CTNF 18/780,985 CTNF 102000 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Preliminary Amendments The preliminary amendment filed on 04/10/2026 was not entered because entry of the amendment would unduly interfere with the preparation of the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.115(b)(2). The examiner spent a significant amount of time on the preparation of an Office Action before the preliminary amendment was received. On the date of receipt of the amendment, the examiner had completed the claim analysis and the search of prior art of all pending claims with initial drafting of the Office Action and was waiting for the supervisory patent examiner’s approval. Furthermore, entry of the preliminary amendment would require significant additional time on the preparation of the Office action. Specifically, entry of the preliminary amendment would require the examiner to revise the Office action extensively to address the new issues raised and the new claims added in the preliminary amendment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 5, 8-10, 12, 14, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 – subject-matter eligibility? Yes Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 12, 14 are all directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), claim 19 is directed to “a method for determining” (i.e. a process), and claim 21 is directed to “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing…...to perform a method of…” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Step 2A – Prong 1: Recite a Judicial Exception? Yes However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “ determining an input modifier ,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”). Therefore, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity,” or a “mental process.” Independent claim 1, analyzed as the representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are in italics . The additional elements recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold . The limitations determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined . Claim 1 recites: A system for determining an input modifier for an input to a computer based on data sets from multiple users , comprising a correlation unit configured to: receive data sets from multiple users, each data set relating to display output data including a current location and a target location for a user , and corresponding user input data responsive to the display output data; and determine an input modifier based on the data sets, relating a distance between the current location and the target location for a user, to a time taken for the user to move from the current location to the target location . These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and therefore are viewed as a mental process. Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into Practical Application? No Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application. More specifically, the additional element recited in representative claim 1, e.g., “ a computer ” is merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the claimed element does not improve the function of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. In other words, the claimed “ determining an input modifier ,” is not providing a practical application. Step 2B – Claim provides significantly more than the presented abstract idea? No The claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are found in the preamble of the claim, as noted here “ a computer. ” This additional element is evidence to be generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo. Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed elements are described in the following paragraphs: “[0100] It will be appreciated that the above methods may be carried out on conventional hardware (such as that described previously herein) suitably adapted as applicable by software instruction or by the inclusion or substitution of dedicated hardware. Thus, the required adaptation to existing parts of a conventional equivalent device may be implemented in the form of a computer program product comprising processor implementable instructions stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium such as a floppy disk, optical disk, hard disk, PROM, RAM, flash memory or any combination of these or other storage media... ” This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of “ a computer ” does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. As such, the claimed limitation of “ a computer ” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. In addition, dependent claims 5, 8-10, 12, 14 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 5, 8-10, 12, 14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 5, 8-10, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses generic placeholder “correlation unit” that is coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a correlation unit configured to…” in claims 1 and 22. As a result, claims 1 and 22 are interpreted under 112(f). This interpretation is consistent with MPEP § 2181. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification discloses “The system 300 for adjusting an input to a computer using an input modifier comprises a processor 320 configured to receive an input signal from an input device and adjust the input based on an input modifier” and “the input modifier is only determined (by the correlation unit 220) for or applied (by the processor 320) …” in [0053] and [0057] respectively. Therefore, the language in claims 1 and 22 will be interpreted as a processor, or equivalents. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the system-adjusted input speed” in the line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 8. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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: 07-08-aia AIA 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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-6, 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No, 2023/0109654 to Benedetto et al. (hereinafter Benedetto) . Regarding claim 1, Benedetto discloses a system for determining an input modifier for an input to a computer based on data sets from multiple users, (“User input devices 608 communicate user inputs from one or more users to device 600, examples of which may include keyboards, mice, joysticks, touch pads…,” [0054]) comprising a correlation unit (“correction value 206a,” [0026]) configured to: receive data sets from multiple users, each data set relating to display output data including a current location and a target location for a user, and corresponding user input data responsive to the display output data ; (“context of the gameplay, the current state of the gameplay, and the upcoming scenes of the gameplay,” “Using the controller input data 306 from the mobile device, and the interactive data 308, the AI model 302 can understand the context of the game scene,” ”referring to FIG. 2A, the system may determine that correction value 206 a has an associated gearing metric that identifies a magnitude of ‘5 units’ and direction of ‘35 degrees’ that is applied to the controller input in order to move target location 202 a to the intended target location 202 a ′,” [0031], [0035] and [0032]) and determine an input modifier based on the data sets, relating a distance between the current location and the target location for a user, to a time taken for the user to move from the current location to the target location (“Using the controller input data 306 from the mobile device, and the interactive data 308, the AI model 302 can understand the context of the game scene and determine that the user 100 is attempting to aim at the enemy character, however, the target location is not positioned at the intended target location (e.g., enemy character). Accordingly, to assist the user 100 perform the action in the game, the AI model 302 can be used to identify the correction and gearing values 206,” “For example, referring to FIG. 2A, the system may determine that correction value 206 a has an associated gearing metric that identifies a magnitude of ‘5 units’ and direction of ‘35 degrees’ that is applied to the controller input in order to move target location 202 a to the intended target location 202 a ′,” [0035], [0032]). Regarding claim 2, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Benedetto discloses a processor (“CPU 602,” [0053]) configured to: receive an input from a user and adjust the input based on the input modifier (“after receiving the correction and gearing values 206, cloud computing and gaming system 106 can apply the correction and gearing values 206 to the controller input in real-time while the user is playing the game to assist the user with aiming at the enemy character,” [0035]) . Regarding claim 3, Benedetto discloses a system for adjusting an input to a computer using an input modifier (“the system is configured to determine and apply a correction value to the controller input to assist the user increase their accuracy when performing the game action (e.g., automatic aim-assist),” [005]) , comprising a processor configured to: receive an input from an input device (“User input devices 608 communicate user inputs from one or more users to device 600, examples of which may include keyboards, mice, joysticks, touch pads…,” [0054]) ; adjust the input based on an input modifier derived by a correlation unit (“correction value 206a,” [0026]) , the correlation unit having been configured to determine the input modifier based on data sets from multiple users, each data set relating to display output data including a current location and a target location, and corresponding user input data responsive to the display output data (“context of the gameplay, the current state of the gameplay, and the upcoming scenes of the gameplay,” “Using the controller input data 306 from the mobile device, and the interactive data 308, the AI model 302 can understand the context of the game scene,” ”referring to FIG. 2A, the system may determine that correction value 206 a has an associated gearing metric that identifies a magnitude of ‘5 units’ and direction of ‘35 degrees’ that is applied to the controller input in order to move target location 202 a to the intended target location 202 a ′,” [0031], [0035] and [0032]) , wherein the input modifier relates a distance between the current location and the target location to a time taken for the user to move from the current location to the target location (“referring to FIG. 2A, the system may determine that correction value 206 a has an associated gearing metric that identifies a magnitude of ‘5 units’ and direction of ‘35 degrees’ that is applied to the controller input in order to move target location 202 a to the intended target location 202 a ′,” [0032]). Regarding claim 4, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the correlation unit comprises a machine learning model trained to determine the input modifier based on the data sets (“AI model 302 may further use controller input data 306 and interactive data 308 as inputs to generate the correction and gearing values 206,” [0030]). Regarding claim 5, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the input modifier comprises a parameter or function (“the correction and gearing values 206 are associated with gearing metrics. For example, gearing metrics may include a magnitude and a direction,” [0032]) . Regarding claim 6, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the input modifier relates to an average speed, accuracy and/or precision of users moving from the current location to the target location (“As shown, when the correction value 206 a and applied to the controller input of the user, the target location 202 a is shifted to the intended target location 202 a ′ where the enemy character 204 is located. Accordingly, when the intended target location 202 a ′ is directed toward the enemy character 204, the accuracy of shooting and killing the enemy character 204 is increased which can help the user 100 advance in the gameplay,” “the correction and gearing values 206 are associated with gearing metrics. For example, gearing metrics may include a magnitude and a direction,” [0028] and [0032]). Regarding claim 10, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the system is configured to determine the input modifier dependent on: a profile of the user; and/or a type of input device in use; and/or (“controller inputs (e.g., via game controller or via mobile phone) to achieve a goal in the game or to perform certain actions in the game,” [0031]) a direction of the input; and/or (“Gestures such as swipes in particular directions or specific touch motions may also be detected as game inputs,” [0063]) a type of computer platform in use (“other inputs such as games played via a game controller of a gaming console or PC can be received by the AI model 302,” [0031]) . Regarding claim 11, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the adjustment is dependent on: a profile of the user; and/or a type of input device in use; and/or (“controller inputs (e.g., via game controller or via mobile phone) to achieve a goal in the game or to perform certain actions in the game,” [0031]) a direction of the input; and/or (“Gestures such as swipes in particular directions or specific touch motions may also be detected as game inputs,” [0063]) a type of computer platform in use (“other inputs such as games played via a game controller of a gaming console or PC can be received by the AI model 302,” “the system may determine a correction value that is required to assist the user perform the game action of aiming at the enemy character 204,” [0031] and [0028]) . Regarding claim 12, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the system is configured to determine the input modifier only for when a distance between the current location and the target location is below a predetermined threshold (“the system may determine that the controller input results in target location 202 a being directed at a distance away from the enemy character 204. As a result, the user is unable to correctly aim at the enemy character 204 since the target location 202 a does not include the intended target (e.g., enemy character 204) …the system may determine a correction value that is required to assist the user perform the game action of aiming at the enemy character 204,” [0028]) . Regarding claim 13, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the system is configured to apply the adjustment only when a distance between the current location and the target location is below a predetermined threshold (“the system may determine that the controller input results in target location 202 a being directed at a distance away from the enemy character 204. As a result, the user is unable to correctly aim at the enemy character 204 since the target location 202 a does not include the intended target (e.g., enemy character 204) …the system may determine a correction value that is required to assist the user perform the game action of aiming at the enemy character 204,” “after receiving the correction and gearing values 206, cloud computing and gaming system 106 can apply the correction and gearing values 206 to the controller input in real-time while the user is playing the game to assist the user with aiming at the enemy character,” [0028] and [0035]) . Regarding claim 14, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the predetermined threshold is dependent on: a profile of the user; and/or a type of input device in use; and/or (“controller inputs (e.g., via game controller or via mobile phone) to achieve a goal in the game or to perform certain actions in the game,” [0031]) a direction of the input; and/or (“Gestures such as swipes in particular directions or specific touch motions may also be detected as game inputs,” [0063]) a type of computer platform in use (“the game controller inputs of a gaming console, the controller input data 306 from the mobile device, and the interactive data 308, can be used as inputs to the AI model 302 where the model is configured to learn what the user 100 intended based on based on corrections the user makes when providing controller inputs (e.g., via game controller or via mobile phone) to achieve a goal in the game or to perform certain actions in the game,” [0031]). Regarding claim 15, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein adjusting the input based on the input modifier comprises: adjusting the input from a user using a first input device type, based on a speed, accuracy and/or precision of one or more users moving from their current location to their target location using a second input device type that is different to the first input device type (“the AI model 302 can learn what the game controller inputs of a gaming console or PC is desired or intended by the user 100…the game controller inputs of a gaming console, the controller input data 306 from the mobile device, and the interactive data 308, can be used as inputs to the AI model 302…to learn what the user 100 intended based on based on corrections the user makes when providing controller inputs,” [0031]) . Regarding claim 16, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein adjusting the input based on the input modifier comprises: adjusting the input from a user using a first input device type, based on an average speed, accuracy and/or precision of users moving from their current location to their target location using a second input device type that is different to the first input device type (“the AI model 302 can learn what the game controller inputs of a gaming console or PC is desired or intended by the user 100…the game controller inputs of a gaming console, the controller input data 306 from the mobile device, and the interactive data 308, can be used as inputs to the AI model 302…to learn what the user 100 intended based on based on corrections the user makes when providing controller inputs,” [0031]) . Regarding claim 17, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein adjusting the input based on the input modifier comprises: applying a randomising and/or a weighting feature, function or model (“the figure shows a method for generating real-time dynamic correction and gearing values 206 using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model 302 for a game during a session. In some embodiments, the AI model 302 may further use controller input data 306 and interactive data 308 as inputs to generate the correction and gearing values 206,” [0030], Fig.3) . Regarding claim 18, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein: the input comprises an input to a video game; and/or (“For example, a user may be playing a shooting game via their mobile device. When using the glass screen of the mobile device to provide controller input to perform an action in the game (e.g., aiming at enemy character),” [0005]) the data sets from multiple users relate to a single video game; and/or (“the AI model 302 may also be used to identify patterns, similarities, and relationships between the game controller inputs of a gaming console, the controller input data 306 from the mobile device, and the interactive data 308,” [0034]) the input modifier provides an aiming assistant (“the system is configured to determine and apply a correction value to the controller input to assist the user increase their accuracy when performing the game action (e.g., automatic aim-assist),” “Using the patterns, similarities, and relationships, the AI model 302 may be used to generate the correction and gearing values 206 which may be beneficial to the user for progressing through the game (e.g., automatic aim assist, automatic drive control assist, etc.),” [0005] and [0034]) . Regarding claim 19, Benedetto discloses a method for determining an input modifier for an input to a computer based on data sets from multiple users, comprising: receiving data sets from multiple users, each data set relating to display output data including a current location and a target location for a user, and corresponding user input data responsive to the display output data (“Using the controller input data 306 from the mobile device, and the interactive data 308, the AI model 302 can understand the context of the game scene and determine that the user 100 is attempting to aim at the enemy character, however, the target location is not positioned at the intended target location (e.g., enemy character,” [0035]) ; and determining an input modifier based on the data sets, relating a distance between the current location and the target location for a user, to a time taken for the user to move from the current location to the target location (“Accordingly, to assist the user 100 perform the action in the game, the AI model 302 can be used to identify the correction and gearing values 206,” “For example, referring to FIG. 2A, the system may determine that correction value 206 a has an associated gearing metric that identifies a magnitude of ‘5 units’ and direction of ‘35 degrees’ that is applied to the controller input in order to move target location 202 a to the intended target location 202 a ′,” [0035] and [0032]) . Regarding claim 20, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 19. Further, Benedetto discloses further comprising: receiving an input from a user and adjusting the input based on the input modifier (“after receiving the correction and gearing values 206, cloud computing and gaming system 106 can apply the correction and gearing values 206 to the controller input in real-time while the user is playing the game to assist the user with aiming at the enemy character,” [0035]) . Regarding claim 21, Benedetto discloses a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium containing a computer program comprising computer executable instructions that when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to perform a method for determining an input modifier for an input to a computer based on data sets from multiple users, comprising: receiving data sets from multiple users, each data set relating to display output data including a current location and a target location for a user, and corresponding user input data responsive to the display output data; and (“Using the controller input data 306 from the mobile device, and the interactive data 308, the AI model 302 can understand the context of the game scene and determine that the user 100 is attempting to aim at the enemy character, however, the target location is not positioned at the intended target location (e.g., enemy character,” [0035]) determining an input modifier based on the data sets, relating a distance between the current location and the target location for a user, to a time taken for the user to move from the current location to the target location (“Accordingly, to assist the user 100 perform the action in the game, the AI model 302 can be used to identify the correction and gearing values 206,” “For example, referring to FIG. 2A, the system may determine that correction value 206 a has an associated gearing metric that identifies a magnitude of ‘5 units’ and direction of ‘35 degrees’ that is applied to the controller input in order to move target location 202 a to the intended target location 202 a ′,” [0032]) . Regarding claim 22, Benedetto discloses a method for adjusting an input to a computer using an input modifier, comprising: receiving an input from an input device; (“User input devices 608 communicate user inputs from one or more users to device 600, examples of which may include keyboards, mice, joysticks, touch pads…,” [0054]) adjusting the input based on an input modifier derived by a correlation unit, the correlation unit having been configured to determine the input modifier based on data sets from multiple users, each data set relating to display output data including a current location and a target location, and corresponding user input data responsive to the display output data, (“context of the gameplay, the current state of the gameplay, and the upcoming scenes of the gameplay,” “Using the controller input data 306 from the mobile device, and the interactive data 308, the AI model 302 can understand the context of the game scene,” [0031] and [0035]) wherein the input modifier relates a distance between the current location and the target location to a time taken for the user to move from the current location to the target location (“referring to FIG. 2A, the system may determine that correction value 206 a has an associated gearing metric that identifies a magnitude of ‘5 units’ and direction of ‘35 degrees’ that is applied to the controller input in order to move target location 202 a to the intended target location 202 a ′,” [0032]) . Regarding claim 23, Benedetto discloses a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium containing a computer program comprising computer executable instructions that when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to perform a method for adjusting an input to a computer using an input modifier, comprising: receiving an input from an input device; (“User input devices 608 communicate user inputs from one or more users to device 600, examples of which may include keyboards, mice, joysticks, touch pads…,” [0054]) adjusting the input based on an input modifier derived by a correlation unit, the correlation unit having been configured to determine the input modifier based on data sets from multiple users, each data set relating to display output data including a current location and a target location, and corresponding user input data responsive to the display output data, (“context of the gameplay, the current state of the gameplay, and the upcoming scenes of the gameplay,” “Using the controller input data 306 from the mobile device, and the interactive data 308, the AI model 302 can understand the context of the game scene and determine that the user 100 is attempting to aim at the enemy character, however, the target location is not positioned at the intended target location (e.g., enemy character). Accordingly, to assist the user 100 perform the action in the game, the AI model 302 can be used to identify the correction and gearing values 206,” [0031] and [0035]) wherein the input modifier relates a distance between the current location and the target location to a time taken for the user to move from the current location to the target location (“For example, referring to FIG. 2A, the system may determine that correction value 206 a has an associated gearing metric that identifies a magnitude of ‘5 units’ and direction of ‘35 degrees’ that is applied to the controller input in order to move target location 202 a to the intended target location 202 a ′,” [0032]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto in view of US Patent Application Publication No, 2023/0356093 to Desimone et al. (hereinafter Desimone) . With Regard to claim 7, Benedetto does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the system is configured to identify users moving from their current location to their target location faster, more accurately and/or more precisely than a threshold that is based on the data sets . However, Desimone teaches wherein the system is configured to identify users moving from their current location to their target location faster, more accurately and/or more precisely than a threshold that is based on the data sets (“the new player is identified as a cheater if more than a threshold proportion of the Mahalanobis distances (e.g. each distance produced by a comparison of a set of performance data, e.g. a vector or metrics, from the new player with a database) are larger than a threshold value,” ” Player inputs may be used to calculate performance and performance metrics…. for example, a user may move a mouse to alter the aim and field of view of the player, and click on a mouse button to fire a weapon in a game. Measures of speed, precision, accuracy, swipiness, etc. may be based on the relationship between game entities (e.g. targets, player point of views (POVs), the aim of a weapon), the movement of these entities (e.g. the aim of a weapon moving, a target moving), and the timing of entity actions (e.g. a weapon firing, a target appearing, etc.),” [0096] and [0023]) . Regarding claim 8, Benedetto does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the system is configured to identify users moving from their current location to their target location faster, more accurately and/or more precisely than: an average speed, accuracy and/or precision derived from the data sets; and/or the system-adjusted input speed, accuracy and/or precision, based on the input modifier . However, Desimone teaches wherein the system is configured to identify users moving from their current location to their target location faster, more accurately and/or more precisely than: an average speed, accuracy and/or precision derived from the data sets; and/or (“Speed, accuracy, and reaction time may be measured based on multiple movements, e.g., by computing the average or median across a plurality of movements,” [0063]) the system-adjusted input speed, accuracy and/or precision, based on the input modifier. Regarding claim 9, Benedetto does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the system is configured to identify users moving faster, more accurately and/or more precisely, beyond a threshold. However, Desimone teaches wherein the system is configured to identify users moving faster, more accurately and/or more precisely, beyond a threshold (“the new player is identified as a cheater if more than a threshold proportion of the Mahalanobis distances (e.g. each distance produced by a comparison of a set of performance data, e.g. a vector or metrics, from the new player with a database) are larger than a threshold value,” [0096]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Desimone with the disclosure of Benedetto in order to detect cheating in a game thus improving the gaming experience. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAGWA ABU-DAYEH whose telephone number is (571)270-0389. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm. 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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571)270-7625. 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. /T.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 11 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 12 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 13 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 14 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 15 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 16 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 17 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 18 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 19 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 20 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 21 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 22 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 23 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 24 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/780,985 Page 25 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights