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 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.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-20 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 method comprising:
providing a cloud-based service executed by at least one network server; the service provisioning cloud resources including storage, compute power, and auto-scaling of at least a first prototype computer game for execution on at least a first game play device;
deploying, from the service, the first prototype computer game to the first game play device;
receiving game play data from the first game play device; and
providing analysis results of the first game play data to an independent (indie) developer of the first prototype computer game.
Claim 12 recites:
A processor system configured to: receive communication from an independent (“indie”) developer of a first prototype computer game at at least one server over a wide area network;
using the server, enable the indie developer to develop the first prototype computer game;
using the server, provide the first protype computer game over the wide area network to at least a first game play device;
receive game play data at the server from the first game play device executing the first prototype computer game; and
provide analysis of the game play data to the indie developer.
Claim 18 recites:
An apparatus comprising:
at least one computer memory that is not a transitory signal and that includes instructions executable by at least one processor system to:
establish on at least one network server a facility to allow game developers to develop and test computer games;
stream one or more of the computer games to game play devices;
receive from the game play devices game play data; and
provide access to the game play data and/or analysis thereof to the respective game developers.
[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)”]
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite mental
process because it can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s analysis, the claimed invention can be
interpreted as being directed towards mental processes because it can be carried out by hand without aid of a computer or computer components. For example:
“receiving game play data from the first game play device; and providing analysis results of the first game play data to an independent (indie) developer of the first prototype computer game.” can be interpreted as an individual being provided with information regarding a game being played in which the individual can mentally provide an analysis of said information.
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: an apparatus) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: providing game play on a game play device in which game play data is received from the game play device.)
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, 12 and 18 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:
Hauck, US 20130310124 discloses the "cloud" is a well-known term describing remote services available on the Internet, for example to store documents or to coordinate multi-player games (paragraph 109).
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 2-11, 13-17, 19-20 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.
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 1-3, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youtube video “What is Steam? – Beginners Guide to PC gaming” (Youtube 1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4uqNnEhFVw) in view of Youtube video of “How to enable Steam Cloud (2022)” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tocab1d0Zf4) (Youtube 2) and Taylert et al., US 11960514 (Taylert) and Youtube video “Using Steam Stats for Data Driven Game Development?” (Youtube 3) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AReGWbh3AVo)
Regarding Claim 1. Youtube 1 discloses method comprising:
providing a service executed by at least one network server (0:48-3:53: Steam allows for games developed by independent developers to develop games in which said games can be downloaded onto an individual game play devices for playing.);
deploying, from the service, the first prototype computer game to the first game play device (1:10-3:53. Steam allows for games to be downloaded onto a player’s respective game play devices. One such game play device is the Steam Deck.);
Youtube 1 failed to disclose wherein Steam is cloud-based.
However, Youtube 2 discloses that Steam can be implemented such that it provided gaming as a cloud-based service (0:01-1:56).
Therefore, since Youtube 1 discloses that Steam could be used for providing a service, Youtube 2 discloses that Steam could be implemented such that it provides gaming as a cloud-bases service, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to that Steam as a service could be cloud-based.
While Youtube 1 discloses providing at least a first prototype computer game for execution on at least a first game play device (1:10-3:53), the combination of Youtube 1 and Youtube 2 failed to disclose the service provisioning cloud resources including storage, compute power, and auto-scaling of at least a first prototype computer game for execution on at least a first game play device.
However, Taylert discloses that it is well-known that cloud computing is a model of service delivery for enabling on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g. networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or interaction with a provider of the service (Col 20, line 58 to Col 21, line 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since Steam utilizes cloud for gaming for at least a first prototype computer game for execution on at least a first game play device, Steam would also provision cloud resources including storage, compute power, and auto-scaling since it is well-known as taught by Taylert.
The combination of Youtube 1, Youtube 2, and Taylert failed to disclose: receiving game play data from the first game play device; and providing analysis results of the first game play data to an independent (indie) developer of the first prototype computer game.
However, Youtube 3 discloses receiving game play data from the first game play device (0:30-13:47. The video discloses how games developed by game developers can received game play data pertinent to the developed games); and
providing analysis results of the first game play data to an independent (indie) developer of the first prototype computer game (0:30-13:47: Youtube 3 discloses how received data could be used for providing an analysis).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Youtube 3’s teachings with Youtube 1, Youtube 2, and Taylert because it would allows indie developers wishing to provide games on a platform like Steam the ability to collect data for analysis as it would can help developers further develop better game play as taught by Youtube 3.
Regarding Claim 2. Youtube 1, Youtube 2, Taylert, and Youtube 3 disclose the method of Claim 1, comprising using the service to provide a game design studio to help modify the first prototype computer game (Youtube 3: 1:00-4:38. The video discloses how the analysis can be used for helping a game design studio, such as an indie developer, the ability to modify game for future updates.).
Regarding Claim 3. Youtube 1, Youtube 2, Taylert, and Youtube 3 disclose the method of Claim 1, comprising using the service to test the first prototype computer game (Youtube 3: 0:01-4:38. The video discloses how the service is used for testing how well the provided game does in terms of statistics such in order to modifying the game for balance.)
Regarding Claim 9. Youtube 1, Youtube 2, Taylert, and Youtube 3 disclose the method of Claim 1, comprising allowing the indie developer of the first prototype computer game to specify the game play data to be collected from the first game play device (Youtube 3: 0:30-13:47. The type of game play data collected can be customized).
Regarding Claim 10. Youtube 1, Youtube 2, Taylert, and Youtube 3 disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein the game play data comprises player engagement times and level completion rates (Youtube 3: 0:30-13:47. The game play data that could be collected is interpreted as encompassing player engagement times and level completion rates).
Regarding Claim 11. Youtube 1, Youtube 2, Taylert, and Youtube 3 disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein the game play data comprises one or more of player retention rate, game play session length, player progression speed (Youtube 3: 0:30-13:47. The game play data that could be collected is interpreted as encompassing game play session length.)
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youtube video “What is Steam? – Beginners Guide to PC gaming” (Youtube 1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4uqNnEhFVw) in view of Youtube video of “How to enable Steam Cloud (2022)” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tocab1d0Zf4) (Youtube 2) and Taylert et al., US 11960514 (Taylert) and Youtube video “Using Steam Stats for Data Driven Game Development?” (Youtube 3) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AReGWbh3AVo) as applied to Claim 1, and in further view of Youtube video of “How To Play Steam Games On Your Phone - Steam Link FULL TUTORIAL” (Youtube 4)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giS9ERN9ctI)
Regarding Claim 6.
Youtube 1, Youtube 2, Taylert, and Youtube 3 discloses the method of Claim 1, but failed to disclose providing an app to the first game play device enabling the first game play device to access the first prototype computer game.
However, Youtube 4 discloses providing an app to the first game play device enabling the first game play device to access the first prototype computer game (0:01-6:12. The video provides a walkthrough in which Steam can be implemented on a mobile phone.).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that Steam can be implemented on an app as taught by Youtube 4 as it would allow a player to utilize Steam services on a portable device rather than a stational personal computer as taught by Youtube 4.
Regarding Claim 7.
Youtube 1, Youtube 2, Taylert, Youtube 3, and Youtube 4 disclose the method of Claim 6, wherein the first game play device comprises a game console (Youtube 4: 0:01-6:12. A mobile deivce is interpreted as a game console).
Regarding Claim 8.
Youtube 1, Youtube 2, Taylert, Youtube 3, and Youtube 4 disclose the method of Claim 6, wherein the first game play device comprises a mobile communication device (Youtube 4: 0:01-6:12. A mobile deivce is interpreted as a mobile communication device.).
Claims 12, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Youtube video “Using Steam Stats for Data Driven Game Development?” (Youtube 1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AReGWbh3AVo) in view of Youtube video “What is Steam? – Beginners Guide to PC gaming” (Youtube 2) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4uqNnEhFVw)
Regarding Claim 12. Youtube 1 discloses a processor system configured to:
receive communication from an independent (“indie”) developer of a first prototype computer game at at least one server over a wide area network (0:30-13:47. A developer can plays his/her game on Steam in which it could be downloaded for play over a network.);
using the server, enable the indie developer to develop the first prototype computer game (0:30-13:47);
receive game play data at the server from the first game play device executing the first prototype computer game (0:30-13:47); and
provide analysis of the game play data to the indie developer (0:30-13:47).
Youtube 1 failed to disclose using the server, provide the first protype computer game over the wide area network to at least a first game play device.
However, Youtube 2 discloses providing at least a first prototype computer game over a wide area network to at least a first game play device (1:10-3:53).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since Youtube 1 discloses independent developers utilizing Steam for providing first prototype computer games to player, the prototype game would be provided over the wide area network to at least a first game play device as taught by Youtube 2.
Regarding Claim 16. Youtube 1 and Youtube 2 disclose the processor system of Claim 12, wherein the processor system is configured to: receive input from the indie developer specifying the game play data to be collected from the first game play device (Youtube 1: 0:30-13:47. The type of game play data collected can be customized).
Regarding Claim 17. Youtube 1 and Youtube 2 disclose the processor system of Claim 12, wherein the game play data comprises at least two of: player engagement times, level completion rates, player retention rate, game play session length, player progression speed (Youtube 1: 0:30-13:47).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Youtube video “Using Steam Stats for Data Driven Game Development?” (Youtube 1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AReGWbh3AVo) in view of Youtube video “What is Steam? – Beginners Guide to PC gaming” (Youtube 2) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4uqNnEhFVw) as applied to Claim 12, and in further view of Youtube video “What is Steam? – Beginners Guide to PC gaming” (Youtube 3) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4uqNnEhFVw)
Regarding Claim 15. Youtube 1 and Youtube 2 disclose the processor system of Claim 12, but failed to disclose wherein the first game play device comprises a game console or a mobile communication device.
However, Youtube 3 that Steam allows for games to be downloaded onto a player’s respective game play devices. One such game play device is the Steam Deck (1:10-3:53).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since Youtube 1 and Youtube 2 are directed towards Steam in which a game provided by an developer can be provided to players that download the game, the game downloaded could be implemented on a game console as taught by Youtube 3.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youtube video “What is Steam? – Beginners Guide to PC gaming” (Youtube 1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4uqNnEhFVw) in view of Youtube video “How to enable steam remote play 2024 (Youtube 2) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E05NAlWpcEs) in view of “Using Steam Stats for Data Driven Game Development?” (Youtube 3) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AReGWbh3AVo)
Regarding Claim 18. Youtube discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least one computer memory that is not a transitory signal and that includes instructions executable by at least one processor system to:
establish on at least one network server a facility to allow game developers to develop and test computer games (Youtube 1: 0:48-3:53: Steam is interpreted as a service in which game developers can develop games for testing by placing it on the Steam Store where players can download the game to play and test out the game for the developers.);
While Youtube discloses that Steam can be used for providing one or more of the computer games to game play devices, Youtube 1 is interpreted as failing to disclose wherein the providing of games on a game play device can be doing so via streaming.
However, Youtube 2 discloses that when it comes to playing games via Steam, games can be streamed to a player’s game play device (0:30-6:00. The video discloses how a user can stream games on to a game play device).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since players can implement games via Steam, the games being implemented could be streamed as taught by Youtube 2.
Youtube 1 and Youtube 2 failed to disclose receive from the game play devices game play data; and provide access to the game play data and/or analysis thereof to the respective game developers.
However, Youtube 3 discloses receiving from the game play devices game play data (0:30-13:47. The video discloses how games developed by game developers can received game play data pertinent to the developed games); and provide access to the game play data and/or analysis thereof to the respective game developers (0:30-13:47: Youtube 3 discloses how received data could be used for providing an analysis).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Youtube 3’s teachings with Youtube 1, Youtube 2, because it would allow indie developers wishing to provide games on a platform like Steam the ability to collect data for analysis as it would can help developers further develop better game play as taught by Youtube 3.
Regarding Claim 20. Youtube 1 and Youtube 2 and Youtube 3 disclose the device of Claim 18, Youtube 3 further disclosing wherein the instructions are executable to: receive input from at least a first one of the game developers specifying the game play data to be collected from the game play devices (Youtube 3: 0:30-13:47. The type of game play data collected can be customized).
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