DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 the application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filed on 04/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for this examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claims use the term “gamification strategy”. Specification recites in [0012] bottom 5 lines “A gamification strategy includes a software package that executes to insert an array of UI changes, such as points, badges, leaderboards, challenges, rewards, and solutions, into an application that is tailored to a particular purpose or target. A gamification strategy may comprise application code, GUI elements, subroutines, etc., that implement the strategy upon being inserted into an application's code.” In other words, “gamification strategy” means some software features, components, code, functions or other software artifacts which can be injected in an application for gamification of an application.
Claims use the terms “application-agnostic” and “application-aware”. The terms have not been defined in the specification. The term “application-agnostic” in the art means, functions or services which are application independent or not customized for a specific application. As such, library functions, which can be used by different applications, are application-agnostic. In contrast, the functions which are written for a specific application or customized for a specific application, are “application-aware”.
Objection to claim
Claim 15 is objected to for using inconsistent terms. Claim 15 recites “Computer-readable tangible storage medium”. However, specification recites in 22, “A
computer-readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media.” Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
As per claim 1,
Under Step 2A, Prong 1,
The following limitations “analyzing frontend code of the application and external and internal network traffic of the application to produce a plurality of analyzed data; identifying an application-agnostic gamification strategy based on one or more user interface (UI) elements in the application; identifying an application-aware gamification strategy based on the plurality of analyzed data… injecting gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies into the frontend code of the application.) as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under step 2A, Prong 2:
The additional elements “dynamically” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application See MPEP 2106.05(f); and “intercepting communications between an end device and the application using a service mesh” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data/data transmission. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “dynamically” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitations “intercepting communications between an end device and the application using a service mesh” the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2 teaches “initializing” which is a mental process since this limitation could be reasonably performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.
Claim 3 teaches “verifying” which is a mental process since this limitation could be reasonably performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.
Claim 4 teaches “modifying” which is a mental process since this limitation could be reasonably performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.
Claims 5, 6 and 7 teach “dynamically injecting”. This is an insignificant extra solution activity.
As such none of the dependent claims make the base claim 1 patent eligible.
As per claim 8,
Under step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitations “analyzing frontend code of the application and external and internal network traffic of the application to produce a plurality of analyzed data; identifying an application-agnostic gamification strategy based on one or more user interface (UI) elements in the application; identifying an application-aware gamification strategy based on the plurality of analyzed data… injecting gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies into the frontend code of the application.) as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under step 2A, Prong 2:
The following judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “dynamically” , “A computer system for gamification of a cloud application, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage mediums, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application See MPEP 2106.05(f); and “intercepting communications between an end device and the application using a service mesh” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data/data transmission. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “dynamically” , , A computer system for gamification of a cloud application, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage mediums, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitations “intercepting communications between an end device and the application using a service mesh the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 9-14 have substantially similar claim limitations as claims 1-7 above. As such they can be rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 15-20 have substantially similar claim limitations as claims 1-6 above. As such they can be rejected using the same rationale.
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 AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (hereinafter Feng, Pub. No.: US 2020/0252376), Staiger (“Static Analysis of Programs with Graphical User Interface”, 2007, 11th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering), Fraternali et al. (Fraternali, “Model Driven Development of Gamified Applications”, 2019, “Journal of Web Engineering, Vol. 18.7”) and Jennings et al. (hereinafter Jennings, Pub. No.: US 2019/0180635).
As per claim 1, Feng teaches,
A computer-implemented method for gamification of an application, the method comprising:
intercepting communications between an end device and the application using a service mesh; (Feng Fig. 4 step 410 recites “Monitor network communications at a loopback interface of a pod in the container system, with the pod including a service mesh proxy and an application container”. Fig. 4 step 430 recites “Determine one or more connection contexts of the network communications at the loopback interface, with each connection context used to identify a network session of the application container with a remote application container”. Please note that an application container is an end device. These steps show that communication between two application containers using service mesh.)
[analyzing] external and internal network traffic of the application to produce a plurality of analyzed data; (Feng Fig. 2 shows external network traffic. Fig. 2 also shows a loopback interface of a pod, which means internal network traffic. Fig. 2 box 130 shows security monitor, which means that network data is analyzed at least for security issues. Feng [0027] starting at line11 recites “After the security monitor 130 determines the connection context of sets of packet data intercepted at the loopback interface 120, i.e., the security monitor 130 determines which groups of packets in the packet data are related to the same connection context, the security monitor 130 may report the reconstructed packet data, or the raw packet data, and the associated connection context of the packet data, to a separate security layer for further analysis and reporting.” This shows plurality of analyzed data.)
Feng teaches mesh services and analysis of network traffic. Feng does not teach “analyzing frontend code of the application”. However, in analogous art of application gamification using UI information and use of mesh services, Staiger teaches,
analyzing frontend code of the application and (Staiger recites on page 1, column 2, starting at line 5 “Our analysis performs multiple steps. The first step is to find those entities of the program which belong to the GUI. Since the GUI is often a large piece of the program’s architecture, the information collected in this step helps in architecture recovery. The next step then is to find the widgets and hierarchies they form, i.e., to recover the structure of the program’s windows.” This shows analysis of a GUI code. Please note GUI is the frontend code.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Feng of mesh services by incorporating the teaching “analyzing frontend code of the application” of Staiger. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of analyzing the frontend code [or the user interface code], so that gamification elements can be inserted into the frontend code as appropriate.
Feng and Staiger teach user interface code analysis and use of mesh service for network services. They do not explicitly teach, “identifying an application-agnostic gamification strategy based on one or more user interface (UI) elements in the application; identifying an application-aware gamification strategy based on the plurality of analyzed data;”. However, in analogous art of application gamification, Fraternali teaches,
identifying an application-agnostic gamification strategy based on one or more user interface (UI) elements in the application; identifying an application-aware gamification strategy based on the plurality of analyzed data; and (Please note that “gamification strategy” means gamification components or gamification code, etc. Please refer to the “Claim Interpretation” section above. Fraternali recites on page 688, 2nd bullet “The Gamified Action pattern proved the most useful, as it embodies the essence of gamification, which is the capture of specific users’ actions that should be tracked and rewarded. The pattern distinguishes the application-dependent parts (e.g., the GUI for accomplishing the specific gamified task) and the application-agnostic parts (the tripartite structure selection-execution-confirmation and the signaling of the action to the Gamification Engine). Its use helped regularize the application design
across very different tasks.” This shows identifying application-dependent [or application-aware] and application-agnostic gamification parts have been identified. Here Gamification action pattern has been generated using “capture of specific users’ actions” means, the pattern has been generated using multiple captured UI data analysis.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Feng and Staiger of frontend code analysis and mesh services by incorporating the teaching “identifying an application-agnostic gamification strategy based on one or more user interface (UI) elements in the application; identifying an application-aware gamification strategy based on the plurality of analyzed data;” of Fraternali. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of analyzing the frontend code [or the user interface code] and decide what generic gamification components can be added which are application-agnostic. Also decide which functions are needed but need to be customized for the specific application.
Feng, Staiger and Fraternali teach user interface code analysis and selection of gamification components to be added to the user interface. They do not explicitly teach, “dynamically injecting gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies into the frontend code of the application.” However, in analogous art of application gamification, Jennings teaches,
dynamically injecting gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies into the frontend code of the application. (Jennings recites in [0035] “In some aspects, the dynamic gamification application 216 may incorporate the ability to inject learning objectives, goals and telemetry into a game or application that is different from the game story or theme while minimally detracting from the game play.” This shows dynamic injection of gamification strategies. Jennings recites in [0051] “In addition, the application server 302 may include a user interface 326 for providing indications (e.g., audible and/or visual indications) to a user and/or for receiving user
input (e.g., upon user actuation of a sensing device such a keypad, a touch screen, a microphone, and so on).” This shows that gamification components interact with the player using a user interface [or frontend code].”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Feng, Staiger and Fraternali of frontend code analysis and mesh services by incorporating the teaching “dynamically injecting gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies into the frontend code of the application.” of Jennings. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of analyzing the frontend code [or the user interface code] and decide which gamification components need be added to the application. After the components are selected, they need to be injected into the application for making them available to the users of the application.
As per claim 8, Feng teaches,
A computer system for gamification of a cloud application, the computer system comprising:
one or more processors, (Feng Fig. 5 box 502)
one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage mediums, (Feng Fig. 5 boxes 504 and 516)
and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, (Feng Fig. 5 Boxes 522 and box 524)
Remaining limitations are limitations for a system claim that substantially parallel the limitations of the method claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a system.
As per claim 15, this is product claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the system claim 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed system steps as a product.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings as applied to claim 1, 9 and 15 and further in view of Kurita et al (hereinafter Kurita, “Knowledge Base Refinement with Gamified
Crowdsourcing”, 2016, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016).
As per claim 2, Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings teach application gamification. They do not explicitly teach, “the method further comprising: initializing a gamification knowledgebase as a rule-set collection.” However, in analogous art of application gamification, Kurita teaches,
the method further comprising: initializing a gamification knowledgebase as a rule-set collection. (Kurita recites on page 34 paragraph 2, “When the gamification approach is applied to knowledge base refinement, designing a game and its rules is an important issue to achieve high quality results…. By simulating game execution, we expect to know the effectiveness of the game rule design beforehand and adjust the rules before letting human users play the game. As the first step toward this goal, we consider a model of executing a game that targets the refinement of knowledge bases. We focus on a knowledge base that is constructed as linked data [3], where the necessary information for updating the linked data is collected through game execution. Using this model, we estimate the effects of different game rule designs on the performance of knowledge refinement.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings of frontend code analysis and gamification of application by the teaching “the method further comprising: initializing a gamification knowledgebase as a rule-set collection.” of Kurita. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of initializing a set of rules for the game such that the application can use the rules for the game.
As per claim 9, this is a system claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a system.
As per claim 16, this is a product claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a product.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings as applied to claim 1, 9 and 15 and further in view of Jugel et al (hereinafter Jugel, Pub. No.: US 2020/0160366, 2020).
As per claim 3, Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings teach gamification of an application. They do not explicitly mention, “the method further comprising: verifying an impact of the injected gamification elements on the application.” However, in analogous art of application gamification, Jugel teaches,
the method further comprising: verifying an impact of the injected gamification elements on the application. (Jugel recites in [0042] “Thus, embodiments may provide a chance to test different rule sets to measure the impact of gamification/loyalty initiatives. By using a shadow period, during which new gamification/loyalty mechanisms are installed but hidden from users may allow comparison between user behavior before and after installation (or changing a loyalty program or gamification concept).” This shows that impact of a gamification element has been measured or verified.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings of frontend code analysis and gamification of application by the teaching “the method further comprising: verifying an impact of the injected gamification elements on the application.” of Jugel. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of verifying impact of gamification of the application. This provides a measure of success of the gamification of the application.
As per claim 10, this is a system claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a system.
As per claim 17, this is a product claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a product.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings as applied to claim 1, 9 and 15 and further in view of Allen et al. (hereinafter Allen, Patent No.: US 9,636,586).
As per claim 4, Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings teach gamification of an application. They do not explicitly mention, “the method further comprising: modifying one or more of the identified gamification strategies based on collected feedback.” However, in analogous art of application gamification, Allen teaches,
the method further comprising: modifying one or more of the identified gamification strategies based on collected feedback. (Allen recites in the summary section “Aspects of an embodiment of the present invention disclose a method, computer program product, and computing system for selecting a game element of a game and adjusting the game element during execution of the game. A processor retrieves a plurality of received game element feedback data from a plurality of users of a game, wherein the plurality of received game element feedback data was selected from a list of possible game elements. A processor selects the game element to be adjusted, based upon the plurality of received game element feedback data. A processor causes the game element to be adjusted during execution of the game.” See Fig. 2.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings of frontend code analysis and gamification of application by the teaching “the method further comprising: modifying one or more of the identified gamification strategies based on collected feedback.” of Allen. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of collecting user feedback and improve the gamification using the feedback.
As per claim 11, this is a system claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a system.
As per claim 18, this is a product claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a product.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings as applied to claim 1, 9 and 15 and further in view of Dergacheva et al. (hereinafter Dergacheva, Pub No.: US 2025/0252518).
As per claim 5, Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings teach gamification of an application. They do not explicitly mention, “the method further comprising: dynamically injecting one or more user-engagement features into the frontend code in addition to the gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies.” However, in analogous art of application gamification, Dergacheva teaches,
the method further comprising: dynamically injecting one or more user-engagement features into the frontend code in addition to the gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies. (Dergacheva recites in claim 19 “wherein the digital content is dynamically modified by incorporating interactive elements, quizzes, or gamification to increase engagement.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings of frontend code analysis and gamification of application by the teaching “the method further comprising: dynamically injecting one or more user-engagement features into the frontend code in addition to the gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies.” of Dergacheva. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of dynamically injecting gamification objects on the UI such that a user can interact with the gaming elements of the application using the user interface (UI).
As per claim 12, this is a system claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a system.
As per claim 19, this is a product claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a product.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings as applied to claim 1 and 9 and further in view of Sadiq et al. (hereinafter Sadiq, Pub No.: US 2014/0195272).
As per claim 6, Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings teach gamification of an application. They do not explicitly mention, “wherein dynamically injecting the gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies into the frontend code is performed pursuant to one or more application user experience goals and one or more game control policies.” However, in analogous art of application gamification, Sadiq teaches,
wherein dynamically injecting the gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies into the frontend code is performed pursuant to one or more application user experience goals (Sadiq recites in [0041] “In the exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 5, the gamification platform 200 uses a customizable application/process 500 that may provide a dynamic game engine to apply game mechanics to the problem of reducing the number and severity of risky driving behaviors and/or events,…”. This shows dynamic gamification. Sadiq recites in [0035] “Generally, a gamification platform 200 may be used to enrich a user's experience with a system, for example, platform 100, to better achieve system goals via, for example, increased participation, communication, feedback, positive reinforcement, enjoyment, etc., by creating a game-based environment.” This shows measuring user experience goals.)
and one or more game control policies. (Sadiq recites in [0039] starting at line 6, “The rewards and recognition, used as incentives at 430, are associated with satisfaction of the rules, enabling, for example, insurance carriers and consumers
(users) to work toward mutually beneficial goals, including, for example, accident or loss reduction, fuel savings, reduced insurance costs, and/or greater safety within
their communities.” Here rewards and recognition are some game control policies.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings of frontend code analysis and gamification of application by the teaching “wherein dynamically injecting the gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies into the frontend code is performed pursuant to one or more application user experience goals and one or more game control policies.” of Sadiq. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of dynamically injecting gamification objects on the UI such that a user can interact with the gaming elements, whereas some of the game rules include user’s setting and achieving goals that encourages users to play the game.
As per claim 13, this is a system claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a system.
As per claim 20, this is a product claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a product.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings as applied to claim 1 and 9 and further in view of Zhi et al. (hereinafter Zhi, Pub No.: CN106294166B·2018-07-06).
As per claim 7, Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings teach gamification of an application. They do not explicitly mention, “wherein dynamically injecting the gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies into the frontend code further comprises injecting game hooks using injection points and rewriting a response data file of the application.” However, in analogous art of application gamification, Zhi teaches,
wherein dynamically injecting the gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies into the frontend code further comprises injecting game hooks using injection points and rewriting a response data file of the application. (Zhi recites in [0063] “In the embodiments of this application, the logic modification function can take various forms. Optionally, the logic modification function can be implemented through a hook function.” Zhi recites in [0220] “…a hook function corresponding to each monitored function needs to be written separately so that the correct function jump can be achieved after the function is executed.” This shows that the response function is rewritten in a hook function.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Feng, Staiger, Fraternali and Jennings of frontend code analysis and gamification of application by the teaching “wherein dynamically injecting the gamification elements from the identified gamification strategies into the frontend code further comprises injecting game hooks using injection points and rewriting a response data file of the application.” of Zhi. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of dynamically injecting gamification objects on the UI such that a user can interact with the gaming elements, and provide hooks for a game developer to modify responses to a game action as needed.
As per claim 14, this is a system claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a system.
References of Note
Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2123.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAIN MORSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-3335. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday12:00 PM – 9 PM Eastern Time. The email address for the examiner is hossain.morshed@uspto.gov.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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, Wei Mui can be reached on (571)272-3708.
/HOSSAIN M MORSHED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
April 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights