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 .
This Office Action is in response to the filing date of 8/13/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a computer game application" and “a running web application” and further recites “…deploying the application…” in the body of the claim. It’s unclear which application is deploying. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 should be rejected under 101 abstract ideas without significant more.
Regarding 1:
Under Prong 1 Step 2A, the claim recites “generate a computer simulation application” as drafted, recite a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements (1) “An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor system”, “a display”, and “a large language model” are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer, with instructions, as a tool to perform the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(f), thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. The claim also recites (2) “execute the application to present a computer simulation on at least one video display” which fails to meaningly limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements (2) recite only the idea of execution of an application without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the execution solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The claim further recites additional element (3) “present on at least one display at least one user interface (UI) for collaborating with at least one large language model (LLM)…in a single view: a left panel…a center workspace…a right chat panel…” which is merely insignificant extra solution activity of displaying data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (1) merely use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, as discussed above, which do not amount to significantly more, thus, not an inventive concept. The additional element (2) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of execution of an application with no restriction on how the execution is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the execution. It does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” The additional element (3) is merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data and the courts have identified gathering data, storing data, and outputting the result is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 10
Under Prong 1 Step 2A, the claim recites “enabling at least one game developer to collaborate with the LLM to create, read, and edit files for computer game development” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “a large language model” and “a single web-based environment” are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer, with instructions, as a tool to perform the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(f), thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. The claim further recites additional element “inputting information related to a computer game application to at least one large language model (LLM)” which is merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “a large language model” and “a single web-based environment” merely use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, as discussed above, which do not amount to significantly more, thus, not an inventive concept, and the additional element of “inputting information related to a computer game application to at least one large language model (LLM)” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data and the courts have identified gathering data, storing data, and outputting the result is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 19,
Under Prong 1 Step 2A, the claim recites “plurality virtual files written by the LLM responsive to the dialog” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “An apparatus, comprising at least one computer storage medium” and “a large language model” are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer, with instructions, as a tool to perform the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(f), thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. The claim further recites additional element “present on at least one display a dialog between at least one developer of a computer game application and a large language model (LLM)” and “present on the display plural virtual files written by the LLM responsive to the dialog” which are merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data, storing data and displaying the results of the abstract idea which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “An apparatus, comprising at least one computer storage medium” mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, as discussed above, which does not amount to significantly more, thus, not an inventive concept, and the additional element of “present on at least one display a dialog between at least one developer of a computer game application and a large language model (LLM)” and “present on the display plural virtual files written by the LLM responsive to the dialog” are merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data, storing data and outputting the results of the abstract idea and the courts have identified gathering data, storing data, and outputting the result is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data and displaying the results of the abstract idea and the courts have identified gathering data, storing data, and displaying the result is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claims 2, 7, 12 and 17 recite limitations that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “generating and/or altering virtual files…”
Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1-20 are considered allowable when reading the claims in light of the specification. The prior arts of record do not teach or reasonably suggest the combination of the limitations specified in the independent claims 1, 10 and 19.
The closest prior arts are:
Won (US20230214191) teaches methods, systems, and techniques for enhanced game development workflow between programmers and non-programmers are provided. Example embodiments provide an EGPIDE which provides an environment suitable for workflow collaboration for software programmers or those game developers that prefer to work in textual language versus non-programmer game designers that prefer to work in visual language. In one embodiment, the EGPIDE comprises an EGPIDE script programming parser and visualization engine, an EGPIDE node graph visual programming parser and visualization engine, EGPIDE translation management, EGPIDE autolayout support, and user interface support. These components provide automatic translation between visual programming specification and text based programming specification to enable real time bi-directional communication between these types of programming to expedite game development process (see the Abstract).
Pedersen (CA3229255A1) teaches a method is presented that includes: generating, via a system including a processor, a quality assurance (QA) game bot; receiving, via the system, a gaming application corresponding to a game; updating the gaming application, via the system, based on play of the game by the QA game bot to generate a first updated gaming application corresponding to a first updated game; receiving, via the system, game telemetry data of the first updated gaming application corresponding to actual players of the first updated game; updating, via the system, the QA gaming bot based on the game telemetry data of the first updated gaming application corresponding to actual players to generate an updated QA gaming bot; and updating the first updated gaming application, via the system, based on play of the first updated game by the updated QA game bot to generate a second updated gaming application corresponding to a second updated game (see the Abstract).
Woodward (US20250053383) teaches an IDE 402 include simulator 418. Simulator 418 may enable a user to install an IoT application under development to a simulated network of IoT devices (e.g., a simulation of the network of IoT devices 306, 308, 310, 312) and execute the IoT application thereon. The simulated network of IoT devices may include, for example, one or more simulated IoT devices and a simulated hosting platform for the IoT application (which itself may comprise one or more simulated IoT devices, user devices or cloud computing devices). The simulated IoT devices may represent generic IoT device types or specific real world brands/models of IoT devices (see paragraph [0167]).
Applicant’s claimed invention is deemed allowable over the cited prior arts above as the prior arts do not teach the combination of the limitations specified in the independent claims:
Claim 1: “one user interface (UI) for collaborating with at least one large language model (LLM) to generate a computer simulation application… in a single view: a left panel comprising a file browser window configured to name and delete files, below the file browser window a view window configured to select a view from among plural views, each view comprising a set of respective open files, and below the view window a console output window providing test status and/or output from programs that are run; a center workspace panel to the right of the left panel and comprising representations of plural virtual files that are open, the representations being free-floating panels that can be moved, resized, and closed, each virtual file comprising editable text representing a respective part of the application a right chat panel to the right of the center workspace panel and comprising dialog between the LLM and a developer related to generating the application”
Claim 10: “inputting information related to a computer game application to at least one large language model (LLM); enabling at least one game developer to collaborate with the LLM to create, read, and edit files for computer game development, from initial brainstorming to a running web application using a full virtual file system that facilitates collaboration across multiple files and affords ideation, building, testing, and deploying the application within a single web-based environment.”
Claim 19: “present on at least one display a dialog between at least one developer of a computer game application and a large language model (LLM); and while presenting the dialog, present on the display plural virtual files written by the LLM responsive to the dialog”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reason for Allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Wei Zhen can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/PHILLIP H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights