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 .
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A method for performing a soft pause of a video game, comprising: executing a video game by a game machine; receiving a trigger event; responsive to the trigger event, then changing the execution of the video game from a normal mode to a soft pause mode of execution, wherein the soft pause mode is configured to continue the execution of the video game with one or more changes to the execution that reduce an intensity of gameplay for a player of the video game.” (Claim 1) and “A method for pausing a video game, comprising: executing a video game by a game machine; receiving a message for a player of the video game; analyzing the message to determine one or more characteristics of the message; responsive to receiving the message, then changing the execution of the video game from a normal mode to a soft pause mode of execution, wherein the soft pause mode is configured to continue the execution of the video game with one or more changes to the execution that reduce an intensity of gameplay for the player of the video game, wherein the one or more changes are determined based on the characteristics of the message, and, rendering the message to the player during the soft pause mode of execution.” (Claim 11). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity particularly managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following game rules or instructions for receiving a trigger event; responsive to the trigger event, then changing the execution of the video game from a normal mode to a soft pause mode of execution, wherein the soft pause mode is configured to continue the execution of the video game with one or more changes to the execution that reduce an intensity of gameplay for a player of the video game and/or analyzing the message to determine one or more characteristics of the message; responsive to receiving the message, then changing the execution of the video game from a normal mode to a soft pause mode of execution, wherein the soft pause mode is configured to continue the execution of the video game with one or more changes to the execution that reduce an intensity of gameplay for the player of the video game, wherein the one or more changes are determined based on the characteristics of the message. Such steps pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). In regards to “rendering the message to the player during the soft pause mode of execution”, such limitations pertain to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception e.g. post-solution activity that displays results (the message).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. The recitations of utilization of a “video game”, “game machine”, “input device”, and/or “artificial intelligence model” are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids method to which a computer performs/implements the method. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Story Jr (US 2014/0128146), herein Story.
Claim 1: Story discloses a method for performing a soft pause of a video game, comprising: executing a video game by a game machine (abstract, ¶ 36-38, 45, 64, 69); receiving a trigger event; responsive to the trigger event (¶ 20, 58, 75, 89-101), then changing the execution of the video game from a normal mode to a soft pause mode of execution, wherein the soft pause mode is configured to continue the execution of the video game with one or more changes to the execution that reduce an intensity of gameplay for a player of the video game (¶ 21, 45, 48-49, emphasis of ¶ 77-85).
Claim 2: Story teaches wherein the soft pause mode of execution does not stop the gameplay of the video game for the player (Fig. 5, ¶ 79, 84-85).
Claim 3: Story teaches wherein the one or more changes to the execution include reducing an intensity of gameplay sounds generated by the video game (¶ 21, 58, 75, 84-85, 87, 96).
Claim 4: Story teaches wherein reducing the intensity of gameplay sounds includes one or more of reducing volume, adjusting frequency equalization, or adjusting spatial audio location of the gameplay sounds (¶ 21, 58, 75, 84-85, 87, 96).
Claim 5: Story teaches wherein the one or more changes to the execution include reducing a difficulty setting of the video game (¶ 21, 58, 75, 84-85, 87, 96).
Claim 6: Story teaches wherein the one or more changes to the execution include increasing a player assist feature (anything that aids the player) of the video game (¶ 21, 58, 75, 84-85, 87, 96).
Claim 7: Story teaches wherein the one or more changes to the execution include slowing time of the video game to reduce a pace of play of the video game for the player (¶ 21, 58, 75, 84-85, 87, 96).
Claim 8: Story teaches wherein the trigger event is defined by one or more inputs generated from activation of an input device by the player (¶ 90, 104).
Claim 10: Story teaches responsive to receiving a second trigger event, then ending the soft pause mode and resuming the normal mode of execution of the video game (Fig. 5, ¶ 77-81).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story, Jr (US 2014/0128146), herein Story in view of Jeon (US 2009/0306891).
Claim 9: Story teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the trigger event is defined by receipt of a message for the player. Story at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 142) and that triggering events can include several types of triggering events that are non-limiting (¶ 58, 75, 90). Furthermore, an analogous art of Jeon teaches triggering event defined by receipt of a message for a user/driver (¶ 20, 23-26, 31, 47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the triggering event of Story with the message based triggering event of Jeon because such a modification would have yielded predictable results namely a means of triggering an event/feature that requires the user attention or focus in which at least Story is intended (see above, Abstract). Such a modification provides another trigger input known to require a user’s attention.
Claim(s) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ducheneaut (US 2009/0253513), herein Duch in view of Story, Jr (US 2014/0128146), herein Story.
Claim 11: Duch discloses a method for pausing a video game, comprising: executing a video game by a game machine (¶ 21-24, 28-29); receiving a triggering event that includes receiving a message for a player of the video game and analyzing the message to determine one or more characteristics of the message (Abstract, ¶ 8-9, 31-35, 43-44); and, rendering the message to the player during the execution of the video game (¶ 28-29).
Duch teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting responsive to receiving the triggering event. Duch at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of invention (¶ 45). Furthermore, an analogous art of Story teaches responsive to receiving a triggering event (¶ 20, 58, 75, 89-101), changing the execution of the video game from a normal mode to a soft pause mode of execution, wherein the soft pause mode is configured to continue the execution of the video game with one or more changes to the execution that reduce an intensity of gameplay for the player of the video game, wherein the one or more changes are determined based on the triggering event (¶ 21, 45, 48-49, emphasis of ¶ 77-85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, particularly, in relation to the triggering event of Duch such that receipt of the triggering event results in a change from a normal mode to a soft pause mode of execution of the video game as taught by Story because such a modification would allow focus more on the important or relevant messages of Duch while not being as distracted by the execution of the game. Such a modification would further allow the user to mentally process messages whilst concurrently continuing game play (Duch - ¶ 26).
The combination of Duch in view of Story results in the soft mode of Story being triggered responsive to the triggering event of Duch which includes receipt of messages determined to have one or more characteristics (see above). Furthermore, it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the rendering of the message of the player during execution of the video game of Duch encompasses the soft pause execution of Story applied to Duch e.g. even though Duch’s execution of the video is changed to a soft pause mode of Story doesn’t exclude or change the fact that the message is rendered during execution of the video game which now includes soft pause mode.
Claim 12: Dutch in view of Story teaches wherein the soft pause mode of execution does not stop the gameplay of the video game for the player (Fig. 5, Story - ¶ 79, 84-85).
Claim 13: Dutch in view of Story teaches wherein the one or more changes to the execution include reducing an intensity of gameplay sounds generated by the video game (Story - ¶ 21, 58, 75, 84-85, 87, 96).
Claim 14: Dutch in view of Story teaches wherein reducing the intensity of gameplay sounds includes one or more of reducing volume, adjusting frequency equalization, or adjusting spatial audio location of the gameplay sounds (Story - ¶ 21, 58, 75, 84-85, 87, 96).
Claim 15: Dutch in view of Story teaches wherein the one or more changes to the execution include reducing a difficulty setting of the video game (Story - ¶ 21, 58, 75, 84-85, 87, 96).
Claim 16: Dutch in view of Story teaches wherein the one or more changes to the execution include increasing a player assist feature (anything that aids the player) of the video game (Story - ¶ 21, 58, 75, 84-85, 87, 96).
Claim 17: Dutch in view of Story teaches wherein the one or more changes to the execution include slowing time of the video game to reduce a pace of play of the video game for the player (Story - ¶ 21, 58, 75, 84-85, 87, 96).
Claim 18: Dutch teaches wherein the determined characteristics of the message include one or more of a subject of the message, an urgency of the message, or a format of the message (Abstract, ¶ 8-10, 34).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ducheneaut (US 2009/0253513), herein Duch in view of Story, Jr (US 2014/0128146), herein Story in further view of Hossack (US 2014/0214983).
Claim 19: Duch in view of Story teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein analyzing the message uses an artificial intelligence model. Duch at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Hossack teaches it is known to analyze messages using an artificial intelligence model (¶ 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the analyzing means of Duch in view of Story with the artificial intelligence model/algorithm means of Hossack because such a modification would have yielded predictable, results, namely a means of analyzing messages to determine one or more characteristics of the message in which at least Duch is intended (see above). Such a modification would identify key words of interest of Duch in view of Story providing a more optimal means of analyzation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715