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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a data management module” and “an aimbot detection module” in all claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim limitation “a data management module” and “an aimbot detection module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a data management module” and “an aimbot detection module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses an aimbot detection system in claims 1-8 and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium in claim 10 (i.e., machines), and an aimbot detection method in claim 9 (i.e., process). So claims 1-10 are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Present invention is directed to “an aimbot detection system including a data management module configured to receive game play information including action data of a game player from a game server; and an aimbot detection module configured to derive aimbot detection results from the action data included in the received game play information using an aimbot detection model. The data management module and the aimbot detection module may be configured in a trusted execution environment (TEE) of a client” ([0007]).
Claim 1. An aimbot detection system comprising:
a data management module configured to receive game play information including action data of a game player from a game server; and
an aimbot detection module configured to derive aimbot detection results from the action data included in the received game play information using an aimbot detection model,
wherein the data management module and the aimbot detection module are configured in a trusted execution environment (TEE) of a client.
The bold and underlined portions of claim 1 encompass the abstract idea, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-8, and claims 9 and 10.
Claim 1 recites the steps to collect information and detect an aimbot, which, without any details, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is the process that can be implemented with human beings with pen and pencil. Therefore, the claimed invention is grouped as mental processes.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer or mobile device, or merely using a computer or mobile device as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claim includes the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a game sever to collect information. Mere computer-based implementation, without more, is not sufficient to render claims directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The addition of a game server to carry out these routine steps does not make the claim any less abstract. The claim is drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. This game server as presented is directed to the generic machines amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to provide computer-based implementation to implement the steps for aimbot detection.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a game server. By failing to explain the details of the game server and the modules, it is reasonable that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the system is limited to a generic computer implementation with generic network connection. The “generic computer implementation with generic network connection” are "well understood, routine, conventional activity." The computer implementation merely helps to collect information and deliver detection result. The claim fails to improve the recited technological field.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a computer. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more", and thus not patent eligible.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boudaoud [US20230241511].
Regarding claim 1, Boudaoud discloses an aimbot detection system comprising:
a data management module configured to receive game play information including action data of a game player from a game server (Fig. 6, server 640 communication with client computing device 610, Fig. 5, step 510, and [0028], “The motion data is provided to game software 134 implemented on the client computing device 130”); and
an aimbot detection module configured to derive aimbot detection results from the action data included in the received game play information using an aimbot detection model (Fig. 5, steps 520-550, [0023], “The disclosed cheating detection methodology is directed to the detection and alert of cheaters making super-human movements to outcompete their opponents. Specifically, those using large aim assists and aim bots that perform actions that are not feasibly human” and [0030], “The cheat detector 220 determines the data submovements that are a deviation of human submovements”),
wherein the data management module and the aimbot detection module are configured in a trusted execution environment (TEE) of a client ([0014], “Many of the cheating methods or strategies, however, can be thwarted by executing the video games in a trusted execution environment (TEE). A TEE is a designated portion of a processor or processors, or a piece of software that runs on a processor(s), that guarantees the data and code execution therein are secure”).
Regarding claim 2, Boudaoud discloses the aimbot detection system of claim 1, wherein the data management module is configured to transform the action data of the game player included in the received game play information, to input to the aimbot detection model (Fig. 5, steps 520-540).
Regarding claim 3, Boudaoud discloses the aimbot detection system of claim 1, wherein the data management module is configured to transfer the game play information that includes the action data of the game player, received from the game server, to each of a game engine and the aimbot detection module, and the aimbot detection module is configured to receive weapon firing information and information related to a time in the action data of the game player ([0038], “To provide additional specificity for detection, distributions may be conditioned on one or more game-state variables, such as the player’s character/role, weapon/task, position, as well as temporal information such as time since/until the last/next shot.”).
Regarding claim 4, Boudaoud discloses the aimbot detection system of claim 1, wherein the aimbot detection model is configured to predict an action of the game player after a predetermined period of time and is trained to detect an aimbot by comparing a difference between the predicted action of the game player and an actual action of the game player ([0042], “the cheating detector 220 would flag gameplay as potential cheating whenever submovement distributions shift positively in a dramatic way (at a rate faster than some predefined threshold). As an example, if a user typically has an 80% chance of making a 2nd submovement for a task with high spatial difficulty (small and distant target), which suddenly drops to just 30% this gameplay might be flagged as cheating. In a more nuanced case, a user who typically “tracks” targets would tend to have a submovement speed distribution biased towards lower speed and higher accuracy. If suddenly this distribution shifts towards high speed, and lower accuracy (traditional “flicking” behavior) cheating may be flagged”).
Regarding claim 5, Boudaoud discloses the aimbot detection system of claim 1, wherein the aimbot detection module is configured to determine that the game player uses the aimbot when a difference between an action of the game player and an actual action of the game player is greater than a reference value as detection results derived through the aimbot detection model ([0042], “the cheating detector 220 would flag gameplay as potential cheating whenever submovement distributions shift positively in a dramatic way (at a rate faster than some predefined threshold).”).
Regarding claim 6, Boudaoud discloses the aimbot detection system of claim 5, wherein the aimbot detection module is configured to send the derived detection results to the game server (Fig. 5, step 560).
Regarding claim 8, Boudaoud discloses the aimbot detection system of claim 1, wherein the game server is configured to take an action according to a policy set for the game player based on the derived aimbot detection results ([0053], “An alert reporting possible cheating is generated in step 560 based on the outcome of step 550. The alert can be sent to a server operating the game engine for further analysis. The server can include a cheating analysis system that receives possible cheating notifications and alerts from other cheating detection methodologies than described herein. The cheating analysis system can review the cheating information for determining cheaters. Human review may then be used to make a determination and take action. The method 500 continues to step 570 and ends”).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 1.
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudaoud, in view of Herbert et al. [US20170177417], hereinafter Herbert.
Regarding claim 7, Boudaoud discloses the aimbot detection system of claim 1. However, Boudaoud does not explicitly disclose wherein the aimbot detection system is configured to perform encrypted communication that disallows bugging or tampering when receiving the game play information from the game server or sending the derived aimbot detection results to the game server.
Nevertheless, Herbert teaches encrypted communication that disallows bugging or tampering when receiving the information from the server or sending the information to the server under a TEE environment ([0048], “TEF 224 may be provided in cases where client device 200 includes a TEE 400. This may permit client device 200 to engage in secure communication with server 300 (FIG. 3), thus being able to provide secured (encrypted/signed) workloads, and being able to receive back secure (encrypted/signed) workload results”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aimbot detection system disclosed by Boudaoud, to have the encrypted communication with the server, as taught by Herbert, in order to have a more secured communication to guarantee fair play.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715