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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/16/26 has been entered.
Currently, claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/16/26 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 12,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “transmitting an invitation to join a future or a current gaming session of a first user; receiving, from a second user an acceptance of the invitation; determining that the gaming session has commenced, the gaming session comprising the video game being played, by the first user in a single player mode in which a first character of the first user is participating without characters of other users; determining whether a current point in the gaming session for the video game corresponds to an insertion point; in response to determining that the current point in the gaming session for the video game corresponds to the insertion point: modifying the gaming session by (1) instantiating a multiplayer mode to cause the gaming session for the video game to change from the single player mode to the multiplayer mode, and (2) enables the second user to control a second character of the modified gaming session, and wherein the modified gaming session comprises each of the first character of the first user and the second character of the second user participating in the video game; determining whether a current point in the modified gaming session for the video game corresponds to an end trigger point; and in response to determining that the current point in the modified gaming session corresponds to the end trigger point: removing the second user from the modified gaming session; and causing the modified gaming session for the video game to change from the multiplayer mode back to the single player mode”, are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior and interactions between people, rules). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-11, 13-20 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 are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “a computer, a first computing device, a second computing device, the first computing device to connect to a multiplayer video game server”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these 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, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Marr et al. (2016/0001181) teaches the additional elements (Fig 1B-2C, ¶¶0059, 0062, 0064-0066, 0071-0076).
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-20, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and rules in In re Smith.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltran et al. (2023/0166183) in view of York (7559834).
Re Claims 1, 12,
Beltran discloses a computer-implemented method, a system comprising:
transmitting an invitation to join a future or a current gaming session of a first user; receiving, from a second user via a second computing device, an acceptance of the invitation (¶¶0049, 0070, 0099-0100; the primary user can invite the secondary users to join their session, in response to the secondary user accepting the invitation, then the primary user's video stream is shared with the secondary user);
determining that the gaming session has commenced, the gaming session comprising the video game being played, by the first user on a first computing device, in a single player mode in which a first character of the first user is participating without characters of other users (¶¶0044-0045; in the normal single user mode of gameplay, all of the inputs from the input devices of the singular controller device are controlled by the user);
determining whether a current point in the gaming session for the video game corresponds to an insertion point; in response to determining that the current point in the gaming session for the video game corresponds to the insertion point: modifying the gaming session by (1) instantiating a multiplayer mode to cause the gaming session for the video game to change from the single player mode to the multiplayer mode, and (2) causing the first computing device to connect to a multiplayer video game server, wherein the multiplayer video game server enables the second user to control a second character of the modified gaming session, and wherein the modified gaming session comprises each of the first character of the first user and the second character of the second user participating in the video game (Fig 1-6, ¶¶0099-0100, 0104-0106; in response to the secondary user accepting the invitation, then the primary user's video stream is shared with the secondary user, i.e., the game changes from a single player mode to a multiplayer mode, in addition, the game screen sharing with the second user is considered as an insertion point, further, a remote video server is used to facilitate the multiplayer mode);
Beltran does not explicitly disclose determining whether a current point in the modified gaming session for the video game corresponds to an end trigger point; and in response to determining that the current point in the modified gaming session corresponds to the end trigger point: removing the second user from the modified gaming session; and causing the modified gaming session for the video game to change from the multiplayer mode back to the single player mode.
However, York teaches determining whether a current point in the modified gaming session for the video game corresponds to an end trigger point; and in response to determining that the current point in the modified gaming session corresponds to the end trigger point: removing the second user from the modified gaming session; and causing the modified gaming session for the video game to change from the multiplayer mode back to the single player mode (Fig 9, col 10, ln 27-67). York further teaches such a configuration allows the game to add and remove players without disrupting game play (col 1, ln 44-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of York into the game of Beltran in order to allow the game to add and remove players without disrupting game play.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights