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 .
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 21-40 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 video game processing program and a video game processing system capable of providing more effective information to a player. Exemplary claims 21, 28 and 35 includes the following underlined claim elements:
21. A computer-implemented method comprising: determining one or more conditions that are associated with a user's consumption of media; providing the one or more conditions that are associated with the user's consumption of media to a physical need estimator that is configured output, for different input conditions, indications of whether the different input conditions correspond to a particular physical need; receiving, from the physical need estimator, an indication that the one or more conditions correspond to the particular physical need; and superimposing, over the media, a selectable control associated with an application that is associated with the particular physical need
28. A system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising: determining one or more conditions that are associated with a user's consumption of media; providing the one or more conditions that are associated with the user's consumption of media to a physical need estimator that is configured output, for different input conditions, indications of whether the different input conditions correspond to a particular physical need; receiving, from the physical need estimator, an indication that the one or more conditions correspond to the particular physical need; and superimposing, over the media, a selectable control associated with an application that is associated with the particular physical need
35. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising: determining one or more conditions that are associated with a user's consumption of media; providing the one or more conditions that are associated with the user's consumption of media to a physical need estimator that is configured output, for different input conditions, indications of whether the different input conditions correspond to a particular physical need; receiving, from the physical need estimator, an indication that the one or more conditions correspond to the particular physical need; and superimposing, over the media, a selectable control associated with an application that is associated with the particular physical need.
The underlined claim elements above is the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps that observe user activity and making a judgement whether or not the user has a current physical need and providing an appropriate response. 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 “computer processors” and “non-transitory computer readable media that store instructions” 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 making observations of user activities, evaluating them against predetermined criteria and providing an appropriate response. 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 additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including computer processors” and “non-transitory computer readable media that store instructions, amount(s) to no more than: (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 per the Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0020], [0022], [0026] and [0035]). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21, 23, 25-28, 30, 32-35, 37, 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benefield et al. (pub. no. 20180374386) in view of Landsem (pub. no. 20070173329).
Regarding claim 21, Benefield discloses a computer-implemented method (“FIG. 2 is a flowchart depicting operational steps of physical activity and dietary service program 200, a program for tracking physical activity, calories expended, caloric intake and providing dietary and nutritional services and retailer incentives in real time, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention”, [0041])
comprising: determining one or more conditions that are associated with a user's consumption of media (“In step 204, physical activity and dietary service program 200 tracks user activity (e.g., physical activity data 119, physical activity data 149, and/or physical activity data 159) and an exercise intensity level. Exercise intensity refers to how much energy is expended when exercising (i.e., a physiological measurement that expresses an energy cost of physical activities, defined as a ratio of a metabolic rate during a specific physical activity to a reference metabolic rate), and varies with each individual. Exercise intensity includes at least three categorized levels of low (e.g., sleeping, walking under 3.0 miles per hour, and sitting), moderate (e.g., walking above 3.0 miles per hour bicycling and calisthenics), and vigorous (e.g., jogging, running, bicycling over 10 miles per hour)”, [0049];
“In another embodiment, physical activity and dietary service program 200 receives user activity and the exercise intensity level through physical activity and dietary service client programs 114, 144, and 154 without heart rate data. Physical activity and dietary service client programs 114, 144, and/or 154 calculate physical activity data 119, 149, and/or 159, based on available information and software that calculates calorie expenditure”, [0052];
providing the one or more conditions that are associated with the user's consumption of media to a physical need estimator that is configured output, for different input conditions, indications of whether the different input conditions correspond to a particular physical need; receiving, from the physical need estimator, an indication that the one or more conditions correspond to the particular physical need (“In decision 206, physical activity and dietary service program 200 determines whether the user is hungry. In one embodiment, physical activity and dietary service program 200 receives an input form the user to enter and/or select a meal or snack, which physical activity and dietary service program 200 utilizes to determine the user is hungry. In another embodiment, physical activity and dietary service program 200 determines that a user is hungry based on standard meal times (e.g., breakfast eaten between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m., lunch eaten between 11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m., dinner eaten between 5 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.). In some other embodiments, physical activity and dietary service program 200 determines that a user is hungry based on a time between an event (e.g., within an hour of waking, optimal time between meals, optimal time for a snack between meals, three hours prior to bedtime, within a specified time after a workout, blood sugar profile, etc.)”, [0055]).
Regarding claim 21, it is noted that Benefield does not disclose superimposing, over the media, a selectable control associated with an application that is associated with the particular physical need. Landsem however, teaches superimposing, over the media, a selectable control associated with an application that is associated with the particular physical need (“Referring now to FIG. 4, in some embodiments, a player proceeds to a menu enabling the player to choose a particular food source 40 from a list of food sources 212. FIG. 4 illustrates an example menu display screen 200 for display on an electronic gaming console 25, 35. The menu display screen 200 indicates a list 212 of food source entries 211. The list 212 includes one or more listings 211A-211C of food sources 40 capable of delivering food to the player. The player can view an interactive menu for each of the various food sources 40 by selecting the corresponding listing 211A-211C.
The menu for each food source listing 212a-212d is displayed in a frame 210. Each menu includes one or more menu indicia 214 indicating a food item that can be ordered from the food source 40. In some embodiments, each menu indicia 214 includes a selection input 215, graphic indicia 216, text indicia 217, and price indicia 218. The graphic and text indicia 216, 217 indicate the particular food item associated with the menu indicia 214. In some other embodiments, menu indicia 214 do not include graphic indicia 216, but do include text indicia 217. In still some other embodiments, menu indicia 214 do not include text indicia 217, but do include graphic indicia 216. The price indicia 218 indicate the price of the food item associated with the menu indicia 214.
A player orders particular food items by selecting (e.g., touching, clicking on, etc.) the menu indicia 214 associated with the food items. In one embodiment, the player selects menu indicia 214 by touching the selection input 215 of the menu indicia 214 with the player's finger on a touch screen. In various other embodiments, the player selects the menu indicia 214 using a mouse, light pen, or other similar interactive peripheral. In one embodiment, a check mark or other similar indicia is displayed over the selection input 215 or elsewhere on the menu indicia 214 when one of the menu indicia 214 is selected”, [0035] – [0037]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here both Benefield and Landsem are directed to player facing networked electronic devices. To add the food ordering screen as taught by Landsem to the Benefield invention would be to combine prior art elements according to a known method to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benefield to include the food ordering screen of Landsem. To do so would provide additional options for procuring food thereby better catering to user preferences.
Regarding claim 23, Benefield discloses determining a length of time that the user has consumed the media ([0049], [0052] and [0055]).
Regarding claim 25, Benefield discloses determining a period of inactivity of the user while the user has consumed the media ([0049], [0052] and [0055]).
Regarding claim 26, Benefield discloses quantifying the physical need (“In step 210, physical activity and dietary service program 200 creates meal recommendation 122. Physical activity and dietary service program 200 identifies the number of calories for consumption and/or nutritional requirements. In one embodiment, physical activity and dietary service program 200 calculates the number of calories for consumption based on a combination of user information 116, dietary plan 118, and/or physical activity data 119. For example, physical activity and dietary service program 200 calculates an individual's BMR based on user information 116. Physical activity and dietary service program 200 combines the calculated BMR with the calculated number of expended calories as identified within physical activity data 119, in order to determine an overall number of calories to consume”, [0063]).
Regarding claim 27, Benefield discloses the physical need comprises hunger ([0063]).
Claims 28, 30 and 32-34 are directed to systems that implement the methods of claims 21, 23 and 25-27 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons as claims 12, 23 and 25-27 respectively.
Claims 35, 37, 39 and 40 are directed to an article of manufacture containing instructions that implement the methods of claims 21, 23, 25 and 26 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons as claims 21, 23, 25 and 26 respectively.
Conclusion
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