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 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 non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
I. The claims are drawn to apparatus, process and CRM categories.
II. Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2a:
III. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
An apparatus for customized context-sensitive interfacing, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor executing instructions stored in the at least one memory to: receive a string of text through a user interface, wherein the user interface is part of a video game; receive context associated with the video game; analyze the string of text in light of the context to generate an evaluation of the string of text; and output the evaluation of the string of text in the video game.
The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Commercial or legal interactions
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims are directed towards incentivizing the behavior of users playing a game via group agreements or contract. This is viewed by the Examiner as managing personal behavior or relationships between people, which are all considered to be abstract ideas according to the 2019 guidelines.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
iii. Although the claims recite additional limitations, such as one or more processors and at least one server, the said additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require
additional limitations such as an interface, memory, and display components.
iv. These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claim language does recite additional elements such as one or more processors and memory, however, these viewed as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing 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.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Arroyo Palacios et al. (U.S. 2021/0322888).
Regarding claim 1, Arroyo Palacios discloses an apparatus for customized context-sensitive interfacing, (“user selection and customization”, par. 0095), comprising at least one memory, (“a memory”, par. 0115), and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor executing instructions stored in the at least one memory, (“microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics”, par. 0116), to receive a string of text through a user interface, wherein the user interface is part of a video game, (“the comments are defined by strings of text”, par. 0035 and fig. 9a), receive context associated with the video game, (“spectating context of the video game”, par. 0036), analyze the string of text in light of the context to generate an evaluation of the string of text, (“A textual analysis process 202 can be performed to analyze the text of the comments 106 provided by the spectators, and determine the semantic meaning of the comments”, par. 0048), and output the evaluation of the string of text in the video game, (“Based on such analysis the virtual character can be configured to provide responsive narration, comments, feedback”, par. 0055).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Arroyo Palacios discloses the at least one processor to provide at least the string of text to a trained machine learning (ML) model to analyze the string of text in light of the context, (“a machine learning process is trained using a corpus of existing comments”, par. 0049).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Arroyo Palacios discloses the at least one processor to: provide the context in addition to the string of text to the trained ML model to analyze the string of text in light of the context, (“a machine learning process is trained using a corpus of existing comments, to enable the machine learning process to generate comments and/or narration that is appropriately responsive to new comments”, par. 0049).
Regarding claim 4, Arroyo Palacios discloses wherein the trained ML model is a large language model (LLM), (“Such techniques may employ a machine learning process to enable the semantic understanding of text”, par. 0048).
Regarding claim 5, Arroyo Palacios discloses wherein the evaluation of the string of text includes tutoring based on at least one of the string of text or the context, (“such comments can include strings of text information, as well as other types of information communicated by the spectators as they spectate the gameplay of the video game”, par. 0072).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 16, and 17, Arroyo Palacios discloses wherein the string of text includes code for a program, and wherein the evaluation of the string of text includes a modified variant of the code, (“these comments can be in the form of text strings, but may also include other information such as audio, images (e.g. emojis, GIFs, stickers, etc.), or video”, par. 0059).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 18, and 19, Arroyo Palacios discloses the at least one processor to: incorporate an image as a texture in the video game to output the evaluation of the string of text in the video game, wherein the evaluation of the string of text includes the image, wherein the image is generated by the trained ML model based on at least the string of text, (“a machine learning process is trained using a corpus of existing comments, to enable the machine learning process to generate comments and/or narration that is appropriately responsive to new comments”, par. 0049).
Regarding claims 10 - 12, Arroyo Palacios discloses the at least one processor to: compile code in the string of text using a compiler to analyze the string of text in light of the context; and receive a compiler output from the compiler, wherein the evaluation of the string of text is based on the compiler output, (“identifies the game code, loads the identified game code and initializes the files related to the game code in preparation for presenting the game content to the user”, par. 0094).
Regarding claim 13, Arroyo Palacios discloses a method for content editing, the method comprising: receiving a string of text through a user interface, wherein the user interface is part of a video game; receiving context associated with the video game; analyzing the string of text in light of the context to generate an evaluation of the string of text; and outputting the evaluation of the string of text in the video game, (“A textual analysis process 202 can be performed to analyze the text of the comments 106 provided by the spectators, and determine the semantic meaning of the comments”, par. 0048).
Regarding claim 20, Arroyo Palacios a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, wherein the program is executable by a processor, (“microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics”, par. 0116), to perform a method of content editing (“user selection and customization”, par. 0095), the method comprising receiving a string of text through a user interface, wherein the user interface is part of a video game, (“the comments are defined by strings of text”, par. 0035 and fig. 9a), receiving context associated with the video game, (“spectating context of the video game”, par. 0036), analyzing the string of text in light of the context to generate an evaluation of the string of text, (“A textual analysis process 202 can be performed to analyze the text of the comments 106 provided by the spectators, and determine the semantic meaning of the comments”, par. 0048), and output the evaluation of the string of text in the video game, (“Based on such analysis the virtual character can be configured to provide responsive narration, comments, feedback”, par. 0055).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715