or issue a permanent ban from the game system 1000... and [0040] - From all of this data, the arbitrating user then has the option to either vote for issuing a reward, vote for no reward, skip vote, or end arbitration ("Done for now"). Other options include more "soft" votes, e.g., the arbitrating user can also vote as to whether such behavior or skill is indeed exceptional without rendering a reward vote. Moreover, the arbitrating user can also vote as to type of reward, e.g., whether to simply issue a complement, enable certain features, or issue grants of game play free of charge).
Regarding Claim 13;
Mescon discloses the system of claim 12.
Mescon further wherein the at least one result modifies the application, wherein the at least one result includes banning another application user from the application ([0038] - Moreover, the arbitrating user can also vote as to type of punishment, e.g., whether to simply issue a warning, disable certain features, issue a temporary ban, or issue a permanent ban from the game system 1000).
Regarding Claim 15;
Mescon discloses the system of claim 8.
Mescon further discloses wherein the at least one content report includes one or more of a customer service request and a user moderation request (FIG. 4a-c and [0029]-[0031]).
Regarding Claim 16;
Mescon discloses the system of claim 8.
Mescon further discloses wherein the plurality of user computing devices are portable electronic devices, smart phones, tablet computers, or a combination thereof (FIG. 1 and [0019]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Mescon et al. (US 2013/0252737 A1) in view of Montgomery et al. (US 2020/0301888 A1).
Regarding Claim 11;
Mescon discloses the system of claim 8.
Mescon further discloses wherein the data analytics tool is further configured to: generate ... data based on the at least one content report ([0038] and [0040]); and transmit the ... data to one or more downstream devices ([0038] and [0040] and [0059]-[0065]).
Mescon fails to explicitly disclose ... generate JSON data based on the at least one content report; and transmit the generated JSON data to one or more downstream devices
However, in an analogous art, Montgomery teaches ...generate JSON data based on the at least one content report ([0035] - Generally, the file processor 235 can access a changed filesystem element, calculate a digital signature for the filesystem element, and collect filesystem element metadata associated with the filesystem element and an operation executed on the filesystem element. This information can be used to generate a filesystem event and provided to report generation component 240. Report generation component 240 can aggregate filesystem events in a report data structure, such as an XML or JSON data structure, and transmit the result to the system 160 (FIG. 1) using network interface service 245); and transmit the generated JSON data to one or more downstream devices ([0035] - Generally, the file processor 235 can access a changed filesystem element, calculate a digital signature for the filesystem element, and collect filesystem element metadata associated with the filesystem element and an operation executed on the filesystem element. This information can be used to generate a filesystem event and provided to report generation component 240. Report generation component 240 can aggregate filesystem events in a report data structure, such as an XML or JSON data structure, and transmit the result to the system 160 (FIG. 1) using network interface service 245).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Montgomery to the report of Mescon to include ... generate JSON data based on the at least one content report; and transmit the generated JSON data to one or more downstream devices
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Montgomery to Mescon to do so as it provides / allows for operations that can be analyzed... to track... events... (Montgomery, [0012]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Mescon et al. (US 2013/0252737 A1) in view of Atluri et al. (US 2022/0035882 A1).
Regarding Claim 14;
Mescon discloses the system of claim 12
Mescon discloses wherein the at least one result triggers ... execution.., ([0038] and [0040] and [0059]-[0065]).
Mescon discloses wherein the at least one result triggers the execution of a serverless function to modify the application.
However, in an analogous art, Atluri teaches wherein the at least one result triggers the execution of a serverless function to modify the application ([0002] - In general, in one or more aspects, the disclosure relates to a method that converts a request received from a client application to a query by a serverless function operating on a virtual machine instance provisioned responsive to the request. The query is transmitted to an application database corresponding to the client application. A result is received from the application database. The result is converted into a response and the response is transmitted to the client application in response to the request. Display of the client application is updated based on response with the result).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Atluri to the trigged execution of Mescon to include wherein the at least one result triggers the execution of a serverless function to modify the application.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Atluri to Mescon to do so as it provides / allows for scaling the system to handle millions of requests from client applications (Atluri, [0015]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al. (US 9,795,887 B2) discusses the field of the invention relates to multi-user online gaming systems, and more particularly to systems and methods that enable a spectator's experience for online active games. In a preferred embodiment, an online multiuser game system includes a user matching system configured to match users for a game session, wherein the user matching system is enabled to match a first user with another user based at least in part on behavior data in the first user's profile (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626