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 Applicant’s reply filed 8/24/26. Claims 1-15 are amended, claims 15-20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 14 recites a gaming method, comprising: generating, for a current gaming session, a virtual environment comprising a plurality of portions. The limitation of receiving, from a user input device, input signals indicating a user’s level of engagement during the user’s interaction with the first portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “input device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “input device” language, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally playing a game in their mind. Similarly, the limitations of: generating and determining are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 14. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – input device. The input device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does 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 element of using input device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 1-13 and 15-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2018/0130092 A1 to Nahass et al. (hereinafter “Nahass”).
Concerning claim 1, Nahass discloses a gaming system (Abstract), comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory having instructions stored thereon, that when executed cause the at least one processor to generate, for a current gaming session, a virtual environment comprising a plurality of portions; instantiate a subset of a total number of elements of a first video game within a first portion of the virtual environment (paragraphs [0033]-[0036]- player has a certain amount of opportunities to play game (i.e., allowed to play a subset of a total number of elements of a first video game within a first portion of the virtual environment));
receive, from a user input device, input signals indicating a user’s level of engagement during the user’s interaction with the first portion (paragraphs [0033]-[0036]- determining how engaged player is with the game); and
determine, using a trained determining model, a second video game based on the first portion and the received input signals (paragraphs [0033]-[0036]- player is presented demo game different from first game);
instantiate a subset of a total number of elements of the second video game within a second portion of the virtual environment, wherein at least one element of the first video game is maintained within the first portion of the virtual environment after the elements of the second video game are instantiated within the second portion of the virtual environment (paragraphs [0033]-[0036], [0045]- player plays demo game (i.e., subset of game) which is a second video game to earn the ability to unlock additional elements of the first game which is presented in a smaller window within the first application, thus at least one element of the first video game is maintained within the first portion of the virtual environment after the elements of the second video game are instantiated within the second portion of the virtual environment).
Concerning claim 2, Nahass discloses wherein, after the elements of the second video game are instantiated within the second portion, operations of the gaming system are carried out in a cyclical manner until termination of the current gaming session, wherein each successive portion of the virtual environment has instantiated therein, a subset of a total number of elements of a respective video game that has been determined by the trained determining model based on one or more previous portions of the virtual environment and the input signals, indicating the user’s level of engagement during the user’s interaction with one or more previous portions (paragraphs [0033]-[0036]- player is presented cyclical manner of based game and demo game).
Concerning claim 3, Nahass discloses randomly select the first video game and/or one or more of the elements of the first video game (paragraphs [0028]-[0032]- first game elements may be randomly provided).
Concerning claim 4, Nahass discloses select the first video game and/or one or more of the elements of the first video game based on user preference data regarding one or more categories of entertainment media, the user preference data indicating one or more genres or types associated with each category of entertainment media (paragraphs [0032]-[0036] – games could be presented based on user preferences).
Concerning claim 5, Nahass discloses wherein the user preference data comprises one or more of: i. the user's gaming profile; ii. the user's social media profile; iii. the user's video streaming profile; iv. the user's music streaming profile; V. the user's response to a questionnaire or survey issued to the user during the current gaming session prior to the streaming of the initial pieces of content; and vi. one or more video games determined by the trained determining model during one or more previous gaming sessions (paragraphs [0022]-[0030] – determines game based on user preferences).
Concerning claim 6, Nahass discloses wherein the trained determining model is trained to determine one or more of the elements of the second video game (paragraphs [0022]-[0030] – determines second game based on user preferences).
Concerning claim 7, Nahass discloses randomly select one or more of the elements of the second video game (paragraphs [0028]-[0032]- second game elements may be randomly provided).
Concerning claim 8, Nahass discloses select one or more of the elements of the second video game based on user preference data regarding one or more categories of entertainment media, the user preference data indicating one or more genres or types associated with each category of entertainment media (paragraphs [0022]-[0030] – determines second game based on user preferences).
Concerning claim 9, Nahass discloses terminate the user’s interaction with the first portion when a time duration of the user’s interaction with the first portion meets a threshold time duration; or terminate the user’s interaction with the first portion in response to a termination input signal being received at the receiving circuitry during the user’s interaction with the first portion (paragraphs [0032]-[0036] – time durations a allotted to play games).
Concerning claim 10, Nahass discloses to render image and/or audio data of at least a part of the virtual environment, and stream the rendered image and/or audio data to a client device for interaction by the user (paragraphs [0078]-[0083] -image and audio data are rendered based on the virtual environment).
Concerning claim 11, Nahass discloses download elements of video games over a network, store the downloaded elements in a memory of a client device; and retrieve, from the memory of the client device, elements of a given video game that are to be instantiated within a given portion of the virtual environment (paragraphs [0032]-[0036] – downloaded game elements are stored in memory).
Concerning claim 12, Nahass discloses wherein the subset of elements of a given video game instantiated within a given portion is dependent upon a type of client device via which the user interacts with the given portion (paragraphs [0032]-[0036] – type of device the user interacts with is determined).
Concerning claim 13, Nahass discloses wherein an element of a given video game comprises at least one of: i. a virtual character; ii. a virtual object; iii. image data of one or more virtual characters and/or one or more virtual objects; iv. a texture; V. a user interface (UI) element; vi. an in-game sound effect; and vii. at least a part of the given video game's soundtrack or musical score (paragraphs [0032]-[0036] – games contain virtual objects).
Concerning claims 14 and 15, see the rejection of claim 1.
Concerning claim 16, Nahass discloses wherein at least one element of the first video game instantiated in the first portion is reused in the second portion (paragraphs [0033]-[0036], [0045]).
Concerning claim 17, Nahass discloses wherein the virtual environment permits a user-controlled element to move between the first portion and the second portion (paragraphs [0033]-[0036], [0045]).
Concerning claim 18, Nahass discloses wherein the subset of elements of the second video game instantiated within the second portion is dependent upon a type of client device via which the user interacts with the virtual environment (paragraphs [0033]-[0036], [0045]).
Concerning claims 19 and 20, Nahass discloses wherein the subset of elements of the second video game comprise at least one of: a virtual character; a virtual object; image data of one or more virtual characters and/or one or more virtual objects; a texture; a user interface (UI) element; an in-game sound effect; and at least a part of the given video game's soundtrack or musical score (paragraphs [0033]-[0036], [0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection. Applicant argues that the claims are not an abstract idea. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “input device” language, “receiving” in the context of claim 14 encompasses the user mentally playing a game in their mind. Similarly, the limitations of: generating and determining are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The input device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 1-13 and 15-20. Thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 and the prior art have been considered and are addressed in the Office Action above with additional citations and explanations addressing the claim amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights