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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and/ or certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a – Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 (and substantially identical independent claim 11) recites:
receiving a plurality of communications during video game gameplay;
responsive to the communications arriving at substantially similar times, analyzing the communications to determine their content;
based on that content analysis, rendering one communication in substantial real-time while delaying rendering of another.
These steps, taken as a whole, amount to nothing more than:
(1) observing/evaluating incoming messages (mental process),
(2) judging their relevance to the current context or activity (mental process + organizing human activity), and
(3) deciding which message to deliver immediately and which to queue or summarize (organizing the flow of information between people in a shared activity).
This is analogous to a human game moderator, raid leader, or even a person manually screening phone calls/texts during a conversation: “I’m busy right now – I’ll listen to the important one first and read the other one later.” The video-game environment is merely the field of use; it does not change the fundamental character of the claim.
Step 2a – Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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 - see Vanda Memo
-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)
-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
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
“during gameplay of the video game” and “analyzing game state data” are merely limiting the abstract idea to the field of video games (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“rendering … in substantial real-time” and “delaying rendering” are generic output steps.
“using an artificial intelligence (AI) model” (claims 4, 10, 14, 20) is a generic computer function; the specification provides no technical details of training, architecture, or improvement to the AI itself.
The non-transitory medium of claim 11 is a generic storage medium.
None of these elements improves the functioning of a computer, effects a transformation, applies the idea with a particular machine, or provides any other meaningful limitation beyond linking the abstract idea to a technological environment (video-game communications). See Alice, Mayo, and PEG Examples 37–42.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Receiving communications, determining overlap timing, analyzing content, prioritizing by relevance, rendering audio/text, converting speech-to-text, and summarizing messages are all well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of multiplayer video games and real-time communication systems (as evidenced by the prior art cited in the § 102/§ 103 rejections below, which the Examiner may rely upon for this purpose under MPEP 2106.05(d)). Implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using generic AI does not supply an inventive concept. The dependent claims merely add further details to the same abstract idea (e.g., voice vs. text, predefined time periods, overlapping time) and do not provide “significantly more.”
Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cosky (US 2008/0095338 A1).
1. Cosky discloses a method for managing incoming communications for a player of a video game, comprising:
during gameplay of the video game by the player, receiving a plurality of communications for the player (receiving multiple overlapping messages from speakers in multiplayer games during gameplay), [0011], [0012], [0049], (86: Fig. 9);
responsive to the communications being received at substantially similar times, then analyzing the communications to determine their content (analyzes received messages for overlap (similar times), determining content attributes such as timestamps, priorities, and relation to game status to regulate playback), (Fig. 9), [0013], [0055];
based on the content of the communications, then rendering a first one of the communications to the player in substantial real-time, and delaying rendering a second one of the communications to the player (renders higher-priority messages (first) in real-time while delaying/buffering lower-priority ones (second) for sequential playback based on content-determined priority), (Fig. 10), [0013], [0041], [0063].
2. Cosky discloses the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the communications is configured to determine a relevance of content of the communications to the gameplay of the video game, and wherein the first one of the communications is determined to have greater relevance to the gameplay than the second one of the communications (determines relevance via priority tied to gameplay elements, e.g., higher-priority channels/speakers (e.g., raid leaders) have greater relevance during active gameplay), [0010], [0042], [0061].
3. Cosky discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: analyzing game state data of the video game to identify events occurring in the gameplay; wherein analyzing the communications is configured to determine the relevance of the content of the communications to the events occurring in the gameplay (analyzes game state data (e.g., high action levels, quests, number of overlapping messages) to identify events and determine message relevance/priority for queuing), [0011], [0046].
5. Cosky discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the communications being received at substantially similar times is defined by receipt within a predefined time period (receiving overlapped messages), [0012], [0049].
6. Cosky discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the communications being received at substantially similar times is defined by the communications being overlapping in time (receiving overlapped messages), [0012], [0049].
7. Cosky discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the communications include one or more of voice communications and text communications (includes voice audio and/or text messages as communications), [0003], [0029], [0052].
8. Cosky discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first communication is rendered as audio and the second communication is rendered as text (renders higher-priority (first) as audio playback and converts lower-priority (second) to text), (96, Fig. 8), [0052].
9. Cosky discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the first and second communications are voice audio communications, and wherein rendering the second communication includes converting voice audio of the second communication to a text format (converts delayed voice audio messages to text for lower-priority rendering), (96, Fig. 8), [0052].
11-13, 15-19. Cosky discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having program instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause said at least one computing device to perform a method for managing incoming communications for a player of a video game, said method comprising: during gameplay of the video game by the player, receiving a plurality of communications for the player; responsive to the communications being received at substantially similar times, then analyzing the communications to determine their content; based on the content of the communications, then rendering a first one of the communications to the player in substantial real-time, and delaying rendering a second one of the communications to the player as similarly discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 4, 10, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosky (US 2008/0095338 A1) as applied above and further in view of Azmandian (US 2023/0386452 A1).
4. Cosky discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein analyzing the communications uses an artificial intelligence (AI) model. Azmandian teaches using AI/machine learning models for contextual analysis of voice communications in games to determine relevance and content, [0037], [0042], [0051]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cosky to incorporate the AI model teachings of Azmandian for analyzing communications, as both references pertain to managing voice inputs in interactive gaming environments, and using AI would enhance accuracy in content determination and relevance scoring by leveraging trained models to handle complex contextual nuances, thereby improving the overall user experience in multiplayer games by reducing misinterpretations and optimizing communication flow.
10. Cosky discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein rendering the second communication includes generating a summary of the second communication, and presenting the summary to the player (applying time-compression to delayed messages by removing silences or subsets, effectively summarizing content) [0013], which obviously involves AI-like models for generating condensed versions, as such summarization techniques were common for managing delayed audio in games. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use AI for summarization in Cosky to efficiently present delayed content without losing key information.
Alternatively, Azmandian teaches using AI to summarize or rephrase delayed or low-confidence communications for clarity before presentation, including delaying rendering based on game context [0037], [0042]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cosky to incorporate the AI summarization teachings of Azmandian for delayed communications, as this would allow for efficient presentation of queued content without overwhelming the player, using intelligent rephrasing to maintain key information while adapting to gameplay context for better immersion.
14. Cosky and Azmandian discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein analyzing the communications uses an artificial intelligence (AI) model as similarly discussed above.
20. Cosky and Azmandian discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein rendering the second communication includes applying an AI model to generate a summary of the second communication, and presenting the summary to the player as similarly discussed above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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 L. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715