CTNF 18/819,181 CTNF 83335 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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 - 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 device and a medium, (machine), and claims 17 – 20 are directed towards a method, (process), 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. A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: receiving collected user inputs during game play by a user at user equipment, in an interactive game with a remote user provided by a gaming application , the user equipment in data communication over a network with remote user equipment of the remote user; tracking a performance of the user during game play including a progression or a regression over time and a plurality of aspects of the performance of the user during game play ; learning , using machine learning, a proficiency level of the user based on the tracked performance of the user and the tracked plurality of aspects of the performance of the user during game play ; monitoring a network connection over the network between the user equipment and the remote user equipment based on a trigger level for activation , wherein the trigger level is indicative of a network connection interruption that leads to a network game play interruption during the game play; upon a detection of the trigger level for activation, executing an intelligent fair autopilot (IFA) system that mimics the learned proficiency level of the user during game play; and deactivating the IFA system once the network connection interruption is restored . The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 11 and 17. Dependent claims 2 – 10, 12 – 16, and 18 - 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 groupings below: Certain methods of organizing human activity (rules for playing a game) Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment) The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for playing a game which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)), and the claims are also directed towards an abstract of a mental process, (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the claims are merely gathering information and then displaying a result based upon the gathered information. 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 processor and memory with instructions that allow a player to control the progress of a video game, wherein the video game system comprises an instruction to apply machine to analyze a player’s game 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 processor and memory components, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. 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. For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101 as the claims do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application or add an “inventive concept” beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and functions. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,911. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are drawn towards the system and method claim versions of the parent 12,102,911, except the current claims do not include the user attributes nor the learned plurality of aspects of the user performance features of the parent claims. Therefore the current claims are a broader version of the parent claims regarding this feature, as shown in table below. Independent claims 11 and 17 include similar language to that of independent claim 1, wherein dependent claims 2 – 10, 12 – 16 and 18 – 20 include identical language as the dependent claims in the parent 12,102,911. Therefore the claims are not patentably distinct. Pending Claim 1: Patented Claim 1: A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: receiving collected user inputs during game play by a user at user equipment, in an interactive game with a remote user provided by a gaming application, the user equipment in data communication over a network with remote user equipment of the remote user; tracking a performance of the user during game play including a progression or a regression over time and a plurality of aspects of the performance of the user during game play; learning, using machine learning, a proficiency level of the user based on the tracked performance of the user and the tracked plurality of aspects of the performance of the user during game play; monitoring a network connection over the network between the user equipment and the remote user equipment based on a trigger level for activation, wherein the trigger level is indicative of a network connection interruption that leads to a network game play interruption during the game play; upon a detection of the trigger level for activation, executing an intelligent fair autopilot (IFA) system that mimics the learned proficiency level of the user during game play; and deactivating the IFA system once the network connection interruption is restored. A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: receiving collected user inputs during game play by a user at user equipment, in an interactive game with a remote user provided by a gaming application, the user equipment in data communication over a network with remote user equipment of the remote user; tracking a performance of the user during game play including a progression or a regression over time and a plurality of aspects of the performance of the user during game play including a user's speed, strength, misses and weaknesses, injuries, reactions, head reach and grasp, jumps, selection of colors, preferred routes, or a combination thereof: learning, using machine learning, the performance of the user and the plurality of aspects of the performance of the user during game; a network connection over the network between the user equipment and the remote user equipment based on a trigger level for activation, wherein the trigger level is indicative of a network connection interruption that leads to a network game play interruption during the game play; and upon a detection of the trigger level for activation, executing an intelligent fair autopilot (IFA) system that mimics the learned performance of the user and the learned plurality of aspects of the performance of the user and deactivating the IFA system once the network connection interruption is restored. 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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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 /DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/819,181 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/819,181 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/819,181 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/819,181 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/819,181 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/819,181 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/819,181 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/819,181 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/819,181 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights