DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response on 8/13/26 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claims 1, 20 and 22 and canceled claims 11. Therefore, claims 1-10, 12-17 and 20-22 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10, 12-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. According to the specification, the invention relates to a method of providing a virtual environment responsive to player inputs. Exemplary claims 1, 20 & 22 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: identifying features of confirmed audio outputs that each represent a respective combination of audio components that occur during gameplay of a video game; generating a distribution of the confirmed audio outputs that are clustered according to the features of the confirmed audio outputs; receiving a sample audio output that occurs during gameplay; comparing the sample audio output to the distribution; determining that the sample audio output is inconsistent with the distribution; in response to determining that the sample audio output is inconsistent with the distribution, detecting that the sample audio output includes an error; and in response to detecting that the sample audio output includes the error, making a recording containing the sample audio output and a graphical output during a section of the gameplay containing the error, and outputting the recording to a user for aiding debugging of the video game
20. A system comprising: one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: identifying features of confirmed audio outputs that each represent a respective combination of audio components that occur during gameplay of a video game; generating a distribution of the confirmed audio outputs that are clustered according to the features of the confirmed audio outputs; receiving a sample audio output that occurs during gameplay; comparing the sample audio output to the distribution; determining that the sample audio output is inconsistent with the distribution; in response to determining that the sample audio output is inconsistent with the distribution, detecting that the sample audio output includes an error; and in response to detecting that the sample audio output includes the error, making a recording containing the sample audio output and a graphical output during a section of the gameplay containing the error, and outputting the recording to a user for aiding debugging of the video game
22. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: identifying features of confirmed audio outputs that each represent a respective combination of audio components that occur during gameplay of a video game; generating a distribution of the confirmed audio outputs that are clustered according to the features of the confirmed audio outputs; receiving a sample audio output that occurs during gameplay; comparing the sample audio output to the distribution; determining that the sample audio output is inconsistent with the distribution; in response to determining that the sample audio output is inconsistent with the distribution, detecting that the sample audio output includes an error and in response to detecting that the sample audio output includes the error, making a recording containing the sample audio output and a graphical output during a section of the gameplay containing the error, and outputting the recording to a user for aiding debugging of the video game.
The underlined claim elements above are directed in user interaction in a game environment and applying game logic to user interactions which is the court enumerated abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities, following rules or instructions. The various dependent claims only further detail the abstract ideas or constitute insignificant extra solution activity and consequently are also considered abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited “processors” and “computer-readable media” amount to implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims are directed to providing a virtual environment to the player and responding to player input. This is not related to a long standing problem in computer technology. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language and only generic computer components are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using a generic computer. The various dependent claims only further detail the abstract idea or are insignificant extra solution activity and also fail to rise significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The claims do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) computer network system: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on August 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant argues that amended claims overcome the prior art of record because they incorporate subject matter indicated allowable in the previous office action. Examiner agrees. The rejections based on Aharonson have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 LAWRENCE STEFAN GALKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-9 & 12-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAWRENCE S GALKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights