DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s correspondence filed on 4/8/25.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 21-39 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 21-39 are rejected as set forth below.
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, 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claims 1, 21-39, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
Claims 1, 27, 34 recite: A system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising: monitoring online activities of a first user that is operating a first device, wherein the first device is a video gaming device; determining that the first user has encountered an online risk while operating the video gaming device; sending a notification of the online risk to a second device operated by a second user; and receiving, in response to sending the notification, a command from the second device operated by the second user to perform one or more of: blocking a third user from interacting with the first user, reporting the third user for inappropriate behavior, flagging the third user for further review, and sending a message from the second user to the third user.
Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, the claim(s) is/are directed to a method, a system, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which are statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claimed invention as drafted includes language (see underlined language above) that recites an abstract idea of monitoring video game activities, identifying risk behavior, and executing a repercussion (a mental process such as a concept performed in the human mind, e.g. an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of additional claim elements. That is, other than reciting a computer processor, a non-transitory computer-readable media, and a second device for receiving a notification and sending a command, nothing in the claim precludes the language from being practically performed in the mind. For example, an older sibling is capable of watching a younger sibling play a video game and communicate with other users, identifying risk behavior, and notifying the behavior to their parent, and in response the parent is capable of executing a repercussion such as reporting the risk behavior to the appropriate authorities.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 21-26, 28-33, 35-39, which further recite the abstract idea of monitoring video game activities, identifying risk behavior, and executing a repercussion.
Under Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) merely add 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. For example, the abstract idea merely implemented on a computer comprised of a computer processor and a non-transitory computer-readable media, and a computer capable of receiving a notification and sending a command.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 23, 30, 36, which include additional claim elements that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of artificial intelligence.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 25, 32, 38, which include additional claim elements that merely add 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. For example, the abstract idea merely implemented on a server capable of transmitting a notification to a mobile application. In addition, the abstract idea is implemented on a computer with a graphical interface.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The combination of elements is no more than the sum of their parts. Unlike the eligible claims in Diehr and Bascom, in which the elements limiting the exception taken together improve a technical field, the instant claim lacks an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 35 is dependent on itself. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 21-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 11272023 to Everitt in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 20190052471 to Panattoni.
As per claims 1, 27, 34, Everitt teaches:
A method comprising: monitoring online activities of a first user that is operating a first device, wherein the first device is a video gaming device; determining that the first user has encountered an online risk while operating the video gaming device; (col 2 lines 9-14, “Referring to FIG. 1, an example system for monitoring multiplayer online game chat 100, according an embodiment, is illustrated. As shown, the example system for monitoring multiplayer online game chat 100 includes a child computing device 25, a parent computing device 50, a device management server 20, and a cloud computing platform 80. The child computing device 25 executes various foreground user applications and a background application 15 is associated with the user applications. The user applications can include one or more multiplayer game 10 running on the child computing device 25.”; col 2 lines 40-62, “As will be described in greater detail, a background application 15 takes screenshots from the child computing device 25 periodically, which are samples of what the child is viewing. If a screenshot corresponds to a supported video game being executed on the child computing device 25, it will be sent to the cloud computing system 80. For screenshots matching supported games, the cloud computing platform 80 determines the location of the chat text within the screenshot based on the identified game platform and known bounded areas (of the screen where chat is located for the game platform, and extracts the chat text into a file which is then stored. Thereafter, a machine learning (ML) model is instantiated based on the identified game and a geographic region. The ML model intelligently analyzes each line of chat to assess a likelihood that the chat is bullying or sexually predatory.”)
sending a notification of the online risk to a second device operated by a second user; (col 4 lines 55-59, “If a predetermined likelihood threshold is reached, the parent computing device 50 is notified and the offending chat text is sent to the parent computing device 50 for review.”)
receiving, in response to sending the notification, a command from the second device operated by the second user to disable the video gaming device. (col 5 lines 6-14, “In the example, an indication as to whether the parent clicked on the radio button 68 is sent to the cloud computing platform. On a determination that the chat is bullying or sexually predative, a message is sent to disable the child computing device 25 until the parent reviews offending chat and re-enables it.”)
Everitt does not explicitly teach, but Panattoni teaches:
receiving a command to perform one or more of: blocking a third user from interacting with the first user, reporting the third user for inappropriate behavior, flagging the third user for further review, and sending a message from the second user to the third user; ([0048], “For example, in response to the second participant directing the expletive towards the first participant in the illustrated scenario, the system 100 may reprimand the second participant in various ways. Exemplary reprimands include, but are not limited to, pausing an offending participant's ability to participate in the communication session 144 for a defined period of time such as 30 seconds, one minute, ten minutes, the rest of the gaming session, etc. (e.g., selectively muting only the offending participant so that the offending participant can hear but not speak to other participants), suspending an offending participant's ability to participate in the multiuser virtual environment 104 (e.g., responding to toxic behavior by automatically and/or immediately “kicking” an offending participant out of a multiplayer gaming session).”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Panattoni to the known invention of Everitt would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such social repercussions features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the command received from the second device to be one of blocking a third user from interacting with the first user, reporting the third user for inappropriate behavior, flagging the third user for further review, and sending a message from the second user to the third user results in an improved invention because applying said technique allows the first user to continue playing the video game while preventing the offending party from interacting with the first user, thus improving the overall user experience of the invention.
As per claims 21, 28, Everitt teaches:
wherein the online risk comprises an interaction of the first user with the third user, the interaction including at least one of a message, an image, a video, or an audio. (col 2 lines 53-62, “For screenshots matching supported games, the cloud computing platform 80 determines the location of the chat text within the screenshot based on the identified game platform and known bounded areas (of the screen where chat is located for the game platform, and extracts the chat text into a file which is then stored. Thereafter, a machine learning (ML) model is instantiated based on the identified game and a geographic region. The ML model intelligently analyzes each line of chat to assess a likelihood that the chat is bullying or sexually predatory.”)
As per claims 22, 29, 35, Everitt teaches:
wherein the determining that the first user has encountered an online risk comprises: detecting that an interaction between the third user and the first user violates one or more permissions or restrictions. (col 2 lines 53-62)
As per claims 23, 30, 36, Everitt teaches:
wherein the determining that the first user has encountered an online risk comprises: feeding information relating to online activity of the first user while the first user is operating the video gaming device into an artificial intelligence model trained to recognize the online risk to the first user. (col 2 lines 53-62)
As per claims 24, 31, 37, Everitt teaches:
wherein the notification further includes a description of the online risk or content associated with the online risk. (col 4 line 60-col 5 line 5, “The parent computing device displays the notification and offending chat text, as illustrated in FIG. 4. As shown in FIG. 4, example screen 62 displays an alert message 66 along with the actual offending text message 64. In this case, the ML model determined that there was a likelihood that the chat was leading in a sexual direction since one player (Dragonslayer) had commented on a photo that he viewed without apparent knowledge of the child (Laura234), and commented, “U look hot”. However, the player (Dragonslayer) added “jk,” meaning “just kidding,” so reviewing the chat, the parent decided the conversation was innocuous, clicking radio button 68 to override the determination.”)
As per claims 25, 32, 38, Everitt teaches:
wherein the notification is transmitted from a video gaming server to a mobile application installed on the second device, and wherein the notification is displayed within a graphical interface generated by the mobile application. (col 4 lines 55-58, “If a predetermined likelihood threshold is reached, the parent computing device 50 is notified and the offending chat text is sent to the parent computing device 50 for review.”; col 2 lines 15-17, “The child computing device 25 and the parent computing device 50 can be a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop, a desktop, or the like.”)
As per claims 26, 33, 39, Panattoni teaches:
wherein the command is other than a command to retrain a model, block the first user, or ignore the online risk. ([0048])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. 20190299104 to Rout discloses a system for monitoring online gaming activity. The system primarily comprises of a controller extension unit, web server, a listening device and a software application designed to provide an interface for parents or guardians to review captured audio data of in-game oral communication. The controller extension unit is designed to capture audio data and to transmit the captured audio data to the web server where it can be processed and stored. The listening device is designed to wirelessly stream in-game audio data in real-time through built-in speakers from any room in a house. The software application allows parents or guardians to belatedly review in-game audio data at their convenience. The software further includes a customizable keyword detection and notification feature to allow parents or guardians to prioritize the language that they are most concerned by and wish to discourage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY HUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-9799. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a - 5:30p PT.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/JAY HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619