DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s correspondence filed on 1/28/26.
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, 40-58 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 40-58 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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 53, 56 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection (and corresponding rejections to its dependent claims, if applicable) is maintained.
Applicant has failed to address the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 53, 56 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection (and corresponding rejections to its dependent claims, if applicable) is maintained.
Applicant contends Everitt fails to teach or suggest “while the secondary user is interacting with the online player using the device of the secondary user, receiving a command from the device of the primary user”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Everitt teaches the child computing device 25 that executes a background application 15 that monitors video game interactions and receives a command from the parental monitoring application 50 to block or allow the video game interactions (col 2 lines 40-52, col 5 lines 6-14).
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, 40-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claims 1, 40-58, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
Claims 1, 53, 56 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 secondary user that is operating a device of the secondary user; determining that the secondary user has encountered an online risk while interacting with an online player using the device of the secondary user; while the secondary user is interacting with the online player using the device of the secondary user, sending a notification of the online risk to a device of a primary user; while the secondary user is interacting with the online player using the device of the secondary user, receiving a command from the device of the primary user; while the secondary user is interacting with the online player using the device of the secondary user, performing, in response to receiving the command, one or more of: blocking the online player from interacting with the secondary user, reporting the online player for inappropriate behavior, flagging the online player for further review, and sending a message from the primary user to the online player that is interacting with the secondary 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 system comprised of a computer and one or more storage devices, wherein the system sends a notification and receives a command from a device of a primary user, 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 40-52, 54-55, 57-58, 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 system comprised of a computer and one or more storage devices, wherein the system sends a notification and receives a command from a device of a primary user.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 43-46, 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 claim 51, 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 computer system comprised of a computer and one or more storage devices that receives indications and updates interaction settings.
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 § 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, 40-58 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, 53, 56, Everitt teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: monitoring online activities of a secondary user that is operating a device of the secondary user; determining that the secondary user has encountered an online risk while interacting with an online player using the device of the secondary user; (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.”)
while the secondary user is interacting with the online player using the device of the secondary user, sending a notification of the online risk to a device of a primary user; (col 2 lines 40-52, “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 along with meta data including the game platform (e.g., Minecraft Pocket 1.16.21 for Android), timestamp, and user id. (However, depending on operating system (e.g., Apple iOS), the identity of the currently running application may not be available, in which case the cloud-based platform 80 will have to analyze the screenshot to determine whether it corresponds to a supported video game).”; 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.”)
while the secondary user is interacting with the online player using the device of the secondary user, receiving a command from the device of the primary user. (col 2 lines 40-52; 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:
while the secondary user is interacting with the online player using the device of the secondary user, performing, in response to receiving the command, one or more of: blocking the online player from interacting with the secondary user, reporting the online player for inappropriate behavior, flagging the online player for further review, and sending a message from the primary user to the online player that is interacting with the secondary 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 invention to include the step of while the secondary user is interacting with the online player using the device of the secondary user, performing, in response to receiving the command, one or more of: blocking the online player from interacting with the secondary user, reporting the online player for inappropriate behavior, flagging the online player for further review, and sending a message from the primary user to the online player that is interacting with the secondary user results in an improved invention because applying said technique allows the secondary user to continue playing the video game while preventing the offending party from interacting with the secondary user, thus improving the overall user experience of the invention.
As per claim(s) 40, Everitt teaches:
wherein the device of the secondary user is a video gaming device. (col 2 lines 40-52)
As per claim(s) 41, 54, 57, Everitt teaches:
generating, in response to a request from the primary user, a family account to which the secondary user and the primary user belong. (col 2 lines 22-29, “The device management server 20 establishes a hierarchical relationship between the parental computing device 50 and the child computing device 25 such that the parent computing device 50 can control the child computing device 25, including the ability to disable (or re-enable) an application executing on the child computing device 25.”)
As per claim(s) 42, 55, 58, Everitt teaches:
wherein the family account comprises one or more additional secondary users. (col 2 lines 22-29)
As per claim(s) 43, Everitt teaches:
wherein determining that the secondary user has encountered an online risk while interacting with an online player using the device of the secondary user comprises: while the secondary user is interacting with the online player using the device of the secondary user, determining, using a machine learning model and based on the online activities of the secondary user, the secondary user has encountered an online risk. (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 claim(s) 44, Everitt teaches:
wherein the machine learning model is trained to detect and address potential risks or threats to the safety of the secondary user. (col 2 lines 53-62)
As per claim(s) 44, Everitt teaches:
wherein the machine learning model is trained to detect and address potential risks or threats to the safety of the secondary user. (col 2 lines 53-62)
As per claim(s) 45, Everitt teaches:
wherein the machine learning model is trained on data generated by the online activities of the secondary user associated with a particular family account. (col 2 line 67 – col 3 line 6, “A parent can override the determination, and in that case, the user application running on the child computing device 25 is re-enabled. The parent's action either to override the determination or to let it stand is then fed back to the ML model so that the ML model continues to learn the semantics of in-game chat based on the parental feedback.”)
As per claim(s) 46, Everitt teaches:
wherein the machine learning model is trained on data generated by the online activities of (i) the secondary user, and (ii) one or more additional secondary users associated with a particular family account. (col 2 line 67 – col 3 line 6, “A parent can override the determination, and in that case, the user application running on the child computing device 25 is re-enabled. The parent's action either to override the determination or to let it stand is then fed back to the ML model so that the ML model continues to learn the semantics of in-game chat based on the parental feedback.”)
As per claim(s) 47, Everitt teaches:
wherein the notification of the online risk comprises (ii) a screen name of the online player, and (iii) a text-based explanation of the online risk. (Fig 4, col 4 line 60 – col 5 line 5)
Applicant attempts to further limit the method by describing characteristics of the notification. However, this is representative of non-functional descriptive material as characteristics of the notification does not result in a functional relationship with the invention and therefore cannot be used to differentiate Applicant's invention from the prior art invention. See MPEP 2111.05; In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.”). Specifically, the step of sending the notification to a device is carried out the same way regardless of the content included in the notification: there is no evidence the content of the notification changes the efficiency or the accuracy or any other characteristic of the sending. See Ex Parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (“Here, the descriptive material (SEQ ID NOs) recited in the claims is not functional material like the data structures in Lowry. There is no evidence that SEQ ID NOs 9-1008 functionally affect the process of comparing a target sequence to a database by changing the efficiency or accuracy or any other characteristic of the comparison. Rather, the SEQ ID NOs are merely information being manipulated by a computer; the SEQ ID NOs are inputs used by a computer program that calculates the degree of similarity between a target sequence and each of the sequences in a database. The specific SEQ ID NOs recited in the claims do not affect how the method of the prior art is performed – the method is carried out the same way regardless of which specific sequences are included in the database (emphasis added).”)
As per claim(s) 48, Everitt teaches:
wherein the text-based explanation of the online risk comprises a classification of the online player as a bad actor. (Fig 4, col 4 line 60 – col 5 line 5)
As per claim(s) 49-50:
Applicant attempts to further limit the method by describing characteristics of the text-based explanation. However, this is representative of non-functional descriptive material as characteristics of the text-based explanation does not result in a functional relationship with the invention and therefore cannot be used to differentiate Applicant's invention from the prior art invention. See MPEP 2111.05; In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.”). Specifically, the step of sending the notification to a device is carried out the same way regardless of the content included in the text-based explanation: there is no evidence the content of the text-based explanation changes the efficiency or the accuracy or any other characteristic of the sending. See Ex Parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (“Here, the descriptive material (SEQ ID NOs) recited in the claims is not functional material like the data structures in Lowry. There is no evidence that SEQ ID NOs 9-1008 functionally affect the process of comparing a target sequence to a database by changing the efficiency or accuracy or any other characteristic of the comparison. Rather, the SEQ ID NOs are merely information being manipulated by a computer; the SEQ ID NOs are inputs used by a computer program that calculates the degree of similarity between a target sequence and each of the sequences in a database. The specific SEQ ID NOs recited in the claims do not affect how the method of the prior art is performed – the method is carried out the same way regardless of which specific sequences are included in the database (emphasis added).”)
As per claim(s) 51, Everitt teaches:
while the secondary user is interacting with the online player using the device of the secondary user, receiving, an indication from the primary user to adjust interaction settings for the secondary user; and while the secondary user is interacting with the online player using the device of the secondary user, updating, based on data received by the primary user on the device of the primary user, the interaction settings of the secondary user to limit the secondary user from interacting with online players that are unknown to the secondary user. (col 5 lines 6-14)
As per claim(s) 52, Everitt teaches:
while the secondary user is interacting with the online player using the device of the secondary user, in response to receiving the command, determining the online risk is not a risk; and dismissing the notification. (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.”)
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights