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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 6/9/2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 have been amended. Claim 6 is cancelled.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1-5 and 7-18 are a method and claims 19-20 are a system. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1 and 19, taking 1 as a representative claim) recite:
A method comprising:
tracking consumption progress of sequential video content episodes of a video content series, associated with a user profile, from a video service, wherein the consumption progress indicates which sequential video content episodes of the series were consumed;
analyzing, using a machine learning model, a subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the consumption progress to extract data identifying objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes;
generating a plurality of digital 3D models based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes;
providing to a game customization engine:
(a) data indicative of the consumption progress of the sequential video content episodes, associated with the user profile; an
(b) the plurality of digital 3D models generated based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the data indicative of the consumption progress; and
based at least in part on identifying a gameplay session of a game application associated with the user profile and associated with the video content series, modifying, by the game customization engine, the gameplay session using at least one of the 3D models generated based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the consumption progress.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for tracking a user’s consumption of a content item and modifying the following content based on the user profile information. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under advertising activities. As presented in the specification in concert with the claimed invention, recommendations and personalization of video content is made to a user in the video content based on the profile information collected [see [006-008] of the instant application for examples]. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
A method comprising (claim 1)
A system comprising: control circuitry configured to: (claim 19)
A method comprising:
tracking consumption progress of sequential video content episodes of a video content series, associated with a user profile, from a video service, wherein the consumption progress indicates which sequential video content episodes of the series were consumed;
analyzing, using a machine learning model, a subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the consumption progress to extract data identifying objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes;
generating a plurality of digital 3D models based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes;
providing to a game customization engine:
(a) data indicative of the consumption progress of the sequential video content episodes, associated with the user profile; an
(b) the plurality of digital 3D models generated based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the data indicative of the consumption progress; and
based at least in part on identifying a gameplay session of a game application associated with the user profile and associated with the video content series, modifying, by the game customization engine, the gameplay session using at least one of the 3D models generated based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the consumption progress.
The additional elements emphasized above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 1 and 19 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 19 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1 and 19 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-18 and 20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1 and 19 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites tracking the gameplay session to identify game content relevant to the video content series; providing the identified game content relevant to the video content series to the videoby a device associated with the user profile; generating for display the additional sequential video content episode that has been modified based on the identified game content. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and the device recited in the claims is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites wherein the modifying the gameplay session comprises: identifying in a game timeline of the game application a gameplay element relevant to metadata of the subsets of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the consumption progress; and modifying the gameplay element based on the at least one of the digital 3D models of the plurality of digital 3D models. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites wherein the plurality of digital 3D models comprises at least one of: a game level data, a character model, a character outfit model, or a digital location data. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites wherein the modifying the gameplay session using the at least one of the digital 3D models associated with the subset of the sequential video content episodes further comprises: retrieving data indicative of a character model from the plurality of digital 3D models; identifying a matching character of the game application; and replacing, in the gameplay session, data indicative of the matching character with data indicative of the character model from the plurality of digital 3D models. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites wherein the modifying the gameplay session comprises: identifying a plurality of unlockable items in the game application wherein the unlockable items are features relating to a particular sequential video content episode of the sequential video content episodes; determining that the user profile has consumed the particular sequential video content episode; and unlocking the unlockable item for the user profile to access within the game application. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites wherein the video content series comprises a plurality of paths for consuming the sequential video content episodes, wherein the paths are selectable by a user interface; and wherein the gameplay session is modified based on a selected path of the plurality of paths for consuming the sequential video content episodes. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites further comprising: receiving user preferences, associated with the user profile, identifying preferred media elements associated with the video content series; wherein the providing to the game customization engine the plurality of digital 3D models comprises providing the identified preferred media elements; and wherein the modifying the gameplay session comprises: modifying the gameplay session using the identified preferred media elements. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 wherein the tracking the consumption progress comprises: monitoring, using a computational server, a media viewing history of the user profile, wherein the media viewing history comprises media elements of at least one of plot points of the video content series, characters of the video content series, settings of the video content series, episodes of the video content series, or watch time of the video content series. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and the computational server recited in the claims is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites further comprising: identifying a plurality of user profiles associated with a group watch consumption session of the video content series from the video service; identifying a multiplayer gameplay session of the game application associated with a subset of the plurality of user profiles; and based at least in part on identifying the multiplayer gameplay session of the game application associated with the subset of the plurality of user profiles, modifying, by the game customization engine, the multiplayer gameplay session using at least one of the digital 3D models associated with the subset of the sequential video contentepisodes indicated as consumed by the consumption progress of the group watching consumption session. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites wherein the modifying the multiplayer gameplay session comprises: receiving, from the plurality of user profiles, a plurality of selections of the subset of the sequential video content; and modifying the multiplayer gameplay session based on the plurality of selections. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 13 recites tracking the multiplayer gameplay session to identify additional game content relevant to the video content series; providing the video service with the identified additional game content relevant to the video content series; based at least in part on detecting consumption of an additional sequential video content episode of the sequential video content episodes by a plurality of devices associated with the plurality of user profiles: generating for display in a group watch session the additional sequential video content episode that has been modified based on the identified additional game content. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 14 recites wherein the modifying the multiplayer gameplay session comprises: accessing conversation data from the plurality of user profiles consuming the video content series from the video service; identifying, from the conversation data, a group preference for a digital 3D model of the plurality of digital 3D models associated with the subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the consumption progress; and modifying the multiplayer gameplay session using the group preference for the digitalmerely further limits the abstract idea. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites wherein the modifying the multiplayer gameplay session comprises: retrieving conversation data from the plurality of user profiles consuming the video content series from the video service; identifying, from the conversation data, a preference for a change in a storyline of the video content series; and modifying the multiplayer gameplay session based on the preference for the change in the storyline of the video content. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 16 recites wherein the generating for display the additional sequential video content episode that has been modified further comprises: identifying a static portion of at least one frame of the additional sequential video content episode; modifying the static portion of the at least one frame of the additional sequential video content episode to include digital 3D models from the identified game content; and generating for display the additional sequential video content episode with the modified static portion of at least one frame. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 17 recites wherein the generating for display the additional sequential video content episode that has been modified further comprises: determining, from metadata of the additional sequential video content episode, that an object displayed in the additional sequential video content episode can be modified; identifying a portion of at least one frame of the additional sequential video content episode that includes a representation of the object; modifying the representation of the object in the at least one frame of the additional sequential video content episode to display digital
Claim 18 recites wherein the gameplay session is modified based on the at least one digital 3D model associated with the subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the consumption progress that was provided to the game customization engine prior to the gameplay session being launched. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 20 recites wherein the circuitry is further configured to: track the gameplay session to identify game content relevant to the video content series; provide the identified game content relevant to the video content series to the videogenerality. Therefore the claim does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For these reasons claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1 and 19 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art, however the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101, as set forth above. All dependent claims are also free of prior art by virtue of dependency, but remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Taking amended claim 1 as a representative claim, the claims as amended are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 now recites the additional claimed features of:
generating a plurality of digital 3D models based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes;
providing to a game customization engine: (b) the plurality of digital 3D models generated based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the data indicative of the consumption progress; and based at least in part on identifying a gameplay session of a game application associated with the user profile and associated with the video content series, modifying, by the game customization engine, the gameplay session using at least one of the 3D models generated based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the consumption progress.
In addition to the previously cited prior art in the office action dated 2/11/2026, the closest prior art was found to be as follows:
Mokrzycki (US 20200264746) which discloses [0094] For example, media service 542 may track and store data describing which of media content 518 in media library 540 that a user has accessed or consumed (e.g., a video, a movie). Furthermore, progression 546 may track and store data describing different portions (e.g., chapters, episodes, scenes, etc.) that a user has accessed or consumed within a particular media content 518. For example, progression 546 may indicate that a user has read a number of chapters within a book, has viewed a number of episodes in a series, or has or has watched a number of scenes of a movie.
Plunkett (US 20220141547) discloses [Abstract] identifying a video content being presented to a first user on a first device, identifying a first augmentation media stream that corresponds to the video content, detecting a first time point in the video content that is currently being presented, identifying a first time point in the first augmentation media stream that corresponds to the first time point in the video content, and delivering the first augmentation media stream to a second device, wherein the delivering comprises providing instructions for time-synchronizing the first augmentation media stream with the video content so that the first time point of the video content and the first time point of the first augmentation media stream are presented to the first user at a same time, on the first device and the second device.
Eatedali (US 11263670) discloses [Abstract] Integrating gaming functionality with viewing a video program. Systems and methods for generating an interactive multimedia game for a user during the viewing of a video program by the user includes a host computer that generates the game in a context of the video program viewed on a first graphical user interface and recommends the video game to the user. The user may opt to engage with the video game on a second graphical user interface, which may be overlaid on the first graphical user interface
SWAMINATHAN (US 2016/0099854) discloses [Abstract] receiving (3920) content consumption data which characterizes multiple interactions between group of content consumers and repository of content items. Multiple session progress values associated with an interaction between content consumers and content items are calculated based on consumption data. The incomplete session progress matrix populated with session progress values is completed (3960) using a collaborative filtering technique. A content consumption session progress prediction is generated (3981) based on value extracted from the completed session.
EmoWare: A Context-Aware Framework for Personalized Video Recommendation Using Affective Video Sequences discloses using machine learning techniques to create personalized emotionally intelligent videos targeted to a particular user.
While the references above mention individual portions of the claimed limitations, the references do not disclose generating a plurality of digital 3D models based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes; providing to a game customization engine: (b) the plurality of digital 3D models generated based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the data indicative of the consumption progress; and based at least in part on identifying a gameplay session of a game application associated with the user profile and associated with the video content series, modifying, by the game customization engine, the gameplay session using at least one of the 3D models generated based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the consumption progress as required by the claimed invention.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 (and parallel claims 19) in combination that overcome the prior art are:
generating a plurality of digital 3D models based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes;
providing to a game customization engine: (b) the plurality of digital 3D models generated based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the data indicative of the consumption progress; and based at least in part on identifying a gameplay session of a game application associated with the user profile and associated with the video content series, modifying, by the game customization engine, the gameplay session using at least one of the 3D models generated based at least in part on the extracted data identifying the objects depicted in the subset of the sequential video content episodes indicated as consumed by the consumption progress.
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that the claims are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to arguments directed to the prior art rejections are moot as the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. Reasons are set forth under “Subject Matter Free of Prior Art”.
Applicant’s remarks directed to 35 USC 101 have not been found to be persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
With respect to argument 1, Technical problem the claimed features seek to address, the examiner asserts that the alleged technical solution is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The claims recite a high level collection, analysis and generation of data elements without reciting the specific architecture and manner in which the architecture is integrated to perform the technical solution.
With respect to argument 2, Technical solution to address such inefficient and stagnant disconnection” technical problem, the examiner asserts the same is true for the remarks directed to argument 2. The claims recite a high level collection, analysis and generation of data elements without reciting the specific architecture and manner in which the architecture is integrated to perform the technical solution. While the examiner does not concede that merely adding the servers disclosed in the instant specification is sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection, detailing how the interconnection of the servers, API calls, and the technical manner in which the game customization engine performs the modification, may be a path forward in the discussion of subject matter eligibility. Mere data collection, analysis, integration, and modification of data and high level use of machine learning is not sufficient, as is currently reflected in the claims. Additionally, the conversion of 2D data to 3D models presented at a specific level of detail may also be a path forward, in combination with the above suggestions. Mere high level generation of 3D model and then rendering or modification of the content is not sufficient level of detail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to argument 3, The claimed features are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, the examiner maintains the claims are recited at a high level of generality without the specific technical features required to accomplish the technical solution to a technical problem for the reasons set forth under argument 1 and argument 2 responses.
Relevant Art Not Cited
US 20210374357 disclose parsing transcripts of communications in gaming operations to create meta tags for the games.
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 VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (EST).
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 8/19/2026
Prosecution Insights