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 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, 3-5, and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims are directed to acquiring data and generating comments (mental processes and organizing methods of human activity) involving:
acquires state data indicative of a progress state of the game;
estimates a user's game situation from the acquired state data;
a value indicative of a degree to which the progress state of the game is advantageous or disadvantageous to a user (mental process, of judgment by person, and following human activity and using scoring system according to game rules)
estimate a level of perceived interest;
generate a comment to the user on a basis of the estimated level of perceived interest of the user and provide the generated comment for outputting in form of text or voice.
Claims 1, 5, and 16 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of providing comments.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claim 1 recite “information processing apparatus”, “state data acquisition unit”, “situation estimation unit”, “internal state estimation unit”, “comment generation unit”; claims 1, 5, and 16 recite “output processing unit”; claim 16 recite “computer readable medium”, “processors”, “computer program”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (information processing apparatus, computer readable medium, processors, computer program, output processing unit) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (information processing apparatus, computer readable medium, processors, computer program, units) performing data acquisition are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 9, 15, 16, and 21, the mere use of machine learning/neural networks, without recitation of a specific, non-conventional model architecture, or computer-resource optimization that improves the computer itself, is treated as abstract and conventional. See SAP America v. InvestPic (advanced statistics still abstract); In re Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Univ., 991 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (mathematical algorithms for haplotype phasing ineligible absent specific technological improvement). Claims 9, 15, and 21, recite abstract ideas of “game play log data”, and “values of actions” (mental processes and managing human activity).
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic information processing apparatus, computer readable medium, processors, computer program, units, and data acquisition as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, and 7-21 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mental process and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of providing comments, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim language, “computer readable medium…”, as presented covers the form of a transitory propagating signal per se. However, adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claims would overcome this 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection; see document “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/notices/101_crm_20100127.pdf for further details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pps. 6-8, the applicant submits that the amended claims are not directed to a judicial exception such as an abstract idea of mental processes, and the claims recite elements that are integrated into a practical application. However, the examiner disagrees.
Claims recitations of “estimates a user's game situation from the acquired state data”; and “a value indicative of a degree to which the progress state of the game is advantageous or disadvantageous to a user” are understood to be mental processes related to a person watching a game/event then providing judgment according to a point system rules of the game. The recited “machine learning model” is merely the use of a machine to perform something that a human can perform. Note, the mere use of machine learning, without recitation of a specific, non-conventional model architecture, or computer-resource optimization that improves the computer itself, is treated as abstract and conventional. The claims as currently presented are related to a person observing an event including progression, people behavior/mood, then the person providing feedback, commentary according to his/her observation; hence, the claims themselves does not clearly reflect an improvement in the technology.
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 DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715