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 .
The previous rejection has been withdrawn and Examiner has issued a new Non-Final Rejection.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims disclose an abstract idea that lack practical application, and significantly more.
Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of mental steps.
The instant application receives inputted user physical attribute that is used in combination with game state data, to modify a current game being played. This exemplifies the holding of Electric Power Group wherein data is collected, analyzed, and a result is outputted. Here, data is collected from game data and sensors including a biosensor, audio input device or camera, etc., and said data is analyzed to determine the emotional state of the player, and then data is outputted to reflect a modification to the video game based on said data. Additional claim limitations, also fit within the scope of the holding of Electric Power Grid including determining an excitement level from sensory data, collecting the average heart rate of the user and number of heart beats over a threshold, and determining various aspects of game play, and the other limitations are all considered part of the inputting, analyzing, and outputting steps. For these reasons, the claims are considered an abstract idea.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims discuss modifying a video game according the collected sensory data. This is not a longstanding problem in computer technology. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more as the claim language only recites a mobile device containing software for performing a game, receiving input, and powering on and off; and a processor, memory, a display, and sensory equipment including biosensors, audio collection devices, camera, and heart rate detectors. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that sensory and heart rate sensory equipment is common in watches, mobile phones, and mobile devices, wherein such is well understood, routine, and common in the art. The various disclosed functions of the claim language are not considered part of the inventive concept as the functions do not describe a technological improvement but only are performed in the manner the various hardware elements were designed. This includes collecting data, operating a game, providing display information, etc. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible. Therefore, the abstract idea lacks significantly more to make the claims eligible patent subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sorey (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0355209).
Re claims 1, 2, 15, and 17: Sorey discloses an device comprising:
one or more processors (see claim 16, smartphone);
and one or more memory storing instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors (see claim 16, smartphone contains a memory as well), configure the device to:identify a game to be processed (see paragraph [0106]: the game machine can play a plethora of games on the current game device, and the game currently being played is the one that is identified for processing);process a game state of the game (see Abstract, the game determines a winning result or a losing result);
receive activity data recorded by at least one mobile device, the activity data relating to one or more activities performed by a user, wherein the activity data indicates at least one of (i) images captured by a camera of the at least one mobile device (see paragraph [0027]) (ii) audio recorded by a microphone of the at least one mobile device (see paragraph [0054]); (iii) biometric data recorded by the at least one mobile device (see paragraph [0054]); and control, based on at least one aspect of the game state and a result of classification of the activity data, generation of images to be displayed during playing of the game (see Abstract and [0078]: based on the result of the game, and the classification of the player’s excitement level, the game is then modified to incorporate other images including messages, bonus games, or animations to complement or contrast the user’s excitement level).
Re claim 3: Sorey discloses with respect to the device of claim 1, wherein the activity data comprises information indicative of:
activity records indicative of physical activities performed by the user (see paragraph [0052]: physical activity includes the user pressing buttons); and audio recorded by a microphone of the at least one mobile device (see paragraph [0054]).
Re claim 4: Sorey discloses with respect to the device of claim 1, wherein:
the one or more memory store additional instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the device to:determine, in dependence on the activity data, an excitement level for the user (see Abstract, paragraph [0078]);and control, based on the excitement level, the at least one aspect of the game state (see Abstract, paragraph [0078]: game play is adjusted based on the user’s emotional state).
Re claim 5: Soley discloses with respect to the device of claim 4, wherein: the one or more memory store additional instruction that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the device to :control the at least one aspect of the game state to complement or contrast the excitement level determined for the user (see Abstract and paragraph [0078]);receive input data indicate of a user input (see paragraph [0092]: when training the model the user provides input data regarding the user’s mood);determine, based on the input data, a selection made by a user (see paragraph [0092]: the system determine the selection made by the user); anddetermine, based on the selection made by the user, whether to modify the processing of the game to complement the excitement level or to contrast the excitement level (see paragraph [0092]: said user input trains the model which determines if the game should be modified or not, thus the user input indirectly determines if the modification should take place).
Re claim 7: Sorey discloses with respect to the device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured one or more memory store additional instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the device to control, as the at least one aspect of the game state, at least one of: selection of the game to be processed (the game is one of many, and the current game is selected to be processed (see paragraph [0092]); selection of a difficulty level of the game; generation of audio to be played during playing of the game; and generation of images to be displayed during playing of the game. (see paragraph [0077]: a motivational message is displayed to the user; audio is also changed to upbeat music; a bonus game, i.e. more, images are provided to the player. See paragraph [0024]).
Re claim 11: Sorey discloses with respect to the device of claim 1, wherein: the activity data comprises information indicative of images captured by a camera of the at least one mobile device; the at least one aspect of the game state comprises generation of images to be displayed during playing of the game (see paragraph [0056]); and one or more memory store additional instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the device to control, in dependence on a result of image classification of the images captured by the camera of the at least one mobile device, the generation of the images to be displayed during playing of the game (see paragraph [0056]).
Re claim 13: Sorey discloses with respect to the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more memory store additional instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the device to control, based on at least one aspect of the game state and a result of classification of the activity data, generation of images to be displayed at the at least one mobile device during playing of the game (see Abstract and [0078]: based on the result of the game, and the classification of the player’s excitement level, the game is then modified to incorporate other images including messages, or animations to the user based on their excitement level).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soley in view of Bagherzadeh
(U.S. Patent No. 10,586,420).
Re claim 6: Sorey fails to disclose with respect to the device of claim 4, wherein, the activity data comprises biometric data relating to the one or more activities performed by the user, the biometric data indicating at least one of: an average heart rate of the user over a given period of time; and a number of times that the user's heart rate exceeded a given threshold heart rate over the given period of time; and the one or more memory store additional instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the device to: determine, in dependence on the biometric data, the excitement level for the user.
Bagherzadeh like Sorey a biosensor for modifying gameplay (see paragraph [0054]), however Bagherzadeh further discloses a game machine that incorporates determining a number of times a player’s heart rate exceeds a particular threshold, and adjusting gameplay depending on this number (column 16, lines 7-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to simply substitute the biosensor of Sorey for the a heart rate monitor of Bagherzadeh as such would have yielded the predictable results of using a heart rate monitor to modify gameplay.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soley in view of Detlefsen (U.S. PGPUB 2012/0184352).
Re claim 14: Soley fails to disclose with respect to the device of claim 13, wherein: the at least one mobile device comprises a mobile device capable of displaying augmented reality (AR) images; the mobile device comprises mobile-device communication circuitry to receive, from the device, game information associated with a game played by the user; and the mobile device comprises processing circuitry to generate, based on the game information, the AR images for display. However, Detlefsen discloses a game machine in the form of a mobile device that displayed AR images (see paragraph [0053]), wherein a gaming device is configured to receive game information associated with a game played by the user at the server wherein the mobile device makes a requests for images associated with a particular game, and said images are downloaded into the device (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the game of system of Soley with AR images for the purpose of adding to the excitement of the game.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 12 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, and if said claims were rewritten in such a manner to overcome the 101 rejection above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10 and 11, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under Sarrafzadeh and Dugan have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sorey as shown above. Examiner has reviewed the previous claims and upon further search and review, has determined that claim 11 should have been previously rejected by Sorey. For those reasons the claims remain rejected. Additionally, Examiner has revised the previous 101 rejection to include all of the claims and provide further explanation.
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
