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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/6/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 7/6/26. Claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the current application.
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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 10 are directed towards a method, (process), and claims 11 - 20 are directed towards a system, (machine), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
1. A computer-implemented method of applying a machine learning model to dynamically generate a music clip for rendering at each of a plurality of client devices corresponding to each of a plurality of players in a multi-player gaming network, wherein the multi-player gaming network comprises at least one game server in data communication with the plurality of client devices located remote from each other, the method comprising: storing segments of audio data; receiving, from game modules stored locally at the plurality of remotely located client devices, player interaction data associated with each of the plurality of players' engagement with one or more virtual elements of a multi-player video game being executed in the multi- player gaming network; acquiring event data indicative of events occurring during a gameplay session of the multi- player video game; generating, at the at least one game server, composite player data, wherein the composite player data comprises data associated with the plurality of players' engagement with each of the one or more virtual elements; classifying the composite player data into one of a plurality of event profiles; using the machine learning model and based on the plurality of event profiles, dynamically modulating one or more of a plurality of music elements in the segments of the audio data; and transmitting the modulated audio segments from the at least one game server to at least one of the plurality of remotely located client devices during execution of the multi-player video game.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claim 11. Dependent claims 2 – 10 and 12 - 20 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing interactions between people)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of managing interactions between people which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically the claims recite a system and method of applying a machine learning model to dynamically generate a music clip for a plurality of client devices corresponding to a plurality of players in a multi-player gaming network. The claims further disclose receiving player interaction data associated with the plurality of players engagement and acquiring event data occurring during a gameplay session of the multi-player video game. Providing a multi-player game to a plurality of players that invokes a machine learning model to dynamically generate a music clip for the plurality of players, and receiving player interaction data during a gameplay session represents managing interactions between people. (Use of machine learning machine in a given environment, see Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed Cir. 2025).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention is drawn towards a multi-player game that generates a music clip for a plurality of players, receives player interaction data associated with the plurality of players during a gaming session, generating player composite data, and transmitting a plurality of music elements to at least one player based on the player composite data. The claims recite instructions with these features. Here, a human can observe the interaction of the players during play of the multi-player game and then determine the generation of a music clip based on the gameplay interaction. For example, in the event that a plurality of players are playing a survival horror game, (e.g. Friday the 13th), a human can observe the plurality of players hiding from the Jason character, and observe that the Jason character finds at least one of the plurality of players, wherein a human can then make the determination that music clip will be generated if the Jason character catches one of the plurality of players. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic server and client devices along with instructions that generate and present a video game to a plurality of users, wherein a music clip is generated based on player interaction data, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a server and a plurality of client devices associated with a plurality of players, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Moshal U.S. 2007/0178972 par. 0086 regarding a client-server gaming network as being known in the art). The claims further recite the use of a machine model, (AI), arranged in conventional ways. Nothing in the claims provide details about specific or improved learning models, rather they apply particular game information to existing machine learning models to process game information. In light of Recentive, the courts determined that claims are not made patent-eligible merely because they execute tasks with greater speed or efficiency. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the double-patenting rejection of claims 1 - 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double-patenting rejection of claims 1 - 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 1 - 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 – 20, Applicants argue that the claims “recite considerably more than the alleged abstract idea”. More specifically, it is argued that “the claims as a whole are not directed merely to collecting and analyzing information”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The current claims does not recite steps that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field nor do the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of generating a music clip, because the additional elements, server and client devices, are recited generically. For example, the claims do not recite how the “game server” and the “client devices” solves a technical problem. Steps like receiving, generating, and transmitting, for example, are generic instructions to apply an abstract idea using conventional components.
Applicants further argue that “present claims require distributed acquisition of player interaction data from remote game modules, server-side generation of composite player data, machine-learning-based event profile classification, dynamic modulation of audio segments, and real-time transmission of those modulated segments back to remote client devices during gameplay” and argue that “These operations cannot practically be performed mentally and are rooted in the operation of a distributed multiplayer computer system”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, towards a multi-player game that generates a music clip for a plurality of players, receives player interaction data associated with the plurality of players during a gaming session, generating player composite data, and transmitting a plurality of music elements to at least one player based on the player composite data. These actions related to the server and client devices can be observed and determined in the human mind. For example, nothing precludes a human from observing player interaction in a multi-player network and nothing precludes from determining a music clip generation based on the gameplay interaction. This process can literally be performed in the human mind, which represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Applicants further argue that “the amended claims integrate any such alleged exception into a practical application”. More specifically, it is argued that “The additional limitations are not generic instructions to apply machine learning on a computer. Rather, the claims require a particular technological environment comprising multiple remotely located client devices executing local game modules, a game server configured to aggregate distributed player interaction information into composite player data, classification of that composite data into event profiles, machine- learning-based modulation of audio segments, and transmission of the resulting adaptive audio back to remote client devices while the multiplayer game is executing “claim elements improve operation of a distributed multiplayer gaming environment”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are generic instructions because, as stated above, the current claims does not recite steps that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer. Merely disclosing that a gaming network comprising a server and a plurality of client devices applying a machine model to generate a music clip does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. Generic processing devices, (server and client devices), receiving and transmitting player data, for example, are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) computer functions. See Alice (generic computer). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the current claim language does not recite how the additional components, including the language model, disclose improvements such as improve operation of a distributed multiplayer gaming environment by enabling synchronized adaptive audio generation across multiple players in real time as mentioned by the Applicants.
Applicants further argue that the limitations of “receiving player interaction data from locally executing game modules on remotely located client devices; generating composite player data at the game server based upon interactions of multiple players with virtual game elements; classifying the composite player data into event profiles; dynamically modulating multiple music elements using a machine learning model based on the classified event profiles; and transmitting the resulting adaptive audio segments to remote client devices during execution of the multiplayer game”, “improve operation of multiplayer gaming systems by introducing a specific server-based adaptive audio generation framework that enables coordinated music rendering across distributed client devices during gameplay”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations cited by the Applicants are viewed by the Examiner as instructions of how the game is conducted rather than technical improvements. Merely disclosing that an electronic device and computing hardware and software performing game rules does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. With respect to the Berkheimer decision, reference is made for example, (Kageyama et al. U.S. 5,974,387), which discloses a gaming that generates music based on game interactions as being known in the art, (see col. 2, lines 24 - 32 of Kageyama). For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
