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 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 an apparatus or computer system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-7, 15-20 and a method (i.e., a process) in claims 8-14.
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. An apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to:
perform a rendering operation on a first video frame of a plurality of video frames using a first set of parameters;
send the first video frame to a display device;
send rendered output data of the first video frame to a machine learning model;
receive, from the machine learning model, an indication classifying the first video frame into a first category of a plurality of categories based on the rendered output data of the first video frame; and
responsive to the indication, perform a rendering operation on a second video frame of the plurality of video frames using a second set of parameters different from the first set of parameters
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 video frame content, evaluating (classifying) the associated display parameters as falling into a category and responsively judging performing a rendering of subsequent frame differently based on the data of the first frame as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of determining parameters for the presentation of a game 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 circuitry and a display device 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 devices such as generic computers, smartphones, 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 circuitry and a display device 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 [0019], [0021], [0027]-[0028], [0045], [0062]). 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 [0019], [0021], [0027]-[0028], [0045], [0062]). 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 2-20 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 circuitry, processing circuitry and a display device as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Colenbrander (US 2021/0146240).
Claim 1: Colenbrander teaches an apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to:
perform a rendering operation on a first video frame of a plurality of video frames using a first set of parameters (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraph [0050]);
send the first video frame of the plurality of video frames to a display device (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraph [0050]);
send rendered output data of the first video frame to a machine learning model (Colenbrander Paragraph [0099]);
receive, from the machine learning model, an indication classifying the first video frame into a first category of a plurality of categories based on the rendered output data of the first video frame (- user is in a battle …e.g. …machine learning of the video images-Colenbrander Paragraph [0099]); and
responsive to the indication, perform a rendering operation on a second video frame of the plurality of video frames using a second set of parameters different from the first set of parameters (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraphs [0050], [0077]-[0078], [0099])
Claim 2: Colenbrander teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein the plurality of categories comprise one or more of a menu image, an application loading image, a scoreboard image, and an active gameplay image (-Understood as equivalent to identification of static and battle detection and corresponding focus on frame rate- Colenbrander Paragraph [0099]).
Claim 3: Colenbrander teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 2, wherein one or more of the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters comprises identifiers specifying one or more subdivisions of a third video frame of the plurality of video frames to process differently from other subdivisions of the third video frame (-Regions of interest- Colenbrander Figure 7; Paragraphs [0041], [0094]-[0095]).
Claim 8: Colenbrander teaches a method, comprising:
performing, by a processing circuit (Colenbrander Paragraphs [0136]-[0138]), a rendering operation on a first frame of a plurality of video frames using a first set of parameters (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraph [0050]);
sending, by the processing circuit, the first video frame to a display device (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraph [0050]);
sending, by the processing circuit, rendered output data of the first video frame to a machine learning model (Colenbrander Paragraph [0099]); and
receive, from the machine learning model, an indication classifying the first video frame into a first category of a plurality of categories based on the rendered output data of the first video frame (- user is in a battle …e.g. …machine learning of the video images-Colenbrander Paragraph [0099]); and
responsive to the indication, perform a rendering operation on a second video frame of the plurality of video frames using a second set of parameters different from the first set of parameters (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraphs [0050], [0077]-[0078], [0099])
Claim 9: Colenbrander teaches the method as recited in claim 8, wherein the plurality of categories comprises one or more of a menu image, an application loading image, a scoreboard image, and an active gameplay image (-Understood as equivalent to identification of static and battle detection and corresponding focus on frame rate- Colenbrander Paragraph [0099]).
Claim 10: Colenbrander teaches the method as recited in claim 9, wherein one or more of the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters comprises identifiers specifying one or more subdivisions of a third video frame of the plurality of video frames to process differently from other subdivisions of the third video frame (-Regions of interest- Colenbrander Figure 7; Paragraphs [0041], [0094]-[0095]).
Claim 15: Colenbrander teaches a computing system comprising:
circuitry configured to execute a machine learning model (Colenbrander Paragraphs [0099], [0136]- [0138]); and
a processing circuit (Colenbrander Paragraphs [0136]- [0138]) configured to:
perform a rendering operation on a first video frame of a plurality of video frames using a first set of parameters (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraph [0050]);
send the first video frame to a display device (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraph [0050]); and
send rendered output data of the first video frame to a machine learning model (Colenbrander Paragraph [0099]);
receive, from the machine learning model, an indication classifying the first video frame into a first category of a plurality of categories based on the rendered output data of the first video frame (- user is in a battle …e.g. …machine learning of the video images-Colenbrander Paragraph [0099]); and
responsive to the indication, perform a rendering operation on a second video frame of the plurality of video frames using a second set of parameters different from the first set of parameters (Colenbrander Figures 1-2, 6; Paragraphs [0050], [0077]-[0078], [0099]).
Claim 16: Colenbrander teaches the computing system as recited in claim 15, wherein the plurality of categories comprises one or more of a menu image, an application loading image, a scoreboard image, and an active gameplay image (-Understood as equivalent to identification of static and battle detection and corresponding focus on frame rate- Colenbrander Paragraph [0099]).
Claim 17: Colenbrander teaches the computing system as recited in claim 16, wherein one or more of the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters comprises identifiers specifying one or more subdivisions of a third video frame of the plurality of video frames to process differently from other subdivisions of the third video frame (-Regions of interest- Colenbrander Figure 7; Paragraphs [0041], [0094]-[0095]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s above dated response, the Applicant presents the following arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC §101, including:
that the claims as amended recite the graphics processing steps of rendering a video frame, sending data of the rendered frame to a machine-learning model, generate an indication classify the frame based on the rendered output and utilize the indication to render an additional frame utilizing a different parameter set, which are proposed as not falling under the grouping of Mental Process because it require graphics processing circuitry and are unsuitable to be performed in a human mind (Applicant Remarks Page 7);
that the claimed invention would additionally no fall under the enumerated grouping of Organizing Human Activity because the invention does not concern an economic practice, commercial or legal interaction, or management of personal behavior or relationships and the use of the rendered frame to present a game interface does not convert the claimed graphics-processing operation into regulation of human conduct (Applicant Remarks Page 8); and
that the claimed invention even if it does recite an abstract idea integrates the same into a practical application by solving the technical problem of adjusting the display parameters based on the nature of the content being displayed (Applicant Remarks Page 8).
Responsive to the preceding the following is noted in corresponding order an enumeration as noted herein above:
i.a The manipulation of data and presentation of data even when performed by a computer and or with the use of machine learning as particularly presented still falls under the enumerated grouping of Mental process because:
1. the enumerated grouping of Mental Processes include Mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Sub III.C);
2. the court decisions in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) & Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), respectively determined that collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality fall under ineligible mental processes; and
3. that analogous to claim 2 of example 47 of the USPTO July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, claimed inventions (including those utilizing artificial neural networks) that merely manipulate data at a high level of generality, do not impose meaningful limitations beyond data gathering and outputting steps encompassing mental choices or evaluations.
ii.a) Insomuch as the claimed invention defines a series of rules for the manner of presenting a changing game state to a player, the claimed invention fairly defines Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in similar fashion as was determined by the court in addressing rules for conducting a wagering game in , In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
iii.a) The Applicant’s proposed improvement in technology is respectfully non-persuasive because the proposed improvement is recited at a high level of generality reflecting similar considerations and concerns addressed in claim 2 of example 47 of the USPTO July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, that while they utilize a computer as a tool to practice the claimed invention utilizes the same merely as a tool to practice the claimed invention and/or extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(f, g)) in a manner that does not support the proposed improvement in technology.
Continuing on pages 9-11 of the Applicant’s above dated response, the Applicant presents the following arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC §102 as being anticipated by Colenbrander (US 2021/0146240) including:
that the claims as amended recite: 1. sending rendered output data of a first video frame to a machine-learning model, 2. receiving an indication classifying the first video frame, based on the rendered output data,
into one of a plurality of categories; and 3. responsive to the indication, render a second video frame using a parameter set different from the parameter set used to render the first video frame and proposes that the applied prior art does not teach these features (Applicant Remarks Pages 9-10);
that claim 4 including the limitations describing the use of differing levels of motion compensated frame interpolation that are not taught by the applied prior art of Colenbrander (Applicant Remarks Page 11).
Responsive to the preceding the following is noted in corresponding order an enumeration as noted herein above:
vi.a) The prior art of Colenbrander performs the steps of: 1. sending rendered output data of a first video frame to a machine-learning model, 2. receiving an indication classifying the first video frame, based on the rendered output data, into one of a plurality of categories; and 3. responsive to the indication, render a second video frame using a parameter set different from the parameter set used to render the first video frame, as particularly claimed as noted through the prior art reference including cited paragraph [0099].
[0099] In some implementations a profile of the game based on these system level indicators can be generated (e.g. by a QA operator). The system level indicators can be used as markers to determine where the user is in the game. Accordingly, appropriate reference settings for the video game can be picked based on the indicators, and stored to the profile. For example, the profile may map various ones of the indicators to certain reference settings, so that when the indicators have certain values, then the video game is instructed to adjust its video/audio rendering according to the reference settings. Different areas of the game can have different settings. For example, if the user is in a battle (e.g. inferred from storage access, machine learning of the video images, machine learning on audio data, rate at which user presses buttons/sticks) then framerate could be prioritized. Whereas if the user is in a fairly static region or exhibits low activity, then resolution or another video property might instead be prioritized. (emphasis added)
v.a) The Applicant’s argument that the applied prior art does not teach the claimed features of claim 4 as particularly claimed, is reasonable and the prior art rejection of this claim has been withdrawn.
In view of the preceding, the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not though relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hu et al (US 2020/0314382) teaches a video frame interpolation method, storage medium and terminal
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
