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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to the abstract ideas of a fundamental business practice and mental processes to provide personalized configuration information.
Claims 1 and 15-17 are independent claims directed to an apparatus and a method. Products and Processes fall within statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The current claims have two types of abstract ideas.
The claims have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to an exception. In this case, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of a fundamental business practice computers and the Internet, i.e., “requesting, transmitting, receiving, and storing data records.” (Citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .)
The steps of:
obtain statistical information;
receive user input;
obtain more statistical information;
provide control information to a second application
provide configuration information or the additional information to the second application.
are considered to fall under the abstract idea of a fundamental business practice computers and the Internet, i.e., “requesting, transmitting, receiving, and storing data records.”
The claims have been further analyzed to determine whether it is directed to an exception. In this case, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of a mental process or a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). In particular, the process of matching users to an application can be done mentally.
The steps of:
generate configuration information;
generate additional information;
are considered to fall under the abstract idea of a mental process or a concept performed in the human mind (evaluation).
The claim recites abstract ideas.
(Step 2A, prong one: YES)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether there are additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this case, the claims recite that “a server”, “a communication interface”, “a processor” and “a memory” are configured perform the steps.
The “a server”, “a communication interface”, “a processor” and “a memory” in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2A, prong two: NO)
Viewing the limitations individually,
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
The additional elements, “a server”, “a communication interface”, “a processor” and “a memory” are configured perform the steps, in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as a combination, the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the concept of an electronic method of providing personalized configuration information with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not add significantly more to the abstract idea of determining a setting.
(Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-14 have been considered each as whole claim as to the abstract idea and the “significantly more” criterion. While being more specific, the limitations did not make the claims less abstract nor provide “significantly more” to the claims to make them patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 USC 101, but would be allowable if the 101 issue are resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to art, Verfaillie et al. (US PG pub 2021/0362048) shows the closest prior art. Verfaillie et al. shows, figure 1, a similar system including a video game server, a client device and a video game client. Statistical data is retrieved to better match users.
The closest prior art and the other cited prior art cannot be properly combined the full detailed limitations in independent claim 1, 15, 16 and 17, especially the specific information flow that leads to providing personalized configuration information or the additional information to the second application (or in claim 17 the personalized configuration information is applied to the game client.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on 571 272-7147. 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.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights