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
Applicant’s submission of a response on 6/25/26 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claim 15, canceled claims 1-14 and 16-20 and added claims 21-39. Therefore, claims 15 and 21-39 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15, 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. According to the specification, the invention relates to a activity monitoring method and system that monitors activity data and provides feedback based on the data to the user. Exemplary claims 15, 38 and 39 include the following underlined claim elements:
15. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method comprising: identifying a video game to recommend to a video game player that the video game player has not yet played; generating text associated with the identified video game to recommend to the video game player; selecting one or more voice characteristics that are associated with a video game that the video game player has already played; generating audio for output to the video game player based at least on (i) the text that is associated with the identified video game to recommend, and (ii) the one or more voice characteristics that are associated with the video game that the video game player has already played
38. (New) A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: identifying a video game to recommend to a video game player that the video game player has not yet played; generating text associated with the identified video game to recommend to the video game player; selecting one or more voice characteristics that are associated with a video game that the video game player has already played; and generating audio for output to the video game player based at least on (i) the text that is associated with the identified video game to recommend, and (ii) the one or more voice characteristics that are associated with the video game that the video game player has already played
39. (New) One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: identifying a video game to recommend to a video game player that the video game player has not yet played; generating text associated with the identified video game to recommend to the video game player; selecting one or more voice characteristics that are associated with a video game that the video game player has already played; and generating audio for output to the video game player based at least on (i) the text that is associated with the identified video game to recommend, and (ii) the one or more voice characteristics that are associated with the video game that the video game player has already played.
The underlined claim elements above are directed to the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps that observe activity data, evaluate that data, determine a classification for the activity and provide an indication of the classification to the user. The claims do not go beyond requiring collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms without limitations to specific technical implementations for performing the functions that are an improvement to a computing system or advancement in a network technology. The claims simply define a desirable information-based result. The various dependent claims only further detail the abstract ideas or constitute insignificant extra solution activity and consequently are also considered abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited “computers”, “storage devices” and “non-transitory computer readable medium” amount to implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Applicant’s specification states “With the foregoing in mind, it is to be understood that this disclosure relates generally to computer ecosystems including aspects of consumer electronics (CE) device networks such as but not limited to computer game networks. A system herein may include server and client components which may be connected over a network such that data may be exchanged between the client and server components. The client components may include one or more computing devices including game consoles such as Sony PlayStation® or a game console made by Microsoft or Nintendo or other manufacturer, extended reality (XR) headsets such as virtual reality (VR) headsets, augmented reality (AR) headsets, portable televisions (e.g., smart TVs, Internet-enabled TVs), portable computers such as laptops and tablet computers, and other mobile devices including smart phones and additional examples discussed below. These client devices may operate with a variety of operating environments. For example, some of the client computers may employ, as examples, Linux operating systems, operating systems from Microsoft, or a Unix operating system, or operating systems produced by Apple, Inc., or Google, or a Berkeley Software Distribution or Berkeley Standard Distribution (BSD) OS including descendants of BSD. These operating environments may be used to execute one or more browsing programs, such as a browser made by Microsoft or Google or Mozilla or other browser program that can access websites hosted by the Internet servers discussed below. Also, an operating environment according to present principles may be used to execute one or more computer game programs.
Servers and/or gateways may be used that may include one or more processors executing instructions that configure the servers to receive and transmit data over a network such as the Internet. Or a client and server can be connected over a local intranet or a virtual private network. A server or controller may be instantiated by a game console such as a Sony PlayStation®, a personal computer, etc”, [0021] & [0022]. This supports a conclusion that the method operates in a general computing environment and that the claim provides mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes 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 There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims are directed to and evaluating data to classify it. This is not related to a long standing problem in computer technology. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language and only generic computer components are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using a generic computer. The various dependent claims only further detail the abstract idea or are insignificant extra solution activity and also fail to rise significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claims 15, 38 and 39 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 element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The receiving, identifying, and generating of data does not indicate that the activity is anything other than a generic computer component performing the task. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate these are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (See receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)), performing repetitive calculations (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)), electronic recordkeeping (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)), storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)), determining an estimated outcome and setting a price (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v)), and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining a price (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(vi)).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the prior art of record because Fear and Kim do not disclose voice characteristics are associated with a video game that the player has already played.
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 LAWRENCE STEFAN GALKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-9 & 12-5.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/LAWRENCE S GALKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights