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 Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: For each claim, change the preamble from “A data processing apparatus” to – The data processing apparatus --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1
Claims 1-10 and 13 are directed to an apparatus meeting the requirements for Step 1.
Claim 11 is directed to a method meeting the requirements for Step 1.
6. Step 2A Prong 1
In independent Claim 1 (and similarly for Claims 11 and13), reads as follows:
1. A data processing apparatus comprising circuitry configured to:
detect a speech input from a first user playing a video game;
transmit data representing the speech input to a second data processing apparatus using a first communication channel for output to a second user playing the video game with the first user;
determine if a private conversation mode is enabled;
if the private conversation mode is not enabled, transmit data representing the speech input to a third data processing apparatus using a second communication channel for output to a third user watching but not playing the video game with the first and second users; and
if the private conversation mode is enabled, prevent transmission of data representing the speech input to the third data processing apparatus using the second communication channel.
The above italicized steps of detecting speech and of determining a mode are processes are drafted at such a high level of generality that it encompasses an abstract mental process that can be performed within the human mind wherein one can observe if two platers are talking and if the players desire their communication to be private involves judgment by the observer if the communication through words or gestures indicate a desire for privacy. These mental steps recited in the context of a highly generalized computing environment of “circuitry”, “data processing apparati”, and “communication channels” do not affect the determination of abstract mental processes (see “a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind”, See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, Claim 1 as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations within the mind as an abstract mental process.
7. Step 2A Prong II
The recited claim fails to recite any elements that provide a practical application. As stated in TLI, “[i]t is well-settled that recitation of concrete, tangible components alone is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to otherwise abstract data. The components must involve more than the performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.” (Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
The claim recites transmitting data over a communication channel from a first user to a second user under one privacy mode or condition and to a third user under another privacy mode or condition. Applicant's specification does not disclose new ways to accomplish this but discloses only known technologies used in their customary ways. Specifically, Examiner finds in the specification, the use of known gaming consoles (Sony® PlayStation 5® [0024, 0025]); protocols (Ethernet®, Bluetooth®, WiFi® [0028]); microphones and Voice over Internet (VOIP)([0040]); timers ([0061]); trained machine learning methods ([0066, 0077, 0078]), and classification schemes ([0080, 0081]) where the claims invention can be executed by a CPU and memory ([0026, 0027]). According to Applicant, “[n]umerous modifications and variations of the present disclosure are possible in light of the above teachings. It is therefore to be understood that, within the scope of the claims, the disclosure may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described herein.” ([0102]). Further, “[d]escribed embodiments may be implemented in any suitable form including hardware, software, firmware or any combination of these. Described embodiments may optionally be implemented at least partly as computer software running on one or more computer processors (e.g. data processors and/or digital signal processors). The elements and components of any embodiment may be physically, functionally and logically implemented in any suitable way.” ([0105]).
As in Electric Power, the claims did not require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it.” (See, e.g., '710 patent, col. 8, lines 51-62 (referring to existing phasor data sources); J.A. 6969-71 (describing workings and history of phasor data use); Electric Power Group Br. at 21-22; Reply Br. at 5 (new algorithms not claimed). “As a result, they do not require an arguably inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that would generate new data. They do not invoke any assertedly inventive programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information — to provide a "humanly comprehensible" amount of information useful for users”, (Reply Br. at 6; Electric Power Group Br. at 14-15), so by itself did not transform the abstract processes of information collection and analysis. Thus, the recited elements considered individually and in combination only provide an extra-solution computing environment to carry out the abstract idea. Thus, Claims 1, 11, and 13 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
8. Step 2B
According to the 2019 PEG, in addition to the considerations discussed in Step 2A, an additional consideration indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) is the addition of a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Conversely, an additional consideration not indicative of an inventive concept is simply appending well-understood, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claims 1, 11, and 13 recite the extra-solution activity consistent with Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicative of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner as they are here of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) and of maintain modes of operation e.g., performing repetitive calculations (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii) and electronic recordkeeping (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii). Accordingly, a conclusion that the transmitting steps premised on a particular mode or condition are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is also supported under Berkheimer. Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity upon reconsideration, and do not impose significant limitations on the abstract idea. Thus, Claims 1, 11, and 13 are ineligible.
9. Dependent Claims
Claims 2-10 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
In Reference to Claims 2-10
Claim 2 recites additional extra-solution VOIP. Claim 3 recites extra-solution live stream content. Claim 4 recites extra-solution combined audio data. Claim 5 recites extra-solution predetermined controls for the user. Claims 6 and 7 recite extra-solution message notifications used in a conventional manner between users. Claim 8 is construed as reciting further abstract processes of a second speech input and whether the private mode is to remain enabled or disabled – this again presents just another iteration of mental observation and judgement to maintain the initial conditions and involving the same generic computing environment. Claim 9 recites additional mental processes of determining the meaning of the content of speech between users and judgement to determine if the operating mode remains enabled or is disabled. Claim 10 recites extra-solution time periods and thresholds as controls on the abstract processes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
13. Claim 1, 3-9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0123019 to Sullivan in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0335090 to Freed.
In Reference to Claims 1, 11, and 13
Sullivan discloses managing audio channels for video game players (Titl., Voice Channels starting at [0067]) and of a data processing apparatus (Figs. 9a to 12 client 910, [0067], game console [0066], multiplayer game [0038]) and machine-readable medium and programming [0105, 0106], comprising circuitry configured to:
detect a speech input from a first user playing a video game (during game play microphones associated with each client communicate with the chat subsystem [0073] such that each microphone used for voice chat allows a {first} player voice input for others to eventually hear the player’s voice [0078] as part of communication between the game participants [0003]);
transmit data representing the speech input to a second data processing apparatus (Fig. 9a client 911, each user’s voice is packetized at the client on which the user is playing and broadcasted to other players on the user’s team or distributed to each of the players [0004]) using a first communication channel for output to a second user playing the video game with the first user (players are able to open multiple audio chat communication channels with different categories of different players [0005], see car race where only teammates hear a player’s audio [0049]);
Sullivan also disclosing a second channel to transmit data representing the speech input to a “spectator channel” {second channel for a third user watching but not playing the video game with the first and second users} (Fig. 9a depicting multiple channels to spectator clients 912-914, [0079]).
However, Sullivan does not explicitly disclose determining a private conversation mode is enabled and if the private conversation mode is enabled, preventing transmission of data representing the speech input to the third data processing apparatus using the second communication channel and if the private conversation mode is not enabled, transmit data representing the speech input to a third data processing apparatus using a second communication channel for output to the third user. One of skill in the art would be aware of the protecting chat with artificial intelligence of Freed.
Freed teaches of protecting chat with artificial intelligence (Titl.) wherein a chat protection program 110 includes receiving, in a chat session, a user-spoken communication as well as other variables and using a neural network predict a next communication and further include performing a remedial action (Abstr., Figs. 1 and 2, [0024]). The neural network analyzes the communication of players of a video game chat environment [0038, 0181], based on their spoken words and phrases [0014] for example to identify untoward content such as swear words, words of a sexual nature, words of innuendo, bullying, and those of negative connotations [0034]. Remedial actions may include muting or bypassing transmission of the received audio for the only the recipient based on characteristics within a user profile. “For example, if one recipient within a group of recipients is a minor, the untoward content may be muted for or not transmitted to the minor recipient but may not be muted for and transmitted to the other users in the group that are not minors.” [0041]. In another embodiment, the untoward content may be muted or not transmitted to all of the chat participants. [0041]. “With respect to remedial actions focused on the sender, the chat protection program 100 may disable a microphone for the sender of untoward content. [0042]. Freed suggests that this capability may be trained on live streaming software, such as television streaming services, radio streaming services, and podcasts, as a replacement for multi-second delay techniques to detect untoward content and apply appropriate remedial actions. [0045].
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, one of skill in the art would recognize that by applying Freed’s chat protection to the spectator channels of Sullivan one can create a private conversation mode. Specifically, when the chat protection is applied {enabled} to a first player’s speech being broadcast to the spectator channel, the chat protection would detect untoward content and prevent the speech transmission to the spectator channel {over the second communication channel} (e.g., in case there are minors in the audience); and if the chat protection is not enabled, thus allowing all content to pass through to the spectators by transmitting data representing the speech content to the spectator {third} client using the spectator channel {second communication channel} for output to the spectator. The Courts have held that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claim 3
Sullivan discloses that the video is a live stream video in a multiplayer game ([0072]).
In Reference to Claim 4
Sullivan discloses combined audio data over the second communication channel where the “chat audio is mixed with the app/video game audio, such that a client 910-914 receives a single audio stream ([0074]).
In Reference to Claim 5
Sullivan discloses enabling or disabling player and spectator audio chat channels via a set of graphical user interface features such as in Fig. 13 using button 1302 to show or show grayed out ([0082]) that can be assigned to the private conversation mode.
In Reference to Claim 6
Sullivan discloses the nodes or player and spectator channels are based on receiving requests ([0080, see also user requesting audio stream [0036]).
In Reference to Claim 7
Sullivan discloses that on each client interface where the button may be shown or grayed out depending on whether the client has or does not have authorization to establish the communication channel ([0082]). Examiner construes the presentation of a button or a button that is not grayed out on the client interface as a notification to enable or disable the private conversation mode.
In Reference to Claims 8 and 9
Examiner construes the elements of Claims 8 and 9 as merely the recitation of an iteration of Claim 1 wherein the system makes a subsequent speech input detection and determines to detect similar content and maintain the private conversation mode in the enabled or disabled states.
14. Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan, Freed further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10,293,260 to Evans.
Sullivan discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a voice over internet protocol (VoIP) between the client devices.
One of skill in the art would be aware of the player audio analysis in online gaming of Evans.
Evans teaches that in multiplayer gaming and streaming (Col. 1, ll. 3-35), a game system 300 may receive the audio input. The audio input may, for example, be received by game system 300 as audio tracks in video input, as Voice over IP (VoIP), or according to other network formats or protocols that support digital audio transmission (Col. 15, ll. 15-20).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to identify the communication channels as those that employ well-known VoIP technology as taught by Evans to amplify understanding of the system and method of Sullivan. The Courts have held that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the references teach or suggest to determine if a time period between detection of the speech input and detection of the second speech input exceeds a predetermined threshold; if the predetermined threshold is not exceeded, determine that the private conversation mode is to remain enabled; and if the predetermined threshold is exceeded, determine that the private conversation mode is not to remain enabled.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
18. 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.
19. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715