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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement entered August 3rd, 2026 has been considered. A copy of the cited statement(s) including the notation indicating its respective consideration is attached for the Applicant's records.
The information disclosure statement filed August 3rd, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Document WO 2024/241219A1 was not included with the Applicant provided documents.
The information disclosure statement filed August 3rd, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Document WO 2024/241217A1 was not included in the Applicant provided list of documents.
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 1-19, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-19, and 22-25.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A system for three-dimensional model-based game streaming, the system comprising:
a client computer system having one or more processors configured to run a universal game client capable of running various types of three-dimensional games,
wherein the universal game client is configured to receive game state data published by a game server,
wherein the universal game client is configured to render a virtual scene for an online game based on the game state data,
wherein the universal game client includes at least one server proxy, wherein the server proxy is configured to receive a first subscription comprising the game state data published by the game server, and generate a second subscription used by the universal game client to render the virtual scene,
wherein the server proxy is configured to predict movement of an object based on the game state data, wherein the second subscription includes game state data updated based on the predicted movement of the object.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for observing evaluating and rendering a representation of information as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a game client interface.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a client computer system, processor(s), a game server it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other network connected devices such as generic computers, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a client computer system, processor(s), a game server amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0017], [0051], [0054]-[0055], [0057]-[0059], [0061]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0017], [0051], [0054]-[0055], [0057]-[0059], [0061]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-19, and 22-25 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a client computer system, processor(s), a game server and a ticket as respectively presented in certain claims that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of each of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B because they each present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and accordingly for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 6-8 of the above dated response the Applicant’s remarks present the following arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter including:
That the invention is not directed to one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas because the execution of a game client based on received data is not a task that can be performed by the human mind (Applicant above dated remarks Page 7); and
That the claimed invention when considered as a whole is directed to a technical improvement that integrates the claimed invention into a patent eligible practical application embodied in removing packet loss and/or “jitter” that may result from packets not arriving in a uniformly distributed time from a server and cites application paragraph [00228] in support (Applicant above dated remarks Page 8).
Responsive to the preceding the following is respectfully noted in the corresponding order and heading as the applicant presented arguments are summarized herein above above:
i.a) While the performance of a task in the human mind with the benefit of pen and paper is a qualifying consideration for an invention to fall under the enumerated grouping of Mental Process it is not a basis for excluding a claimed invention from falling under the numerated grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and does not exclude a claimed invention from falling under this grouping based on the mere use of a computer to perform the recited Mental process (see MPEP 2106(a)(2) Sub III.C). In the instant application, while a computer is utilized for running three dimensional model based games, the same is utilized merely as a tool to present an updated game state, and as such the inclusion of a computer would not support patent eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f). Responsive to the Applicant’s proposition that the claimed invention cannot be performed in the human mind it is respectfully noted that the update of game state and the presentation of the same be it three dimension tickets, chess pieces, or playing cards routinely occurs in board and table games and as such the claims invention is not reasonably limited to a computer environment as proposed.
ii.a) The applicant’s proposal that the claimed invention improves technology by removing packet loss and/or “jitter” that may result from packets not arriving in a uniformly distributed time from a server is respectfully non-persuasive because the proposed improvement is not reflected in the claimed invention. Specifically, while the claimed invention does update the game state based on a predicted movement of an object it does so broadly that the modification is independent of any considerations of reducing packet loss and/or “jitter” and accordingly does not reflect the argued improvement. Additionally, it is not immediately clear from the disclosure of paragraph [0028], how the desired improvement occurs as the same broadly references the content of another application and the use of “the moment TObj” with limited context or explanation presented therein. The Applicant’s lack of disclosure concerning the proposed improvement creates a concern in meeting the disclosure requirements for an Improvement in technology as described by MPEP 2106.05(a).
The Applicant’s presented amendments and arguments reflecting the same are reasonably persuasive in overcoming the rejection of claims under Posin (US 2022/0226735) as previously presented.
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
