Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/622,709

DETECTING ANOMALOUS GAMEPLAY IN VIDEO GAMES

Non-Final OA §101§103
Filed
Mar 29, 2024
Examiner
RENWICK, REGINALD A
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Electronic Arts Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
499 granted / 704 resolved
+0.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
745
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§103
42.4%
+2.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
§112
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 704 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because while the claims state a non-transitory computer readable medium, the correct language for patent eligibility subject matter is “computer readable storage medium.” Please correct accordingly. 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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller (U.S. PGPUB 20190070512) in view of Qin (U.S. Patent No. 9,954,718). Re claims 1, 8, and 15: Fuller discloses a system comprising: at least one processor (see paragraph [0004]: processor); and at least one memory device (see paragraph [0005]: memory), wherein the at least one memory device is communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory device storing computer-executable instructions, wherein execution of the computer-executable instructions by the at least one processor causes the at least one processor to: receive a plurality of inputs of a video game corresponding to gameplay of the video game; embed the plurality of inputs received (see paragraph [0080]: player movements, e.g. shooting targets, is embedded in vectors of numbers); detect one or more anomalous sequences of inputs among the plurality of embedded inputs (see paragraph [0080]: the system detects an anomaly wherein “the low-dimensional representation of the new movement is compared with the distribution of low-dimensional representations of the original database of movements to determine if the new movement is an outlier, i.e., to classify the new movement as a natural human movement or a cheater.”); and, generate an anomaly report including data corresponding to the one or more anomalous sequences of G-API calls detected (see paragraph [0080]: a report is made, wherein a classification is made of the user that indicates the user to be a cheater). Although Fuller discloses determining if there are anomalies within player inputs, Fuller doesn’t teach that said inputs are API calls. However, Qin teaches sending all player inputs to the server using an API interface “to ensure that the input command is synchronized with the video frame presented to the user on the screen 148 when the user generated the input command in the client 106.” (see column 8, lines 5-24). Here, said player inputs constitutes API calls, as a call is made to the server to initiate said synchronization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to combine the anomalous input detection system of Fuller with the remote server-based gaming system of Qin for the purpose of detecting anomalous player-based API calls, and thus preventing cheating within a network gaming environment. Claim(s) 2, 7, 9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller in view of Qin, in further view of Pardeshi (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0232907). Re claims 2, 7, 9, 14, and 16: Fuller fails to disclose with respect to the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of G-API calls correspond to one or more user accounts of a video game. However, Pardeshi discloses maintaining a user profile/account that stores past cheating behavior, i.e. anomalies in gameplay (see paragraph [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the anomaly detection system of Fuller with the profile feature of Pardeshi for the purpose of tracking players with repeat incidents of anomalous behavior. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-6 and 10-13 are 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm. 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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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. REGINALD A. RENWICK Primary Examiner Art Unit 3714 /REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 29, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599843
GAMEPLAY RECORDING VIDEO CREATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599832
AUTOMATIC UMPIRING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594491
THUMBSTICK ASSEMBLY WITH ADJUSTABLE DAMPING AND GAMEPAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576307
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR GENERATING SPORTS ANALYTICS WITH A MOBILE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569773
AUTOMATED VIDEO GAME TEST BED AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+9.1%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 704 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month