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 06/27/2024.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 06/27/2024 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 16 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, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 16 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved. The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html).
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
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 method, a system, and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium in claims 1-16. 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
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
Step 2A, Prong 1
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).
Specifically, independent Claim 1 (and similarly recited Claims 15 and 16) recites “1. A method of improving user experience in conjunction with a computer game long-term factors by controlling rewards to players, comprising:
using at least one processor for executing a recommendation engine adapted to:
communicate with a game engine of a computer game to receive a plurality of behavior parameters relating to in-game actions of a plurality of players engaged in the computer game using a plurality of client devices;
balance between a user experience of at least one of the plurality of players and at least one long-term factor of the computer game by generating, based on the plurality of behavior parameters, at least one reward recommendation for allocating at least one reward to at least one of the plurality of players for at least one in-game action made by the at least one player; and
cause the game engine to adjust a graphic user interface (GUI) of the client device of at least one of the plurality of players to reflect the at least one allocated reward.”
Independent Claim 15 recites “15. A system for improving user experience in conjunction with a computer game long-term factors by controlling rewards to players, comprising:
at least one processor adapted to execute a code of a recommendation engine, the code comprising:
code instructions to communicate with a game engine of a computer game to receive a plurality of behavior parameters relating to in-game actions of a plurality of players engaged in the computer game using a plurality of client devices;
code instructions to balance between a user experience of at least one of the plurality of players and at least one long-term factor of the computer game by generating, based on the plurality of behavior parameters, at least one reward recommendation for allocating at least one reward to at least one of the plurality of players for at least one in-game action made by the at least one player; and
code instructions to cause the game engine to adjust a graphic user interface (GUI) of the client device of at least one of the plurality of players to reflect the at least one allocated reward.”
Independent Claim 16 recites: “16. A computer program product of a recommendation engine adapted to improve user experience in conjunction with a computer game long-term factors by controlling rewards to players, comprising a non-transitory medium storing thereon computer program instructions which, when executed by at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to:
communicate with a game engine of a computer game to receive a plurality of behavior parameters relating to in-game actions of a plurality of players using a plurality of client devices to play the computer game;
balance between a user experience of at least one of the plurality of players and at least one long-term factor of the computer game by generating, based on the plurality of behavior parameters, at least one reward recommendation for allocating at least one reward to at least one of the plurality of players for at least one in-game action made by the at least one player; and
cause the game engine to adjust a graphic user interface (GUI) of the client device of the at least one of the plurality of players to reflect the at least one allocated reward.”
The underlined portions of representative claim 1 generally encompass analyzing player behavior data, balancing engagement and economic factors, generating reward recommendations, applying constraints and optimization and presenting results via GUI. The abstract ideas may be viewed, for example, as:
a method of managing a game similar to that of managing a game of bingo in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App'x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential);
at least one step or instruction or rule for: (i) an observation, judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG;
use of machine learning in a given environment (e.g., for analyzing wager information) as discussed in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025); and/or
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., allowing a human player to play an award-providing game according to rules of the game and/or to purchase or exchange items) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The abstract idea is also similar to that of Planet Bingo, in which a method of managing a bingo game was found to be an abstract idea. Though the instant claims are not limited to bingo games, they encompass the management of similar games. Like the claims in Recentive, the instant claims merely recite the use of generic machine learning applied to a given data environment. The Recentive court determined that claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that using existing machine learning technology they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved. The courts have consistently held, in the context of computer-assisted methods, that such claims are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because they speed up human activity.
Additionally, 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. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 to 16 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. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field ( see MPEP 2106.05(a));
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition ;
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b));
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and/or
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo).
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, 15, and 16 recite the additional elements of, for example, a processor. However 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 steps of the claims, communicate, balance, cause, 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).
The additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. In order to be patent-eligible, software patents must make a technical improvement to a computer per se. The invention must provide a “technical solution to a technical problem.” A “technical problem” is a problem arising out of computers or networks. Applicant’s invention does not address a technical problem. For example, Applicant’s specification recites “First, rewarding the players may maintain and possibly improve the user experience of at least a majority of the computer game players thus increasing their engagement with the computer game, at least short-term engagement. Maintaining a balanced game economy, in which the user experience is maintained and possibly improved while the serving also the computer game’s long-term factors may maintain and potentially increase long-term appeal, value, and/or reputation of the computer game to the benefit of the computer game vendor” – [0044]. However, neither of these are ”technical problems” arising out of computers. It is well within the ability of a computer to display the claimed graphics. At best, Applicant’s invention improves the user experience while using the game application. As the court said in IBM v Zillow Group Inc. (Fed. Cir, 2022):
Furthermore, “improving a user’s experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims” patent-eligible at step one. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
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 16 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, 15, and 16 and their dependent claims 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 (MPEP 2106.05(d)); 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 (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claims 1, 15, and 16 do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional elements in the claim (i.e. a processor, etc.) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components used as tools. 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.
Further, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Here, the steps of the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation extra-solution activity. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) and then to present or display said information is well known as in presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Additionally, while the specification discusses the use of machine learning models, it does not provide any indication that the models themselves are improved in any way. Instead, the models appear to be pre-existing, off-the-shelf computer components arranged in conventional ways. Nothing in the claims provides detail about specific or improved models, but rather they apply information to existing LLMs to process that recommendation and/or information. In light of the court decision in Recentive, this is not sufficient to save a claim from abstraction. Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more.
Taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer itself, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements 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.
Thus, Claims 1, 15, and 16 remain ineligible.
Dependent Claims are ineligible and lack a practical application.
Claims 2-14 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
The dependent claims recite further extra-solution activities and further define the abstract idea of the independent claims.
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 to 5 and 12 to 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0316779 A1 to Vogel in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0300446 A1 to Burgin et al. (hereinafter Burgin).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 15 and 16, Vogel discloses a method of improving user experience in conjunction with a computer game long-term factors by controlling rewards to players, comprising:
using at least one processor for executing a recommendation engine adapted to (fig. 1 game server 102):
communicate with a game engine of a computer game to receive a plurality of behavior parameters relating to in-game actions of a plurality of players engaged in the computer game using a plurality of client devices (paras. [0013]-[0015], [0021]-[0022], [0026] discloses Game events generated by the game server 102 during game play may be provided to the event filter 104. In accordance with the present disclosure, the event filter 104 may identify a player (e.g., player 122) based on one or more game events that occur during game play … The prediction modeler 106 may model player behaviour to assess how likely a player (e.g., player 122) is to exhibit a specific behaviour under a given set of circumstances during game play);
balance between a user experience of at least one of the plurality of players and at least one long-term factor of the computer game by generating, based on the plurality of behavior parameters (paras. [0021]-[0022] discloses… game engine 204 may provide the game events to the event filter 104 in addition to being stored in the events data store 208. Game state information and game events may be accessed by the predication modeler 106 via the state information data store 206 and the events data store 208, respectively. The prediction modeler 106 may use game state information and game events to predict the behaviour of a player (e.g., player 122) identified in the event filter 104 ... the engagement processor 108 may access the state information data store 206 and the events data store 208 to inform the process of generating one or more engagement actions for engaging with the player), at least one reward recommendation for allocating at least one reward to at least one of the plurality of players for at least one in-game action made by the at least one player; and
cause the game engine to adjust a graphic user interface (GUI) of the client device of at least one of the plurality of players to reflect the at least one allocated reward.
However, Vogel does not explicitly disclose “… at least one reward recommendation for allocating at least one reward to at least one of the plurality of players for at least one in-game action made by the at least one player; and cause the game engine to adjust a graphic user interface (GUI) of the client device of at least one of the plurality of players to reflect the at least one allocated reward.”
In a related invention, Burgin discloses at least one reward recommendation for allocating at least one reward to at least one of the plurality of players for at least one in-game action made by the at least one player (paras. [0016], [0019], [0022] discloses providing dynamically variable rewards to players of an online game. In some example embodiments, the systems and methods identify and/or determine attributes or characteristics (e.g., playing history, current game play status, advertisement interaction history, and so on) for a player, and provide rewards to the player based on the determined characteristics, such as by providing rewards to the player based on actions (e.g., watching or interacting with an advertisement) performed by the player within or associated with the online game); and cause the game engine to adjust a graphic user interface (GUI) of the client device of at least one of the plurality of players to reflect the at least one allocated reward (paras. [0016], [0019], [0022] discloses providing dynamically variable rewards to players of an online game. In some example embodiments, the systems and methods identify and/or determine attributes or characteristics (e.g., playing history, current game play status, advertisement interaction history, and so on) for a player, and provide rewards to the player based on the determined characteristics, such as by providing rewards to the player based on actions (e.g., watching or interacting with an advertisement) performed by the player within or associated with the online game).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vogel with the award recommendation features of Burgin in order to improve player engagement and incentivize players to continue playing the game.
Regarding Claim 2, Vogel in view of Burgin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising applying at least one trained machine learning (ML) model adapted to generate the at least one reward recommendation (Vogel, paras. [0028] discloses one or more type of models to train data).
Regarding Claim 3, Vogel in view of Burgin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of behavior parameters relating to in-game actions of the plurality of players comprise at least one member of a group comprising: engagement time, a churn rate, a growth in number of new players, a retention rate of new players, an in-game action, advancement of players within the computer game, a player interaction, and a value of rewards aggregated by the plurality of players (Vogel, paras. [0022.
Regarding Claim 4, Vogel in view of Burgin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one reward comprises at least one member of a group of: an asset, a token, an experience point (XP), a gaming clue, a level advancement, an in-game advantage, an in-game skill, and a monetary value (Burgin, paras. [0019] discloses the different types of awards available).
Regarding Claim 12, Vogel in view of Burgin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the recommendation engine is further adapted to:
group the plurality of players into a plurality of player groups, collect a plurality of sets of behavior parameters each relating to respective one of the plurality of player groups, compute a combination of reward recommendations comprising at least one respective reward recommendation for each of the plurality of player groups generated based on a respective one of the plurality of sets, and cause the game engine to allocate at least one reward to at least one player of each of the plurality of player groups according to the respective at least one reward recommendation (Burgin, paras. [0016], [0019], [0022], [0061]-[0062]).
Regarding Claim 13, Vogel in view of Burgin discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the recommendation engine is further adapted to generate the combination of reward recommendations based on mutual impact between players of different groups (Burgin, paras. [0016], [0019], [0022], [0061]-[0062], [0080]).
Regarding Claim 14, Vogel in view of Burgin discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the recommendation engine is further adapted to generate the reward recommendations according to at least one distribution of rewards among the plurality of player groups (Burgin, paras. [0016], [0019], [0022], [0061]-[0062], [0080]).
Claims 5-11 are not rejected under prior art, i.e. could be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but could be allowable, if applicant can successfully overcome the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Claims 1-16 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