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 was received on 06/22/2026. Presently, claims 19-20 and 24-42 are 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 19, 25-29, 32-36 and 39-42 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 19 and 25-28 are directed to “a computer-implemented method” (i.e. a process), claims 29 and 32-35 are all directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), and claims 36 and 39-42 are directed to “one or more non-transitory computer readable media…...to perform operations…” (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 19, 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 19 recites: A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from each of multiple users, one or more data sets, that each relate (i) display output data that includes a current location of the user and a target location for the user, and (ii) user input data that is received in response to the outputting the display output data;
determining, based at least on the received data sets, a representative amount of time taken to move from the current location to the target location; and
determining an input modifier based at least on the data sets, and the representative amount of time taken 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 19, 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 25-28 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent
claims 25-28, 32-35 and 39-42 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 19, 29 and 36.
Therefore, claims 19, 25-29, 32-36 and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 19-20, 24-26, 28-33, 35-40 and 42 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 19, Benedetto discloses A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from each of multiple users, one or more data sets that each relate (i)display output data that includes a current location of the user and a target location for the user, and (ii) user input data that is received in response to the outputting 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 206a 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 202a to the intended target location 202a′,” [0031], [0035] and [0032]);
determining, based at least on the received data sets, a representative amount of time taken 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,” [0032]); and
determining an input modifier based at least on the data sets and the representative amount of time taken to move from the current location to the target location (“For example, referring to FIG. 2A, the system may determine that correction value 206a 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 202a to the intended target location 202a′,” [0035]).
Regarding claim 20, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 19. Further, Benedetto discloses receiving an input from a particular user; and
adjusting the input from the particular user 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 24, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 20. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein adjusting the input comprise applying a randomizing 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 25, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 19. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the input modifier is determined using a machine learning model that is trained using 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 26, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 19. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the input modifier comprises a parameter or a 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 28, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 19. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the input modifier is determined further based on:
a profile of a user; (“information such as physical location or profile of the user themselves can be provided,” [0052])
a type of input device in use by the user; (“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])
or a direction of an input.
Regarding claim 29, Benedetto discloses A system comprising:
one or more processors (“CPU 602,” [0053]), and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processor, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from each of multiple users, one or more data sets that each relate (i) display output data that includes a current location of the user and a target location for the user, and (ii) user input data that is received in response to the outputting 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 206a 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 202a to the intended target location 202a′,” [0031], [0035] and [0032]);
determining, based at least on the received data sets, a representative amount of time taken 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,” [0032]); and
determining an input modifier based at least on the data sets and the representative amount of time taken to move from the current location to the target location (“For example, referring to FIG. 2A, the system may determine that correction value 206a 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 202a to the intended target location 202a′,” [0035]).
Regarding claim 30, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 29. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the operations comprise:
receiving an input from a particular user; and
adjusting the input from the particular user 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 31, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 30. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein adjusting the input comprise applying a randomizing 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 32, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 29. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the input modifier is determined using a machine learning model that is trained using 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 33, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 29. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the input modifier comprises a parameter or a 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 35, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 29. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the input modifier is determined further based on:
a profile of a user; (“information such as physical location or profile of the user themselves can be provided,” [0052])
a type of input device in use by the user; (“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])
or a direction of an input.
Regarding claim 36, Benedetto discloses One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by one or more processor, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from each of multiple users, one or more data sets that each relate (i) display output data that includes a current location of the user and a target location for the user, and (ii) user input data that is received in response to the outputting 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 206a 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 202a to the intended target location 202a′,” [0031], [0035] and [0032]);
determining, based at least on the received data sets, a representative amount of time taken 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,” [0032]); and
determining an input modifier based at least on the data sets and the representative amount of time taken to move from the current location to the target location (“For example, referring to FIG. 2A, the system may determine that correction value 206a 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 202a to the intended target location 202a′,” [0035]).
Regarding claim 37, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 36. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the operations comprise:
receiving an input from a particular user; and
adjusting the input from the particular user 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 38, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 37. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein adjusting the input comprise applying a randomizing 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 39, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 36. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the input modifier is determined using a machine learning model that is trained using 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 40, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 36. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the input modifier comprises a parameter or a 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 42, Benedetto discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 36. Further, Benedetto discloses wherein the input modifier is determined further based on:
a profile of a user; (“information such as physical location or profile of the user themselves can be provided,” [0052])
a type of input device in use by the user; (“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])
or a direction of an input.
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, 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 27, 34 and 41 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 27, Benedetto does not appear to explicitly discloses wherein determining the representative amount of time comprises determining an average speed, accuracy or precision in moving from the current location to the target location.
However, Desimone teaches wherein determining the representative amount of time comprises determining an average speed, accuracy or precision in moving from the current location to the target location (“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]).
Regarding claim 34, Benedetto does not appear to explicitly discloses wherein determining the representative amount of time comprises determining an average speed, accuracy or precision in moving from the current location to the target location.
However, Desimone teaches wherein determining the representative amount of time comprises determining an average speed, accuracy or precision in moving from the current location to the target location (“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]).
Regarding claim 41, Benedetto does not appear to explicitly discloses wherein determining the representative amount of time comprises determining an average speed, accuracy or precision in moving from the current location to the target location.
However, Desimone teaches wherein determining the representative amount of time comprises determining an average speed, accuracy or precision in moving from the current location to the target location (“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]).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has presented amended claims which are addressed with the citations above. Applicant has provided no substantial arguments to the present claims beyond stating that they have been amended, thus there are no arguments to address related to Benedetto and Desimone.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TAGWA M 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, CHELSEA STINSON can be reached at (571)270-1744. 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 3783 /CHELSEA E STINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights