CTNF 18/908,708 CTNF 81317 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 Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 7, 8, & 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 7 & 18 recite “interactive occurring in the interactive scenarios” in which it appears the first instance of “interactive” is likely a typographical error as “interactive occurring in the interactive” appears slightly ungrammatical. Claim 8 depends from claim 15, which appears to be a typographical error. For purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as dependent upon the method of claim 1 . Appropriate correction is required. 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 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, when given their broadest reasonable3 interpretation, they are directed to non-statutory subject matter, namely a computer readable medium that encompasses transitory, propagating signals per se , which do not fall within any of the four categories of invention. Claim 12 recites “computer readable media”. Claims 13-19, which depend upon claim 12, similarly recite the same “computer readable media”. The claim uses the generic term “computer readable media” without reciting that the media are “non-transitory”, “storage” media or “recording” media, and without reciting that program instructions are “stored thereon” and executed by a processor. The specification does not clearly and expressly define “computer readable media” as being limited only to hardware storage media or exclude signals, carrier waves, or other transitory embodiments. Under established USPTO guidance and MPEP 2106, a claim to a “computer readable medium” (or media) that can reasonably be construed to cover both (i) hardware storage and (ii) transitory propagating signals encompasses a non-statutory embodiments (a signal per se ) and must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. When the intrinsic record does not limit the media to non-transitory storage media, the broadest reasonable interpretation includes signals, which are not a processor, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter required by 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. In accordance with the 2019 PEG framework: Step 1 – Statutory category? Under Step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Here, claims 1-11 are directed to processes and thus pass Step 1. Claims 12-19, however, fail Step 1 in light of the recited “computer readable media” not being one of the four statutory categories of invention, as detailed above. Nonetheless, the following Step 2A & Step 2B discussion is equally applicable to claims 12-19, even if Applicant remedies the preamble of claims 12-19 to recite a statutory category of invention, such as a “a non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions thereon, which when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform” [the program instructions as recited in the claims]. Step 2A, Prong 1 – Whether the claims recite a judicial exception? Under Step 2A, Prong 1, it is determined whether the claims recite any judicial exception, including abstract ideas such as mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Claim 1 recite, in summary: accessing a game play database that includes dialog scripts from player interactions during interactive scenarios of a cooperative video game processing the dialog scripts to extract chat words between real players and labeling the chat words to correlate them to one or more interactive scenarios and game context training an AI model over time using the labeled chat words to learn contextually relevant chat words for the cooperative video game identifying a real player during an instance of gameplay in a chat assist mode, capturing verbal output by the real player, not audibly outputting the verbal output, and processing it with the AI model to generate “real player adjusted (RPA) chat words” audibly outputting the RPA chat words by the cooperative video game as the verbal output of the real player’s avatar As described in the specification, these steps collective define operations of (i) collecting and organizing player communication data, (ii) analyzing and classifying chat words by interactive scenario and game context, and (iii) selecting and generating chat expressions on behalf of a player to manage and optimize communication in cooperative gameplay. These operations can be characterized by: Mental processes: they involve concepts that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, such as observing chat, recognizing patterns, labeling communication with contextual categories, and deciding how to phrase a player’s communication in a given scenario. Certain methods of organizing human activity – they manage interpersonal communication and coordination between real players in the context of cooperative games, which is a type of organizing human interactions. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity groupings identified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Notably, claim 12 recites computer readable media comprising program instructions that perform the same operations of claim 1, thus claim 12 also recites the same abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-11 & 13-19: The dependent claims add limitations such as modifying RPA chat words to be contextually relevant to an interface scene (claims 2, 13); outputting RPA chat words in substantial real-time (claims 3-4, 14-15); identifying a time window during which RPA chat is allowed and suppressing output after expiration (claims 5-6, 16-17); throttling output frequency or rate (claims 7-8, 18); user-controlled or automatic determined activation of chat assist mode (claims 9-10); assisting NPC chat in addition to real player chat (claim 11); and modifying RPA chat words for urgency by making them briefer or more specific (claim 19). These limitations further refine the same underlying concept of managing and formatting chat communications amongst players based on timing and context and therefore continue to recite the same abstract idea. The claims also resemble Content Extraction, where claims directed to collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing recognized data were treated as abstract. Here, claim 1, for example, similarly accesses dialog scripts, recognizes/extracts chat words, labels/correlates the words to game context, and uses those correlations to generated adjust chat content. Step 2A, Prong 2 – Whether the claims integration the exception into a practical application Under Step 2A, Prong 2, it is determined whether the claims as a whole integration the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, by reciting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The claims include additional elements beyond the abstract idea, such as: limiting the method to a cooperative video game with interactive scenarios, game context, and an avatar representing the real player reciting a gameplay database of dialog scripts and use of an AI model trained over time reciting chat assist mode time windows for output, throttling of output frequency/rate, and automatic enabling based on determined player need. The specification shows that these features are implemented using generic computers and game components, including CPUs, GPUs, memory, storage, game engines, game servers, network interfaces, dialog databases, transformer-based NLP/LLM models, text-to-speech systems, etc. The claims do not recite any specific improvement to the underlying computer hardware, network, memory structures, or AI model architecture. For example, the claims do not specific a new training algorithm, a novel data structure for labels, a non-conventional latency-handling mechanism, or a particular reconfiguration of computer components that improves computer performance. Instead, the computer, AI model, and game environment are recited as tools or environments for performing the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and generating context-aware chat for cooperative communication. Field-of-use limitations and generic computer implement do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under the USPTO guidance. USPTO’s AI Example 48 is useful by analogy. The USPTO described an AI-speech-separation claim as ineligible where a DNN was recited without details of how the DNN operated, while other claims were eligible where they reflected a technical improvement to speed-separation or speech-to-text technology. The Example 48 analysis specifically notes that a generic DNN recitation, without details about how the DNN solves a technical problem, can amount to merely applying the judicial exception with a DNN or linking the exception to a technological environment. Thus, when viewed as a whole, claims 1-19 do not effect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field and instead merely apply the abstract idea in the particular context of cooperative video games using conventional computer and AI components. Step 2B – Whether the claims recite “significantly more” (an inventive concept) Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims include additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception The additional elements in claims 1-19, such as the cooperative video game environment, gameplay database, AI model, chat assist mode, time windows, throttling, real-time thresholds, urgency formatting, and software implementation are described in the specification as being implemented using generic computer components and conventional AI/ML and game-engine techniques. The claimed sequence of operations (e.g. collect dialog scripts and game states, extra and label chat words, train an AI model, and use that model during gameplay to generate RPA chat words) reflects a conventional pattern of data collection, machine-learning training, and real-time inference applied to a particular environment. The dependent claims add functional refinements (e.g. context-based modification, real-time latency limits, time windows, throttling frequency and rate, automatic enabling based on need, urgency-dependent brevity, and simultaneous assistance to NPCs and real players) that are presented as high-level rules or desired behaviors and are implemented using ordinary contextual analysis and parameter adjustments within the AI/chat system, on the same generic hardware. These limitations also do not recite any non-conventional or unconventional hardware configurations or algorithmic structures that would transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application thereof. Considering all the claims elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do no more than instruction the practitioner to apply the abstract idea of context-aware chat generation and management using generic computer and AI technologies in a particular field of cooperative video games. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 & 12 recite “real player adjusted (RPA) chat words”, which does not have a generally recognized meaning in the art and is not expressly defined in the claims. The specification provides illustrative examples of mapping actual chat phrases to different phrases (e.g. “Let’s advance” to “Push” or “Go for safety” to “Fall back”) and describes RPA chat words as being adjusted to be more specific, contextually relevant, or efficient for cooperative gameplay and sometimes modified for urgency or throttling. However, the specification does not set forth objective criteria or clear boundaries for what transformations or properties are required for chat words to qualify as “real player adjusted (RPA) chat words”. For example, it is unclear from the claims and specification: (i) whether any AI-generated chat phrase derived from a player’s input in context qualifies as RPA chat words, or only those that meet specific constraints (e.g. shorter, more specific, based on game jargon, etc.); (ii) how much deviation in wording or meaning is permissible before the output is no longer considered “adjusted” chat words; and (iii) whether RPA chat words must always preserve the semantic intent of the player’s original verbal output, or may introduce new content. Because the RPA chat words are central to the claimed invention and the claims do not recite corresponding structural or algorithmic limitations that clearly define the scope of “adjusted” chat words, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot, without reasonable certainty, determine the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM. 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, KANG HU can be reached at 571-270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. /MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/908,708 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/908,708 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/908,708 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/908,708 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/908,708 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/908,708 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights