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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 06/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 06/26/2024 are noted.
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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) 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. The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a method and a system. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Here, representative claim 1, recites the following (with emphasis): “1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors (additional element), causes the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving one or more text inputs specifying movement style and base locomotion speed;
generating a forward motion clip using a first model that transforms a noisy sequence into a denoised, prompt-following motion with predicted foot contact states;
extending the forward motion clip to one or more additional motion clips via a second model that synchronizes the one or more additional motion clips to cover multiple directions based on the one or more text inputs and supports blending between the forward motion clip and the one or more additional motion clips based on one or more ground contacts; and
adjusting a locomotion set in real-time based on one or more user interactions or game scenario changes.”
“8. A method comprising:
receiving one or more text inputs specifying movement style and base locomotion speed;
generating a forward motion clip using a first model that transforms a noisy sequence into a denoised, prompt-following motion with predicted foot contact states;
extending the forward motion clip to one or more additional motion clips via a second model that synchronizes the one or more additional motion clips to cover multiple directions based on the one or more text inputs and supports blending between the forward motion clip and the one or more additional motion clips based on one or more ground contacts; and
adjusting a locomotion set based on one or more user interactions.”
“15. A system comprising:
one or more computer processors (additional element);
one or more computer memories (additional element);
a set of instructions incorporated into the one or more computer memories, the set of instructions configuring the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving one or more text inputs specifying movement style and base locomotion speed;
generating a forward motion clip using a first model that transforms a noisy sequence into a denoised, prompt-following motion with predicted foot contact states;
extending the forward motion clip to one or more additional motion clips via a second model that synchronizes the one or more additional motion clips to cover multiple directions based on the one or more text inputs and supports blending between the forward motion clip and the one or more additional motion clips based on one or more ground contacts; and
adjusting a locomotion set based on one or more user interactions.”
At a high level, the claim can be characterized as: using mathematical models to generate and modify animation sequences based on input. The underlined portions of representative claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially similar features in claims 8 and 15. The dependent claims 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 generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
mathematical concepts (diffusion model, denoising, prediction), such as Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I); and/or
mental processes (i.e. data manipulation rules) (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Accordingly, each of Claims 1 to 20 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. According to 2019 PEG, a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 further recite one or more computer processors, and one or more computer memories, yet these are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The receiving, generating, extending, and adjusting steps in the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation for the use of the judicial exception and similarly are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the organizing activities needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality).
Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, Claims 1 to 20 as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1 to 20 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
STEP 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements recite one or more computer processors, and one or more computer memories. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
Additionally, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. While, the specification discusses the use of machine learning, it does not provide any indication that the machine learning themselves are improved in any way. In light of the court decision in Recentive, this is not sufficient to save a claim from abstraction. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Furthermore, taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 (and their dependent Claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to conduct a game with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For at least the above reasons, the methods of Claims 1 to 20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1 to 20 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
AIA Notice
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0153188 A1 to OH et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0153188 A1 to Wang et al., and further in view of U.S. Patent 11,026,210 to Girard and further in view of U.S. Patent 11,620,781 to Kleanthous et al.
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 8 and 15, OH discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that (para. [0177]), when executed by one or more computer processors, causes the one or more computer processors to perform operations (para. [0008]), the operations comprising:
receiving one or more text inputs specifying movement style and base locomotion speed (fig. 3, paras. [0020]-[0024] discloses receiving text inputs describing motion style). However it does not explicitly disclose:
generating a forward motion clip using a first model that transforms a noisy sequence into a denoised, prompt-following motion with predicted foot contact states;
extending the forward motion clip to one or more additional motion clips via a second model that synchronizes the one or more additional motion clips to cover multiple directions based on the one or more text inputs and supports blending between the forward motion clip and the one or more additional motion clips based on one or more ground contacts; and
adjusting a locomotion set in real-time based on one or more user interactions or game scenario changes.
In a related invention, Wang discloses generating a forward motion clip using a first model that transforms a noisy sequence into a denoised, prompt-following motion with predicted foot contact states (paras. [0004]-[0007], [0049]-[0050], [0058]-[0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of OH and Wang because the text driven motion system of OH would benefit from the modeling techniques to improve continuity of generated motion sequences.
The combination of OH and WANG does not explicitly disclose:
extending the forward motion clip to one or more additional motion clips via a second model that synchronizes the one or more additional motion clips to cover multiple directions based on the one or more text inputs and supports blending between the forward motion clip and the one or more additional motion clips based on one or more ground contacts; and
adjusting a locomotion set in real-time based on one or more user interactions or game scenario changes.
In a related invention, Girard discloses extending the forward motion clip to one or more additional motion clips via a second model that synchronizes the one or more additional motion clips to cover multiple directions based on the one or more text inputs and supports blending between the forward motion clip and the one or more additional motion clips based on one or more ground contacts (Col. 5:20-55, Col. 7:1-30 discloses locomotion spaces and blending of motion clips).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of OH and Wang with the teaching of Girard in order to improve continuity of generated motion sequences.
The combination of OH, Wang and Girard, however does not disclose adjusting a locomotion set in real-time based on one or more user interactions or game scenario changes.
In a related invention, Kleanthous discloses adjusting a locomotion set in real-time based on one or more user interactions or game scenario changes (Col, 7:29-45, Col. 4:16-55 discloses real time response to input adjustments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of OH, Wang, and Girard with Kleanthous as Kleanthous discloses locomotion parameters known in gaming animations to further improve generated motion sequences.
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claims 9 and 16, OH in view of Wang, Kleanthous, and Girard discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the generating of the forward motion clip further comprises using a diffusion model within the first model to refine the noisy sequence based on the one or more text inputs (Girard, Col. 5:20-55, Col. 7:1-30 discloses locomotion spaces and blending of motion clips).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claims 10 and 17, OH in view of Wang, Kleanthous, and Girard discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the diffusion model is configured to predict foot contact states and ensure a motion is synchronized with an intended path of a character in a gaming environment (Wang, paras. [0004]-[0007], [0049]-[0050], [0058]-[0064]).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claims 11 and 18, OH in view of Wang, Kleanthous, and Girard discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the extending of the forward motion clip to the one or more additional motion clips includes applying the second model to receive one or more additional control signals consisting of incomplete motion inputs and a corresponding mask (Girard, Col. 5:20-55, Col. 7:1-30 discloses locomotion spaces and blending of motion clips).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claims 12 and 19, OH in view of Wang, Kleanthous, and Girard discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 4, wherein the second model is trained to complete a missing motion received as input and synchronize the one or more additional motion clips with the forward motion clip to cover a full 360-degree range of motion directions (Girard, Col. 5:20-55, Col. 7:1-30 discloses locomotion spaces and blending of motion clips).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claims 13 and 20, OH in view of Wang, Kleanthous, and Girard discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the adjusting of the locomotion set includes implementing a feedback mechanism within a gaming environment that dynamically modifies one or more animation parameters of the locomotion set in response to one or more user inputs (Kleanthous, Col, 2:45-Col. 3:42, Col. 4:16-55 discloses real time response to input adjustments).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claim 14, OH in view of Wang, Kleanthous, and Girard discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 6, wherein the one or more animation parameters include a speed, a direction, or a style (Kleanthous, Col, 2:45-Col. 3:42).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights