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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 4, 9 – 11, 13 – 16, 18 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1- 7 and 9 – 19 are pending.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 17 are drawn to an apparatus and/or system.
Claim 18 is drawn to a method.
Claim 19 is drawn to a CRM.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 17 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. (Currently Amended) A data processing apparatus comprising:
receiving circuitry to receive game state information and associated user data for a plurality of previous interactive sessions of an interactive gaming application, the plurality of previous interactive sessions associated with a plurality of users,
wherein for each previous interactive session, the user data is indicative of one or more properties for a given user during the previous interactive session and the game state information is generated by a respective instance of the interactive gaming application during the previous interactive session to include metadata indicative of one or more in-game properties encountered by the given user during the previous interactive session;
analysis circuitry to:
generate, for each of the plurality of previous interactive sessions, user emotion data indicative of one or more user emotion categories in dependence upon the user data for the respective previous interactive session of the plurality of previous interactive sessions, wherein the user emotion data comprises associations between time periods during the previous interactive session and respective user emotion categories of the one or more user emotion categories;
identify a subset of the plurality of previous interactive sessions in which the game state information generated during the time periods associated with a same user emotion category includes metadata indicative of a same set of one or more in-game properties:
determine that a number of previous interactive sessions in the subset is greater than or equal to a predefined threshold number of interactive sessions, wherein the predefined threshold number is greater than or equal to two and less than or equal to a total number of the subset of the plurality of previous interactive sessions;
automatically generate, in response to determining that the number of previous interactive sessions is greater than or equal to the predefined threshold number of interactive sessions, a notification element comprising notification data indicative of the same set of one or more in-game properties;
storage circuitry to store the notification element; and
output circuitry to output the notification element to a processing device prior to a current user starting an interactive session of the interactive gaming application, wherein once received by the processing device, the notification element causes the processing device to generate a notification for output to the current user in advance of the current user encountering the same set of one or more in-game properties.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Processes.
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the analyzing of user data to from previous interactive gaming sessions, determining user emotion data a correspondence between the emotion data and emotion categories, identifying game state data during various time periods associated with the identified user emotion categories wherein the emotion categories indicate in-game properties, comparing a numer of previous interactive game sessions and generating a notification in advance of the user encountering the same in-game properties. This represents a mental process.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): circuitry to receive, store data and/or output (claim 1, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17), a user input device (claims 5, 6) and sensors (claim 5), processing device, (claim 13), processing apparatus (claim 13)
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. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed circuitry to receive, generate, store data and/or output (claim 1, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17), a user input device (claims 5, 6) and sensors (claim 5), processing device, (claim 13), processing apparatus (claim 13) However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Sridhara (US 2015/0286820) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0056] The SOC 100 may also include hardware and/or software components suitable for collecting sensor data from sensors, including speakers, user interface elements (e.g., input buttons, touch screen display, etc.), microphone arrays, sensors for monitoring physical conditions (e.g., location, direction, motion, orientation, vibration, pressure, etc.), cameras, compasses, GPS receivers, communications circuitry (e.g., Bluetooth®, WLAN, WiFi, etc.), and other well known components (e.g., accelerometer, etc.) of modern electronic devices.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, , filed 2/5/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant states:
Applicant respectfully submits that, as amended, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, mental process, or other judicial exception. The claims recite, as a combination, a data processing apparatus configured to: (i) receive game state information generated by respective instances of an interactive gaming application, (ii) analyze user data and game state information from a plurality of interactive sessions, (iii) automatically generate and store a notification element based on aggregated, thresholded analysis, and (iv) output the notification element to a processing device in order to cause that device to provide a notification to a user in advance of the user encountering a particular set of in-game properties.
These operations, in combination, require computer-implemented processing that cannot be practically performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. For example, the steps of aggregating metadata from numerous prior sessions, dynamically detecting when a specific set of in-game properties has crossed a population-level threshold for a particular emotional response, and automatically generating and transmitting a notification element to a remote processing device for use in future interactive sessions, are inherently technical and require the storage, retrieval, and processing capabilities of data processing apparatuses and networked gaming systems. Accordingly, the claims, when considered as a whole, are not directed to a mental process or abstract idea, and are patent eligible at Step 2A, Prong One.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the steps outline (steps (i) – (iv)) clearly are directed towards steps that are squarely defined as an abstract idea such as a mental process wherein the process is of the steps observation (Applicant’s recited step (i)), evaluation (Applicant’s step (ii) and (iii)), judgment, opinion (Applicant’s recited step (iv)). A human can clearly perform these steps utilizing manual means such as pen and paper and human mind.
The Applicant further goes on to argue that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and reflect an improvement to the functioning of the computer or a another technology or technical field such as “improves how interactive gaming systems generate, store and deploy user-facing notifications” (Remarks page 13) The Applicant goes on to argue that the claims essentially improve efficiency of mitigating negative user emotions by the reliance on developers (Remarks page 14 par 1). Examiner is not persuaded of a improvement to the functioning of the computer by these arguments as they appear to be directed towards mere improvements to the user experience.
Applicant further argues that the “automatically generating and storing notification elements based on analysis of game state information and user data collected from a plurality of prior interactive sessions. Id. at [0029].” (Remarks page 14 par 2) and “The specification further explains that the system "can reliably identify in-game properties (and/or combinations of in-game properties) for which notification may be relevant," and contrasts this automated, data-driven identification with developer hardcoding. Id. at [0046].” (Remarks page 14 par 2). Examiner is not persuaded of a improvement to the functioning of the computer by these arguments as mere humans can provide reliable identification of in-game properties for which a notification may be relevant. Examiner notes that similar reasoning applies to Applicants arguments found on pages 14, par 3 – page 15, par 1. The Examiner notes that the Applicant has not sufficiently shown how the functioning of a computer is improved.
The Examiner is further not persuaded by the Applicant’s arguments on page 15, par 2, as the Applicant appears to be imbuing the claims, such as claim 1 with limitations (see argued notification modalities) that are note found in claim 1. The Examiner note that claim 1 merely generates an output of a notification, something that a human utilizing manual means can clearly accomplish utilizing pen and paper.
The Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
5/31/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights