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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-26, 62-76, and 81 in the reply filed on 5/18/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-21 and 81 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 1 discloses in lines 8-10 “processing the Events, by said Logic Engine, to yield Building Blocks or processing the Events, by said Logic Engine, to yield Building Blocks”. The Examiner is genuinely confused as to what this mean. The Examiner does not know if this is a mistake such that the limitation was written out twice or if the limitation is supposed to be referring to a different iteration of “Building Blocks”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will assume the former.
All dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend and are similarly rejected for the same reason.
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 1-26, 62-76, and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-26, 62-76, and 81 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:A computer-implemented method for creating one or more Playable Gameplay Highlights (PGH) computer games from a computer Base Game, the method comprising:
receiving Data relating to said computer Base Game using a Logic Engine, wherein said Data comprises one or more of: Events, text, audio, images, video recording of the base Game, other video that describes the base game, and wherein said Logic Engine is comprised in a processor located in a Server;
processing the Data to yield the Events, and processing the Events, by said Logic Engine, to yield Building Blocks or processing the Events, by said Logic Engine, to yield Building Blocks; capturing one or more Highlights in said computer Base Game, wherein each of said one or more captured Highlights correspond to a selected start point and end point in said computer Base Game;
processing the Building Blocks, by said Logic Engine, to yield Highlight Attributes Parameters, said Highlight Attribute Parameters comprise one or more of: possible Objectives, possible Constraints, possible End of PGH Criteria, possible End Condition and possible Scoring parameters relating respectively to each one of the one or more Highlights;
selecting PGH Highlight in each one of the one or more Highlights, wherein said PGH Highlight correspond to a selected start point and end point in one of said one or more Highlights;
processing said Building Blocks, by said Logic Engine, relating to the selected PGH Highlight, to generate PGH Attributes, said PGH Attributes comprising one or more of: Objectives, Constraints, End of PGH Criteria, End Conditions and Scoring parameters, said selected start point and end point;
creating said one or more PGH computer games based on the PGH Attributes, wherein each of said PGH computer games comprises PGH Rules, said PGH Rules being related to said PGH Attributes and for configuring the playing of said one or more PGH computer games.Claim 22 recites:A computer-implemented method for creating one or more Playable Gameplay Highlights (PGH) computer games from a computer Base Game, the method comprising:
receiving Data relating to said computer Base Game using a Logic Engine, wherein said Data comprises one or more of: Events, text, audio, images, video recording of the base Game, other video that describes the base game, and wherein said Logic Engine is comprised in a processor located in a Server;
processing the Data using said Logic Engine to yield the Events;
capturing one or more Highlights in said computer Base Game, wherein each of said one or more captured Highlights correspond to a selected start point and end point in said computer Base Game; processing the Events, by said Logic Engine, to yield Highlight Attributes Parameters, said Highlight Attribute Parameters comprise one or more of: possible Objectives, possible Constraints, possible End of PGH Criteria, possible End Conditions and possible Scoring parameters relating respectively to each one of the one or more Highlights;
selecting PGH Highlight in each one of the one or more Highlights, wherein said PGH Highlight correspond to a selected start point and end point in one of said one or more Highlights;
processing said Events, relating to the selected PGH Highlight by said Logic Engine, to yield PGH Attributes, said PGH Attributes comprising one or more of: Objectives, Constraints, End of PGH Criteria, End Conditions and Scoring parameters;
creating said one or more PGH computer games based on the PGH Attributes, wherein each of said PGH computer games comprises PGH Rules, said PGI Rules being related to said PGI Attributes and configuring the playing of said one or more PGH computer games.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: generating a mini-game based on captured highlights from a base game.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 1 and 22 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Huang et al., US 20210365782, discloses that artificial intelligence is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 100).
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-21, 23-26, 62-76, and 81 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (ie: at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity because each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, the dependent claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Best Applicable Prior Art
Regarding independent claim 1, the closest prior art Lee, US 20190262710 is interpreted as disclosing:
A computer-implemented method for creating one or more Playable Gameplay Highlights (PGH) computer games from a computer Base Game, the method comprising: receiving Data relating to said computer Base Game using a Logic Engine, wherein said Data comprises one or more of: Events, text, audio, images, video recording of the base Game, other video that describes the base game, and wherein said Logic Engine is comprised in a processor located in a Server; processing the Data to yield the Events, and processing the Events, by said Logic Engine, to yield Building Blocks or processing the Events, by said Logic Engine, to yield Building Blocks; capturing one or more Highlights in said computer Base Game, wherein each of said one or more captured Highlights correspond to a selected start point and end point in said computer Base Game.
The prior art is interpreted as failing to disclose: processing the Building Blocks, by said Logic Engine, to yield Highlight Attributes Parameters, said Highlight Attribute Parameters comprise one or more of: possible Objectives, possible Constraints, possible End of PGH Criteria, possible End Condition and possible Scoring parameters relating respectively to each one of the one or more Highlights; selecting PGH Highlight in each one of the one or more Highlights, wherein said PGH Highlight correspond to a selected start point and end point in one of said one or more Highlights; processing said Building Blocks, by said Logic Engine, relating to the selected PGH Highlight, to generate PGH Attributes, said PGH Attributes comprising one or more of: Objectives, Constraints, End of PGH Criteria, End Conditions and Scoring parameters, said selected start point and end point; creating said one or more PGH computer games based on the PGH Attributes, wherein each of said PGH computer games comprises PGH Rules, said PGH Rules being related to said PGH Attributes and for configuring the playing of said one or more PGH computer games.
Regarding independent claim 22, the closest prior art Lee, US 20190262710 is interpreted as disclosing: A computer-implemented method for creating one or more Playable Gameplay Highlights (PGH) computer games from a computer Base Game, the method comprising: receiving Data relating to said computer Base Game using a Logic Engine, wherein said Data comprises one or more of: Events, text, audio, images, video recording of the base Game, other video that describes the base game, and wherein said Logic Engine is comprised in a processor located in a Server; processing the Data using said Logic Engine to yield the Events; capturing one or more Highlights in said computer Base Game, wherein each of said one or more captured Highlights correspond to a selected start point and end point in said computer Base Game.
The prior art is interpreted as failing to disclose: processing the Events, by said Logic Engine, to yield Highlight Attributes Parameters, said Highlight Attribute Parameters comprise one or more of: possible Objectives, possible Constraints, possible End of PGH Criteria, possible End Conditions and possible Scoring parameters relating respectively to each one of the one or more Highlights; selecting PGH Highlight in each one of the one or more Highlights, wherein said PGH Highlight correspond to a selected start point and end point in one of said one or more Highlights; processing said Events, relating to the selected PGH Highlight by said Logic Engine, to yield PGH Attributes, said PGH Attributes comprising one or more of: Objectives, Constraints, End of PGH Criteria, End Conditions and Scoring parameters; creating said one or more PGH computer games based on the PGH Attributes, wherein each of said PGH computer games comprises PGH Rules, said PGI Rules being related to said PGI Attributes and configuring the playing of said one or more PGH computer games. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights