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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the applications status as a 371 of PCT/US2022/032158, which claims priority to provisional applications 63/309,321 and
63/196,445, and as such the earliest date of priority of 06/03/2021 is granted to the
instant application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments have not been sufficient to overcome the drawing objections and rejections under 35 USC 101 present in the previous Final Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the resistance knob of claims 2-3, 12, and 13, the rotary control of claim 5, and the treadmill of claims 5-7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
Each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1,12, and 20 recites at least one step or instruction for controlling a video game and causing an avatar that represents the user performing exercise activity to move within the video game to a location , which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1,12, and 20 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites a system for controlling actions within a video game environment, the system comprising: an input module that interfaces with an exercise machine upon which a user is performing an exercise activity, wherein the input module receives input from the exercise machine, including: input information that represents an effort of the user while the user is performing the exercise activity, and input information that indicates a current setting of the exercise machine while the user is performing the exercise activity; (the underlined text could possibly be a mental process, e.g., observation, but this underlined text could be considered to be an additional element that represents extra-solution activity akin to data collection) and a game control module that communicates with the input module (additional element) and controls a video game running within the video game environment that is presented to the user performing the exercise activity via a display of the exercise machine, by: moving an avatar that represents the user performing the exercise activity within the video game from a first lane displayed within the video game to a second lane displayed within the video game when the current setting of the exercise machine is adjusted by the user during the exercise activity; and causing the user performing the exercise activity to score points within the video game when the information that represents the effort of the user satisfies a threshold associated with points rewards within the video game running within the video game environment (managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules and/or rules for a game, each being grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)).
Claim 12 recites, a method of controlling an interactive game presented by a display of an exercise bicycle (additional element), the method comprising: presenting an avatar moving through the interactive game via one of multiple lanes displayed within the interactive game(the underlined text could possibly be a mental process, e.g., observation, but this underlined text could be considered to be an additional element that represents extra-solution activity akin to data collection), wherein the avatar represents a user performing an exercise activity on the exercise bicycle (managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules and/or rules for a game, each being grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)), and wherein each of the multiple lanes is associated with a range of resistance levels input by the user to the exercise bicycle via a resistance knob of the exercise bicycle (managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules and/or rules for a game, each being grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).; determining that the user has modified a current resistance level of the exercise bicycle via the resistance knob (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and moving the avatar through the interactive game via a different lane displayed within the interactive game that includes the modified resistance level within the range of resistance levels associated with the lane(managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules and/or rules for a game, each being grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)).
Claim 20 recites, a non-transitory computer-readable medium (additional element) whose contents, when executed by a gaming platform associated with an exercise machine (additional element), cause the gaming platform to perform a method, the method comprising: receiving an indication that a user of an exercise machine has adjusted a difficulty setting of the exercise machine (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG, and moving an avatar associated with the user that is within an interactive game displayed to the user via a display of the exercise machine within the interactive game based on the adjustment of the difficulty setting of the exercise machine (managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules and/or rules for a game, each being grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)), wherein moving within the interactive game includes moving through the interactive game from a first lane displayed within the interactive game to a second lane displayed within the interactive game that is associated with the adjusted difficulty setting of the exercise machine (managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules and/or rules for a game, each being grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-11,and 13-19 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’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1,12,and 20 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-11, and 13-19) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1,12, and 20), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: an input module, a game control module, a display, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, as recited in independent Claims 1,12, and 20 and their dependent claims; are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1,12, and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified 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 additional 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 in independent Claims 1,12, and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., an input module, game control module, display, and a non-transitory computer readable medium as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1,12, and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1,12, and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1,12, and 20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: an input module, game control module, display, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, as recited in independent Claims 1,12 and 20 and their dependent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, in paragraph [39] where it states “Hence, implementations can include a machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which can be used to program a computer (or other electronic devices) to perform a process. The machine-readable medium can include, but is not limited to, floppy diskettes, optical discs, compact disc read-only memories (CD-ROMs), magneto-optical disks, ROMs, random access memories (RAMs), erasable programmable read-only memories (EPROMs), electrically erasable programmable read-only memories (EEPROMs), magnetic or optical cards, flash memory, or other types of media/machine-readable medium suitable for storing electronic instructions.”, in paragraph [40] where it states, “Although not required, aspects of the various components or systems are described in the general context of computer-executable instructions, such as routines executed by a general-purpose computer, e.g., mobile device, a server computer, or personal computer. The system can be practiced with other communications, data processing, or computer system configurations, including: Internet appliances, hand-held devices, wearable devices, or mobile devices (e.g., smart phones, tablets, laptops, smart watches), all manner of cellular or mobile phones, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, set-top boxes, network PCs, mini-computers, mainframe computers, ARNR devices, gaming devices, and the like.”
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term input module, game control module, display, and non-transitory computer readable medium is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the input module, game control module, display, and non-transitory computer readable medium. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1,12, and 20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the systems and methods of Claims 1-20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1,12, and 20 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “from a first lane displayed within the video game to a second lane displayed within the video game” on lines 5-6. It is unclear if these are the same first and second lanes as those claimed in claim 1, or if these are different first and second lanes in the same game.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “from a first lane displayed within the video game to a second lane displayed within the video game” on lines 5-6. It is unclear if these are the same first and second lanes as those claimed in claim 1, or if these are different first and second lanes in the same game.
Examiner notes
The examiner notes that no prior art has been applied to reject claims 1-20 as the claims would be allowable over the closest prior art of record as the closest prior art of record fails to teach or disclose a system for controlling actions within a video game environment, a method of controlling an interactive game presented by a display of an exercise bicycle, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium whose contents, when executed by a gaming platform associated with an exercise machine, cause the gaming platform to perform a method, including specifically moving an avatar associated with the user that is within an interactive game displayed to the user via a display of the exercise machine within the interactive game based on the adjustment of the difficulty setting of the exercise machine, wherein moving within the interactive game includes moving through the interactive game from a first lane displayed within the interactive game to a second lane displayed within the interactive game that is associated with the adjusted difficulty setting of the exercise machine. However, due to the rejections presented under 35 USC 101 of independent claims 1, 12 and 20, in addition to the two newly presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b) due to the new antecedent basis issues that have arisen in claims dependent claims 2 and 5, the dependent claims of 2-11, and 13-19 are rejected due to their dependency on rejected base claims.
The closest prior art of record includes Yamashita et al. US 20030064860 A1, Foley et al. US 20140038781 A1, Dalebout et al. US 10625137 B2, and Su US 5667459 A.
Each of the closest prior art references of record have been fully discussed in the previous action including what is and is not taught, either alone or in combination. Please see the previous rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards, to the applicant’s arguments with respect to the drawing objections presented in the previous Non-Final Action the examiner respectfully disagrees that the features of the resistance knob, the treadmill, and the rotary control are not necessary to understand the claimed subject matter, as the resistance knob appears to be an integral structure in at least dependent claims 2-3, and 13, and independent claim 12 which is necessary for the core function of the interactive game and the exercise device. In addition, the treadmill which has an incline controllable via a rotary control must be shown as is also a core feature of dependent claim 5 which is not illustrated in the drawings and as such the drawing objection(s) have been maintained.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 20 under 35 USC 101, the examiner has maintained the rejection as rules for a game are an abstract idea, particularly a certain method of organizing human activity, and even now with the newly amended limitation of “moving an avatar that represents the user performing the exercise activity within the video game from a first lane displayed within the video game to a second lane displayed within the video game when the current setting of the exercise machine is adjusted by the user during the exercise activity” in claim 1, and similarly the amendments made to claims 12 and 20, the system still requires the user to follow certain rules in order to play the game via the additional elements of input module, a game control module, a display, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, which as claimed are merely generically recited computer elements used as tools for executing the abstract ideas or insignificant extra-solution activity, as the exercise devices itself is an additional element effectively a video game controller providing inputs to the game during play.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/JONATHAN A DICUIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights