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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 06/03/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed below.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth herein; therefore, this action is made Final.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
The rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Karp is withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are now pending.
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 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
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 and a non-transitory computer readable medium in claims 1-20. 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).
The limitations of each claim recite a series of steps which can be practically performed in the human mind through mental processes (for example, observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion)(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). A person sitting in a same room as a video game player can observe the game as it is played and observe what the player is doing physically (limitation of monitoring). That person can evaluate and form a judgment about how receptive the player is being to being interrupted and can repeat the judgment as the game progresses (limitation of using). Nothing in the claim requires more than the human faculties of observing, thinking, and judging. In addition, the same claim limitations recite and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The limitations include the following below in italicized claim language.
Independent Claim 1 recites: “1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method performed by one or more processors (additional element), the method
monitoring, for a plurality of time periods, activities of a user comprising:
gameplay activity occurring in [[the]] a video game played by the user; and
user occurring in a physical environment during the video game (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
using the user occurring in the physical environment to determine, for each time period of the plurality of time periods, a level of receptiveness of the user to an incoming communication (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and
generating a visual indicator (additional element) that is responsive to the level of receptiveness of the user, wherein the visual indicator comprises a variable appearance over a spectrum of colors or light emitting frequencies that dynamically changes for the plurality of time periods, wherein the spectrum of colors or light emitting frequencies indicates a likelihood that the user is receptive to the incoming communication (mental process including observation and evaluation and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Independent Claim 12 recites: “12. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable medium having program instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause said at least computing device to perform a method for indicating receptiveness of a user of a video game to incoming communication, the method comprising:
monitoring, for a plurality of time periods, activities of the user comprising:
gameplay activity occurring in [[the]] a video game played by the user; and monitoring activity of the player user occurring in a physical environment during the video game (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
using the monitored gameplay activity and the monitored activity of the player user occurring in the physical environment to determine, for each time period of the plurality of time periods, a level of receptiveness of the user to an incoming communication (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and
generating a visual indicator that is responsive to the level of receptiveness of the user, wherein the visual indicator comprises a variable appearance over a spectrum of colors or light emitting frequencies that dynamically changes for the plurality of periods, wherein the spectrum of colors or light emitting frequencies indicates a likelihood that the user is receptive to the incoming communication (mental process including observation and evaluation and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people).”
Each dependent claim incorporates the abstract idea of the claim from which it depends. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-17, and 19-20 further recite the abstract idea groupings identified above:
wherein monitoring gameplay activity includes monitoring gameplay audio generated from the video game (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
wherein monitoring gameplay activity includes monitoring gameplay video generated from execution of the video game (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
wherein monitoring gameplay activity includes analyzing game state data to identify events occurring in the video game (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
wherein monitoring activity of the user includes monitoring inputs generated from a controller device operated by the user (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
wherein monitoring activity of the user includes analyzing motion data indicative of movements of the user (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
wherein activating the light includes responsively setting a color of the light based on the level of receptiveness (abstract ideas: mental process including observation);
wherein the level of receptiveness is configured to be inversely correlated to an amount of engagement of the user (abstract ideas: mental process including observation and evaluation);
wherein monitoring gameplay activity includes monitoring gameplay audio generated from the video game (abstract ideas: mental process including observation);
wherein monitoring gameplay activity includes monitoring gameplay video generated from execution of the video game (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
wherein monitoring gameplay activity includes analyzing game state data to identify events occurring in the video game (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
wherein monitoring activity of the player user includes monitoring inputs generated from a controller device operated by the user (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
wherein monitoring activity of the player user includes analyzing motion data indicative of movements of the user (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
wherein activating the light includes responsively setting a color of the light based on the level of receptiveness (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and
wherein the level of receptiveness is configured to be inversely correlated to an amount of engagement of the user (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
The steps/limitations identified above are akin to a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus falls within the groupings of abstract ideas. The recitation of the method being computer-implemented and performed by one or more processors does not remove the claim from the mental-process grouping. Therefore, the claims recite 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:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
an additional element applies or uses 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)).
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. The additional elements in the claims are: one or more processors, at least one computing device, and generating a visual indicator…wherein the visual indicator comprises a variable appearance over a spectrum of colors of light emitting frequencies, wherein the spectrum of colors or light emitting frequencies indicates a likelihood that the user is receptive to the incoming communication. The one or more processors and the at least one computing device are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. No particular processor or configuration is claimed. The additional limitation of “… generating the visual indicator … wherein the visual indicator comprises a variable appearance over a spectrum of colors of light emitting frequencies…” does nothing more than display the result in a form a player/user can see. Outputting or displaying the result of an analysis is 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, these additional elements in the claims 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 and 12, and their dependent claims, 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 are indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) by the following considerations:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
an additional element applies or uses 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
The examiner also evaluates whether the additional elements add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)), which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present.
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)); generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)); or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkeheimer Memo)).
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 identified under Prong 2, are generically claimed. Applicant’s specification further demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for their well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality. Paragraph [0063] describes the computing hardware in generic terms such as “… example device 600 that can be used to perform aspects of the various embodiments of the present disclosure. This block diagram illustrates a device 600 that can incorporate or can be a personal computer, video game console, personal digital assistant, a server or other digital device, suitable for practicing an embodiment of the disclosure. Device 600 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 602 for running software applications and optionally an operating system. CPU 602 may be comprised of one or more homogeneous or heterogeneous processing cores. For example, CPU 602 is one or more general-purpose microprocessors having one or more processing cores.”
Generating an output that displays the result, as the additional element of “generating the visual indicator..” does, is likewise well-understood, routine, and conventional. Receiving and outputting data are among the functions recognized as conventional in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 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.
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 and 12 (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 activities 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, 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).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
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 2014/0364215 A1 to Mikhailov et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2026/0381649 A1 to Karp et al.
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claim 12, (Currently Amended) Mikhailov discloses a computer-implemented method performed by one or more processors, (¶ [0062] discloses computer 106…¶ [0100] discloses processor 1300) the method
monitoring, for a plurality of time periods, activities of a user comprising:
gameplay activity occurring in [[the]] a video game played by the user (¶¶ [0075]-[0077] discloses game engine 320 that continuously receives controller input 314, audio input 316 and motion input 318, processes those inputs to update the game state of video game and outputs game state data to rendering modules which process the game state data to define content which will be presented to the user); and
user occurring in a physical environment during the video game (¶ [0063] discloses camera 108 that captures images of the interactive environment in which the user 100 is located, which images are analyzed to determine the location and movements of the user 100, the HMD 102, and the controller 104 …. ¶¶ [0080], [0086]-[0087] discloses sensors in the HMD and controller communicating data to a base station computer from which positions, changes in position, and rates of change of position are determined…. ¶ [0078] discloses gaze tracking camera 312 that captures images of the user’s eyes);
using the user occurring in the physical environment to determine, for each time period of the plurality of time periods, (¶ [0072] discloses determining relative intensity levels of gameplay and communicating them by way of the HMD lights such that a person external to the user viewing the lights understands that the user is actively engaged in intense gameplay and may not wish to be disturbed at the moment)(A determination that the user may not wish to be disturbed at a given moment is a determination of the user’s receptiveness to interruption); and
generating a visual indicator that is responsive to the level of receptiveness of the user (¶¶ [0071]-[0072] discloses lights 200A-H on the HMD configured to indicate a current status of the HMD to others in the vicinity, whose configuration is responsive to gameplay intensity), wherein the visual indicator comprises a variable appearance over a spectrum of colors or light emitting frequencies that dynamically changes for the plurality of time periods (¶ [0072] discloses that the lights may be configured to have a certain color arrangement, a certain intensity arrangement, to blink, or to have certain on/off configuration, and that the intensity of the lights or the rate of blinking may increase as the intensity of gameplay increases…. [0098]-[0099] discloses lights can also be provided with various colors and the color can be selected from a predefined list of colors; the selection of the colors for the controller can be adjusted from time to time, during calibration, during gameplay, during specific scenes in a game, during specific action sequences in a game, for communicating with other users in a multiplayer game environment), wherein the spectrum of colors or light emitting frequencies … (¶ [0072] discloses a person external to the user may view the lights on the HMD 102 and understand that the user is actively engaged in intense gameplay, and may not wish to be disturbed at that moment).
Mikhailov does not explicitly disclose “… a level of receptiveness of the user to an incoming communication …and “… indicates a likelihood that the user is receptive to the incoming communication.”
In a related invention, Karp discloses “… a level of receptiveness of the user to an incoming communication (fig. 2B, ¶¶ [0039]-[0041] discloses an AI model that receives game state data, gaming context, controller input, user behavior data including feedback and motion data of objects worn or held by the player … [0049]-[0052] discloses that the data is executed continuously as a background process to determine a level of user immersion at each current point in the game play … and “… indicates a likelihood that the user is receptive to the incoming communication” ¶ [0064] discloses when the AI model determines the player is highly immersed, a third party communicator is instructed to block incoming communications to the player).
Mikhailov states that the lights “might also be configured to indicate relative intensity levels of gameplay” so that a bystander understands that the user is intensely engaged and may not wish to disturbed at the moment (¶ [0072]). Karp discloses an AI model that determines from game state data and monitored player activity, a level of immersion at each point in the game play and compares it to a threshold to decide whether the player should be interrupted (¶¶ [0043]-[0052]). 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 features of Karp with gaming system of Mikhailov to further enhance the player’s enjoyment during game play. The benefit Karp provides is that during crucial moments of game play, instead of having the player break concentration to notify others that they should not presently disturb the player, automatic notification is provided to anyone in the surrounding environment that the player should not be interrupted (¶¶ [0020]-[0021]).
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claim 13, (Original) Mikhailov in view of Karp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein monitoring gameplay activity includes monitoring gameplay audio generated from the video game (Mikhailov, ¶ [0069]).
Regarding Claim 3, (Original) Mikhailov in view of Karp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein monitoring gameplay activity includes monitoring gameplay video generated from execution of the video game (Mikhailov, ¶ [0077] discloses a video rendering module that renders video stream of the executing game for presentation on the HMD; Karp, ¶ [0027] discloses game state data includes graphic overlays and game objects).
Regarding Claim 4, (Original) Mikhailov in view of Karp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein monitoring gameplay activity includes analyzing game state data to identify events occurring in the video game (Karp, ¶¶ [0027], [0051] discloses determining a game context of a current point in the game play based on game state data, [0044]-[0045] discloses identifying the specific in-game events so determined including a boss fight context 243, a river crossing gaming context 243 (i.e., crossing a river by a character controlled by the player), a changing weapons gaming context 245 (e.g., examining assets of the player for purposes of determining which weapons to actively carry), a double boss fight gaming context 246 (e.g., fighting two or more bosses), and a jumping a fence gaming context 247 (controlling a character to jump a fence)).
Regarding Claim 5, (Currently Amended) Mikhailov in view of Karp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein monitoring activity of the user includes monitoring inputs generated from a controller device operated by the user (Mikhailov, ¶¶ [0076] discloses controller input 314 including directional inputs, button presses, trigger activation, and movements processed from operation of a gaming controller).
Regarding Claim 6, (Currently Amended) Mikhailov in view of Karp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein monitoring activity of the player user includes analyzing motion data indicative of movements of the user (Mikhailov, ¶¶ [0080], [0086, [0087] discloses inertial sensor data and camera tracking used to identify positions, changes in position, and rates of change of position of the user’s head and controller).
Regarding Claim 7, (Currently Amended) Mikhailov in view of Karp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein rgenerating the visual indicator is defined by activating a light worn by the user (Mikhailov, ¶¶ [0061], [0065], [0071] discloses lights 200A-H integrated with the exterior housing of the HMD 102, which is worn by the user in a manner similar to glasses, googles, or a helmet).
Regarding Claim 8, (Original) Mikhailov in view of Karp discloses the method of claim 7, wherein activating the light includes responsively setting a color of the light based on the level of receptiveness (Mikhailov, ¶¶ [0072] discloses that the lights may be configured to have a certain color arrangement indicating the current status of the HMD to others in the vicinity, and [0098]-[0099] discloses that the colors are selectable and adjustable during gameplay).
Regarding Claim 9, (Currently Amended) Mikhailov in view of Karp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the level of receptiveness is configured to be inversely correlated to an amount of engagement of the user (Mikhailov, ¶¶ [0072] discloses the lights can be configured to display different configurations during active gameplay of a video game (generally gameplay occurring during an active timeline or within a scene of the game) versus other non-active gameplay aspects of a video game. The lights might also be configured to indicate relative intensity levels of gameplay. For example, the intensity of lights, or a rate of blinking, may increase when the intensity of gameplay increases).
Regarding Claim 10, (Currently Amended) Mikhailov in view of Karp discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
training a machine learning model (Karp, ¶¶ [0025], [0031]-[0033] discloses levels of immersion of the player may be classified using the AI model, also referred to as an AI learning model. The AI model is updateable by providing feedback and/or trusted data to continually train the AI model); and
wherein determining the level of receptiveness includes applying the machine learning model to the user (Karp, ¶¶ [0035], [0039]-[0042]).
Regarding Claim 11, (Original) Mikhailov in view of Karp discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the machine learning model is trained using data describing prior instances of the video game and communications occurring during the prior instances of the video game (Karp, ¶¶ [0035], [0039]-[0042] discloses implementation phase in which the trained model is applied to extracted features derived from monitored gameplay activity and monitored player activity to output a level classification).
Regarding Claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 9 above.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered.
As an initial matter, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is persuasive. The rejection is hereby withdrawn. However, a new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is presented above.
(Note: “Thus, even if a human can monitor activity and determine user receptiveness, a human mind can generate a visual indicator based on this information as claimed (Remarks, p. 7).” Regarding this line in the arguments, this appears to support the Examiner’s position. However, the Examiner has assumed that this as a typographical error and Applicant meant to say cannot generate).
On page 7 regarding the rejection of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the arguments are unpersuasive. Applicant argues “While a human mind might be able to "monitor [gameplay activity and activity of a user]" and "determine [a level of receptiveness]," the human mind cannot inherently or even easily be programmed to "generate a visual indicator" that comprises "a spectrum of colors or light emitting frequencies that dynamically changes for the plurality of time periods. Even if a human can monitor activity and determine user receptiveness, a human mind can generate a visual indicator based on this information as claimed.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Eligibility does not turn on whether every recited step is individually performed in the mind. Where a claim recites an abstract idea, the question at Prong Two is whether the additional elements integrate it into a practical application. Identifying the additional element is not the end of the analysis. The additional element must then integrate the exception into a practical application. Applicant’s response does not contain any Prong 2 or Step 2B analysis of the visual indicator and therefore does not address the basis of the rejection. Additionally, the argument relies on features that are not claimed. In response to Applicant’s arguments that “Rather, dynamic generation of visual indictors (e.g., via LEDs or on-screen displays), particularly in real-time, is a computational problem.” (Remarks, p. 8), the claims recite no LED, no-screen display, no light source or technique for producing the recited appearance. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Even accepting Applicant’s characterization that generating such an indicator presents a computational problem, Applicant does not identify how the claims solve that problem or what about the claimed invention causes any computer, display or light to operate better than it otherwise would.
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 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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights