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
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1 and 4 shows both players as “PLAYER 2”, para [0033] of the publish application shows first player being “PLYAER 1” and second player being “PLAYER 2”. Additionally, color photographs and color drawings (Fig. 6-8) are unclear. 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.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “module” in claims 1-5, 8-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 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 the abstract idea of mental processes and/ or certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a – Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-15 recite an abstract idea in the category of "mental processes" (concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, and judgment) and "certain methods of organizing human activity" (managing personal behavior or interactions, such as game rules/outcomes). The claims involve collecting raw data (player inputs and play content), analyzing it (e.g., extracting wins/losses from video streams), generating decisions (wins/losses data), and providing/interacting based on results. This mirrors human activities like watching a game, noting scores/events, and announcing outcomes (e.g., a referee or spectator determining a win). This is similar to ineligible cases such as Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting, analyzing, and displaying real-time data streams ineligible as abstract); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (generic data processing for images ineligible). In video game contexts, claims to outcome determination without technical specificity are often abstract (e.g., Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2021), where game authentication via data comparison was abstract).
Step 2a – Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Additional elements (e.g., "UI broker module," "video stream analysis module," "preset including game configuration," "player terminal," "simulation analysis") are recited at a high level and amount to generic computer implementation. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/ or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
Even considering elements individually and as an ordered combination, nothing transforms the abstract idea into an eligible invention.
Elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional: Video stream analysis, data extraction, preset generation, and real-time processing are standard in gaming/streaming (e.g., off-the-shelf tools like OCR for scores or ML for event detection, as in prior art like US 2015/0174478 A1).
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barak (US 2015/0174478 A1).
Claim 1. Barak discloses a system for providing game wins and losses comprising:
a user input (UI) broker module configured to control an input of a player for a game instance, analyze play content for the game instance, and interacting with the player; and a user input broker server configured to provide wins and losses of the player based on analysis of the UI broker module (Fig. 3 & 5), [0013], [0052]-[0055].
Claim 2. Barak discloses the system for providing game wins and losses of claim 1, wherein: the UI broker module includes a UI broker module configured to control a game progress by intervening in the input of the player [0013], [0052].
Claim 3. Barak discloses the system for providing game wins and losses of claim 1, wherein: the UI broker module includes a video stream analysis module configured to extract wins and losses decision data by analyzing a video stream including the play content, and transmit the wins and losses decision data to the UI broker server [0013], [0052]-[0055].
Claim 4. Barak discloses the system for providing game wins and losses of claim 3, wherein: the UI broker module is configured to determine wins and losses of the player based on the wins and losses decision data received from the UI broker module and provide the wins and losses to the UI broker module as wins and losses data, and the UI broker module is configured to perform interaction with the player based on the wins and losses data [0013], [0052]-[0055].
Claim 5. Barak discloses the system for providing game wins and losses of claim 1, wherein: the UI broker module includes a play data collection module configured to collect raw data about the input of the player and the play content [0013], [0044], [0058], [0075]-[0076].
Claim 6. Barak discloses the system for providing game wins and losses of claim 5, wherein: the UI broker server is configured to generate a preset including information about a game configuration of the game instance from the collected raw data [0013], [0044], [0058], [0075]-[0076].
Claim 7. Barak discloses the system for providing game wins and losses of claim 6, wherein: the UI broker server is configured to perform a simulation analysis based on the preset and verify the preset according to the analysis [0013], [0044], [0058], [0075]-[0076].
Claim 8. Barak discloses the system for providing game wins and losses of claim 6, wherein: the UI broker module includes a preset providing module configured to provide a preset including information about the game configuration of the game instance [0013], [0044], [0058], [0075]-[0076].
Claim 9. Barak discloses the system for providing game wins and losses of claim 1, further comprising: a game streaming server configured to provide game streaming to a player terminal, wherein the UI broker module is included in the game streaming server, [0025], [0052], [0055].
Claim 10. Barak discloses the system for providing game wins and losses of claim 1, further comprising: a player terminal, wherein the UI broker module is included in the player terminal, [0013], [0044], [0075].
Claims 11-14. Barak discloses a method for providing game wins and losses comprising: generating a preset including information about a game configuration of a game instance; obtaining play data including an input of a player and play content for the game instance in real time; extracting wins and losses decision data by analyzing the play data obtained in real time; generating wins and losses data that decides the wins and losses of the player based on the wins and losses decision data and the preset; and providing the wins and losses of the player based on the wins and losses data and performing interaction with the player as similarly discussed above.
Claim 15. Barak discloses a computer-readable medium recording a program on a computer for executing: generating a preset including information about a game configuration of a game instance; obtaining play data including an input of a player and play content for the game instance in real time; extracting wins and losses decision data by analyzing the play data obtained in real time; generating wins and losses data that decides the wins and losses of the player based on the wins and losses decision data and the preset; and providing the wins and losses of the player based on the wins and losses data and performing interaction with the player as similarly discussed above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. 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, David L. Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715