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
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 3/10/26.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 1, 11.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are added.
Claim(s) 12, 18, 20 is/are cancelled.
Currently, claim(s) 1-11, 13-17, 19, 21-23 is/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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-11, 13-17, 19, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-17, 19, 22 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) 1-11, 13-17, 19, 22 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, 11,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “receiving a target goal for at least one user; detecting user actions relative to the electronic game content presentation including monitoring presentation time of the electronic game content and tracking progress toward a user-selected goal comprising at least one game-specific metric; and updating the electronic game content presentation based on the target goal and the presentation time of the electronic game content, wherein updating includes modifying electronic game content to indicate achievement of the user-selected goal and providing a reward to the user”, are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, 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 2-10, 13-17, 19, 22 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 “controlling, by a device, electronic game content presentation on a display” (claim 1), “a device comprising: an interface configured to output gaming content; a memory storing executable instructions; and a controller coupled to the interface and the memory” (claim 11), 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, Froy Jr (2021/0335085) teaches a gaming system that displays game content (Fig 2, ¶¶0070, 0079-0080).
In addition, with regards to the present 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 1-11, 13-17, 19, 22, 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) 1-11, 13-17, 19, 22 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) 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuna et al. (2023/0051771) in view of Chudley et al. (2002/0188361).
Re Claim 1,
Fortuna discloses a method for electronic game control for game rewards and target goal control (Fig 1-2, ¶¶0014-0016, 0062-0064), the method comprising:
receiving, by a device, a target goal for at least one user (Fig 1-2, ¶¶0014-0016, 0019; the user can set rules or goals, for example, a rule may associate a specified time period of gameplay with a specified time period);
controlling, by a device, electronic game content presentation on a display (Fig 1-2, ¶¶0023-0025, 0043; the streaming server transmits game content to the user device);
detecting, by the device, user actions relative to the electronic game content presentation (Fig 1-2, ¶¶0023-0025, 0035, 0055; the system tracks a length of time of the gameplay session, furthermore, the user’s engagement in the gameplay session is considered as the user actions); and
updating, by the device, the electronic game content presentation based on the target goal and the presentation time of the electronic game content and modifying electronic game content (¶¶0021-0022, 035, 0054; when the allotted time is reached, an overlay notification is sent to a device during the gameplay session, i.e., the game content is modified when an overlaid message is displayed).
Fortuna is silent on monitoring presentation time of the electronic game content and tracking progress toward a user-selected goal comprising at least one game-specific metric, and indicate achievement of the user-selected goal and providing a reward to the user.
However, Chudley teaches monitoring presentation time of the electronic game content and tracking progress toward a user-selected goal comprising at least one game-specific metric, and indicate achievement of the user-selected goal and providing a reward to the user (Fig 4-5, 7A-7B, ¶¶0016, 0071-0073, 0087-0089; the game tracks a player’s progress for the predetermined goal and determines points as a function of the player's performance in relation to achieving a goal set by the player). Chudley further teaches such a configuration provides a game scoring system that enables a player to set goals for a game that if successfully achieved, will result in points being awarded the player (¶0013).
Re Claim 2,
Fortuna is silent on the target goal includes at least one in-game performance goal. However, Chudley teaches the target goal includes at least one in-game performance goal (¶¶0016, 0071-0073, 0087-0089). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 3, 13,
Fortuna discloses a time limit for presentation of the electronic game content (¶¶0013, 0049, 0054).
Re Claims 4, 14,
Fortuna discloses controlling electronic game content presentation is based on a fixed time resource for the user, the fixed time resource allocating a time amount for gameplay per day (¶¶0023-0025, 0035, 0055).
Re Claims 7, 17,
Fortuna discloses all limitations as set forth above including detecting a user playtime within a time allowance but is silent on generating a reward for the user. However, Chudley teaches generating a reward for the user (¶¶0016, 0071-0073, 0087-0089). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 8,
Fortuna discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on generating a game system currency reward. However, Chudley teaches generating a game system currency reward (¶¶0016, 0071-0073, 0087-0089). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 10,
Fortuna discloses receiving a user goal self input, the user goal self input identifying at least one of a target goal and time allowance for electronic game content presentation (¶¶0014-0016, 0019).
Re Claim 11,
Claim is substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Claim(s) 5-6, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuna et al. (2023/0051771) in view of Chudley et al. (2002/0188361), further in view of Froy Jr. et al. (2021/0335085).
Re Claims 5, 15,
Fortuna as modified by Chudley discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on detecting user actions relative to electronic game content presentation includes eye tracking detection of a user. However, Froy teaches detecting user actions relative to electronic game content presentation includes eye tracking detection of a user (Fig 10-12, ¶¶0106-0113). Froy further teaches such a configuration provides unique player experiences (¶0020). 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 Froy into the gaming control of Fortuna as modified by Chudley in order to provide unique player experiences.
Re Claims 6, 16,
Fortuna as modified by Chudley discloses all limitations as set forth above including measuring use of a time allowance for gameplay but is silent on eye tracking detection of a user, and wherein a game reward includes a time duration parameter for eye track and a currency value for in-game use. However, Chudley teaches a game reward includes a currency value for in-game use (¶¶0016, 0071-0073, 0087-0089). Froy teaches eye tracking and a time duration parameter for eye track (¶¶0100-0103, 0106-0113). See claim 1 and 5 for motivations.
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuna et al. (2023/0051771) in view of Chudley et al. (2002/0188361), further in view of Amaitis et al. (2013/0005486).
Re Claims 9, 19,
Fortuna as modified by Chudley discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose terminating presentation of the electronic game content based on user playtime exceeding a time allowance. However, Amaitis teaches terminating presentation of the electronic game content based on user playtime exceeding a time allowance (¶0075). 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 Amaitis into the gaming system of Fortuna as modified by Chudley in order to ensure the proper enforcement of the play time limit.
Claim(s) 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuna et al. (2023/0051771) in view of Chudley et al. (2002/0188361), further in view of Novelli et al. (10842430).
Re Claim 21,
Fortuna as modified by Chudley discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on receiving eye tracking data of the user and determining the presentation time from the eye tracking data, and wherein updating includes stopping the presentation when the determined presentation time exceeds a time allowance for the user. However, Novelli teaches receiving eye tracking data of the user and determining the presentation time from the eye tracking data, and wherein updating includes stopping the presentation when the determined presentation time exceeds a time allowance for the user (Fig 5-11, col 5, ln 19-21, 26-45, col 6, ln 61-67, col 7, ln 1-5). Novelli further teaches such a configuration helps a user to recover from certain symptoms of eye strain (col 5, ln 39-41). 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 Novelli into the game of Fortuna as modified by Chudley in order to help a user to recover from certain symptoms of eye strain.
Re Claim 23,
Fortuna as modified by Chudley discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on processing image data of the user's eyes with a trained model to classify user attention and determining the presentation time based on the classification, and wherein updating includes modifying the presented game content in real time based on the determined presentation time. However, Novelli teaches processing image data of the user's eyes with a trained model to classify user attention and determining the presentation time based on the classification, and wherein updating includes modifying the presented game content in real time based on the determined presentation time (col 5, ln 19-21, 26-45, col 6, ln 61-67, col 7, ln 1-5, col 10, ln 1-47). See claim 21 for motivation.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuna et al. (2023/0051771) in view of Chudley et al. (2002/0188361), further in view of Manfredi et al. (2003/0190944).
Re Claim 22,
Fortuna as modified by Chudley discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on enforcing a fixed time resource that allocates a gameplay time amount per day for the user, and wherein updating includes modifying the presented game content to indicate a time status. However, Manfredi teaches enforcing a fixed time resource that allocates a gameplay time amount per day for the user, and wherein updating includes modifying the presented game content to indicate a time status (¶¶0024, 0031, 0051-0052; a player can select to self-limit based on time). Manfredi further teaches such a configuration prevents gaming addiction (¶¶0006-0009). 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 Manfredi into the game of Fortuna as modified by Chudley in order to prevent gaming addiction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection,
Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter because they are integrated into a practical application that improves the functioning of a device, specifically, the recited elements of “controlling electronic game content presentation on a display, detecting user actions…including monitoring presentation time…and tracking progress toward a user-selected goal…, updating the electronic game content presentation…includes modifying electronic game content…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the recited elements are routine data manipulations and information presentation steps in a computer game. There is no recited improvement to the functioning of the computer itself (e.g., no change to memory hierarchy, graphics pipeline, input handling, networking, or processor operation). The claims do not specify a particular technical data structure or algorithm that improves computer performance. For instance, the limitation “modifying electronic game content to indicate achievement” is claimed broadly and can be simply provided by displaying a game achievement message on the game screen.
Applicant further argues that the rejections do not provide the evidentiary showing required by Berkheimer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Berkheimer, factual showings are needed if asserting WURC is not established by the record. Here, the specification itself supports conventionality by describing commonplace gaming hardware and general-purpose computing (¶¶0045-0048) and by implementing the features in software without specialized architecture. Thus, the generic computer elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Furthermore, newly added claim 22 describes additional rules for the game and is rejected for the reason as set forth above. However, claims 21 and 23 recited elements that are patent eligible.
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 JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached 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 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights