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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges receipt of amendments/arguments filed 5/26/26. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-20 remain pending and Claims 1, 6, and 14 are currently amended.
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising: determining, by a matchmaking scoring algorithm, a first matchmaking score associated with a first entity and a second matchmaking score associated with a second entity, the first entity associated with a first computing device and the second entity associated with a second computing device, the first computing device and the second computing device participating in an online game; causing, based on the first matchmaking score and the second matchmaking score, the first entity and the second entity to be matched in an instance of the online game; determining a first feature set associated with the first entity and a second feature set associated with the second entity; determining, based on performing an anomaly detection on the first feature set and the second feature set, that the first entity is an anomalous entity; and causing, based at least in part on the first entity being the anomalous entity, and by overriding the first matchmaking score determined by the matchmaking scoring algorithm, the first entity to be matched with a third entity.” (Claim 1); “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause a system to perform operations comprising: determining, by a matchmaking scoring algorithm, a first matchmaking score associated with a first entity and a second matchmaking score associated with a second entity, the first entity associated with a first computing device and the second entity associated with a second computing device, the first computing device and the second computing device participating in an online game; causing, based on the first matchmaking score and the second matchmaking score, the first entity and the second entity to be matched in an instance of the online game; determining a first feature set associated with the first entity and a second feature set associated with the second entity; determining, based on performing an anomaly detection on the first feature set and the second feature set, that the first entity is an anomalous entity; and causing, based at least in part on the first entity being the anomalous entity, and by overriding the first matchmaking score determined by the matchmaking scoring algorithm, the first entity to be matched with a third entity.” (Claim 6); and “A method comprising: determining, by a matchmaking scoring algorithm, a first matchmaking score associated with a first entity and a second matchmaking score associated with a second entity, the first entity associated with a first computing device and the second entity associated with a second computing device, the first computing device and the second computing device participating in an online game; causing, based on the first matchmaking score and the second matchmaking score, the first entity and the second entity to be matched in an instance of the online game; determining a first feature set associated with the first entity and a second feature set associated with the second entity; determining, based on performing an anomaly detection on the first feature set and the second feature set, that the first entity is an anomalous entity; and causing, based at least in part on the first entity being the anomalous entity, and by overriding the first matchmaking score determined by the matchmaking scoring algorithm, the first entity to be matched with a third entity.” (Claim 14). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity particularly managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and/or Mental Processes particularly cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the grouping of Mental Processes for determining a first matchmaking score associated with a first entity and a second matchmaking score associated with a second entity, causing, based on the first matchmaking score and the second matchmaking score, the first entity and the second entity to be matched in an instance of the online game; determining a first feature set associated with the first entity and a second feature set associated with the second entity; determining, based on performing an anomaly detection on the first feature set and the second feature set, that the first entity is an anomalous entity; and causing, based at least in part on the first entity being the anomalous entity and by overriding the first matchmaking score, the first entity to be matched with a third entity. Such steps pertaining to organizing human activity and/or mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. The recitations of utilization of a “system”, “processors”, “computer-readable media”, “first computing device”, “algorithm”, and/or “second computing device” are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids system, media, and/or method to which a computer performs/implements the system, media, and/or method. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Furthermore, the applicant discloses that “The game client device(s) 120 may be any suitable device, including, but not limited to a Sony Playstation® line of systems, a Nintendo Switch® line of systems, a Microsoft Xbox® line of systems, any gaming device manufactured by Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sega, an Intel-Architecture (IA)® based system, an Apple Macintosh® system, a netbook computer, a notebook computer, a desktop computer system, a set-top box system, a handheld system, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant, combinations thereof, or the like” (¶ 32); “In some implementations, the processors(s) 500 may include a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), both CPU and GPU, a microprocessor, a digital signal processor or other processing units or components known in the art. Alternatively, or in addition, the functionally described herein can be performed, at least in part, by one or more hardware logic components. For example, and without limitation, illustrative types of hardware logic components that may be used include field- programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), application-specific standard products (ASSPs), system-on-a-chip system(s) (SOCs), complex programmable logic devices (CPLDs), etc. Additionally, each of the processor(s) 500 may possess its own local memory, which also may store program modules, program data, and/or one or more operating system(s). The one or more processor(s) 500 may include one or more cores” (¶ 78); “The I/O interface(s) 502 may include a combination of hardware, software, and/or firmware and may include software drivers for enabling the operation of any variety of I/O device(s) integrated on the high-skilled-low- level detection system(s) 140 or with which the high-skilled-low-level detection system(s) 140 interacts, such as displays, microphones, speakers, cameras, switches, and any other variety of sensors, or the like” (¶ 79); “The network interface(s) 504 may include a combination of hardware, software, and/or firmware and may include software drivers for enabling any variety of protocol-based communications, and any variety of wireline and/or wireless ports/antennas. For example, the network interface(s) 504 may comprise one or more of a cellular radio, a wireless (e.g., IEEE 802.1x-based) interface, a Bluetooth® interface, and the like” (¶ 80); “The computer-readable media 510 may include volatile and/or nonvolatile memory, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Such memory includes, but is not limited to, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile discs (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, RAID storage system(s), or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by a computing device. The computer-readable media 510 may be implemented as computer-readable storage media (CRSM), which may be any available physical media accessible by the processor(s) 500 to execute instructions stored on the computer readable media 510. In one basic implementation, CRSM may include RAM and Flash memory. In other implementations, CRSM may include, but is not limited to, ROM, EEPROM, or any other tangible medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by the processor(s) 500” (¶ 82). Such disclosure suggests that any components required by the claims are no more than generic components operating in their ordinary capacity.
Additionally, Geisner (US 2008/0242421) teaches it processors can be general purpose processor for implementing online games (¶ 24, 34, 52). Lutnick (US 2022/0107682) teaches that algorithms are well known in the art for carrying out specific functions (¶ 721). The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well known components.
Nor do the dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, and 15-20 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in part.
Claims 1-20 recites statutory subject matter under § 101
The applicant argues that the claims as amended recites a specific technical improvement to online game matchmaking technology. The applicant argues that limitations, in relation to Claim 1 and similarly found in Claims 6 and 14, including at least such as "determining, by a matchmaking scoring algorithm, a first matchmaking score associated with a first entity" and then, after performing anomaly detection on feature sets and determining that the first entity is an anomalous entity, "causing, based at least in part on the first entity being an anomalous entity and by overriding the first matchmaking score determined by the matchmaking scoring algorithm, the first entity to be matched with a third entity” amount to a technical improvement to online game matchmaking technology. The use of the matchmaking system’s own algorithmic scoring process or algorithm simply applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). Generally, an algorithm is understood as a step-by-step set of instructions or rules designed to solve a problem, perform a calculation, or complete a task e.g. amounts to mere instructions or rules. It is well known, routine, and/or conventional to one of ordinary skill in art to use algorithms to carry out specific functions (Lutnick – US 2022/0107682 (¶ 721)). Furthermore, the overriding of a score for the anomalous entity to re-match that entity merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and not an improvement to the technology itself.
USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47, Claim 3 pertains to actions that are executed to remediate or prevent network intrusions. The claimed steps of “dropping the one or more malicious network packets in real time” and “blocking future traffic from the source address”, provide specific computer solutions that use the output from the ANN to provide security solutions to the detected anomalies. Such features represent an improvement to the technology itself e.g. improvement to regulating or securing network traffic. However, overriding the matchmaking scoring algorithm such that an anomalous entity can be re-matched doesn’t integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application e.g. are not improvements to the function of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a). The steps or processes amount to matching and rematching players based on an anomaly detection, wherein a computer is used as tool.
At least based on the above, the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is herein maintained and clarified to reflect the claimed amendments.
Prior Art Rejection
The rejection of Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 14, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments/arguments filed 5/26/26. Particularly, Teng, with respect to Claims 1, 6, and 14, fails to teach the limitations of “determining, based on performing an anomaly detection on the first feature set and the second feature set, that the first entity is an anomalous entity; and causing, based at least in part on the first entity being the anomalous entity and by overriding the first matchmaking score determined by the matchmaking scoring algorithm, the first entity to be matched with a third entity”.
The rejection of Claims 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn in view of the reasons as noted with regards to Claims 6 and 14 from which Claims 12 and 20 correspondingly depend.
The rejection of Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn in view of the reasons as noted with regards to Claim 6 from which Claim 13 depends.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights