CTNF 18/905,102 CTNF 87867 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. DETAILED ACTION 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. In the instant application, claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Step 1 : Claim(s) 1-19 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition). Step 2A : However, claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 9, 17, Prong 1 analysis: The limitations of “identify route information related to a user during play of a game during travel of the user along a route; and modify a computer simulation for play of the computer simulation at a residence related to the user based at least in part on the route information” (claim 1), “present, in a computer game being played by a user as the user travels along a route, at least one challenge; responsive to the user meeting the challenge, unlock a collectible and/or level in a computer simulation during play of the computer simulation at a residence related to the user” (claim 9), “presenting a computer simulation as the vehicle travels along a route; tying play of the computer simulation in the vehicle to at-home game experiences by using travel data and/or captured images during travel and/or web-based knowledge to generate similar environments for an at-home game” (claim 17), are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, rules). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. Furthermore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-19 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Prong 2 analysis: The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “at least one processor system, computer memory that is not a transitory signal and that comprises instructions executable by at least one processor system, a display in a vehicle”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG. Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B : As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Hanke et al. (8968099) and Daze et al. (2018/0357233) teach the recited additional elements (Fig 1, col 6, ln 35-48, col 8, ln 40-67, col 9, ln 1-7; Daze, Fig 1-3, ¶¶0021-0036). In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. For instance, regarding claims 1-19, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and rules in In re Smith. Therefore, claim(s) 1-19 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Daze et al. (2018/0357233) . Re Claim 1, Daze discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor system configured to: identify route information related to a user during play of a game during travel of the user along a route (Fig 8-9, ¶¶0096-0099; a player may play a video game in vehicle, wherein controller may process vehicle navigation data); and modify a computer simulation for play of the computer simulation at a residence related to the user based at least in part on the route information (Fig 8-9, ¶¶0096-0104; the player in vehicle can play with a player connected to a home system, wherein the game is dynamically updated with vehicle navigation data that allowed the players to play a game that will take a certain amount of time based on the navigation data). Re Claim 17, Daze discloses a method comprising: presenting a computer simulation on a display in a vehicle as the vehicle travels along a route (Fig 8-9, ¶¶0096-0099; a player may play a video game in vehicle, wherein controller may process vehicle navigation data); tying play of the computer simulation in the vehicle to at-home game experiences by using travel data and/or captured images during travel and/or web-based knowledge to generate similar environments for an at-home game (Fig 8-9, ¶¶0096-0104; the player in vehicle can play with a player connected to a home system, wherein the game is dynamically updated with vehicle navigation data that allowed the players to play with each other, i.e., the game in vehicle is similar to the home system). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/905,102 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/905,102 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/905,102 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/905,102 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/905,102 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/905,102 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/905,102 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights