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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
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, 12, 18,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “input plural author-generated keyframes of a computer simulation to at least one generative model (GM); receive from the GM an output of computer simulation frames between the keyframes; and present the output of the GM on at least one display as a computer simulation” (claim 1), “input plural keyframes to a generative model (GM), each keyframe comprising at least one parameter, the GM being trained to output at least one video clip constrained by the parameter; receive a video clip from the GM responsive to input of the keyframes; and play the video clip as a computer game” (claim 12), “inputting keyframes to a machine learning (ML) model; and generating a computer game based on output of the ML model that is in consonance with the keyframes” (claim 18), 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 2-11, 13-17, 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”, 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. As such, the claim is directed to 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, the recited additional limitations are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Howard et al. (2024/0325924) teaches the recited additional elements (Fig 1A-1B, ¶¶0019-0026).
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 § 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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Callahan (2023/0218984) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Benedetto et al. (2024/0299851).
Re Claim 1,
Callahan discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor system configured to: input plural author-generated keyframes of a computer simulation to at least one generative model (GM) (Fig 4, ¶¶0054-0057; recorded footage, i.e., for lack of any clear distinct features, captured videos are considered as keyframes of a computer simulation, may be fed into a neural network, along with additional parameters and/or information, to enable the neural network to output frame(s) of video, for example, a scene in the recorded footage can be digitized and used with the neural network); receive from the GM an output of computer simulation frames between the keyframes; and present the output of the GM on at least one display as a computer simulation (Fig 4-6, ¶¶0054-0058, 0074-0075, 0078-0079; the recorded footage may be fed through a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm, to generate a dataset comprising one or more frames, further, a sparser version of the dataset may have points of interest with interpolations between, wherein the neural networks is used to complete coverage by filling in these gaps).
If Applicant disagrees with Examiner’s interpretation of a computer simulation, then Applicant is directed to Benedetto.
Benedetto teaches generating a video game using seed input from a computer game (Fig 1A-3, 5-7A, ¶¶0019, 0022-0023, 0027-0041, 0053-0054, 0063; the AI based storyboard generates a game based on user seed input, for instance, the initial seed input can be received from the video game). Benedetto further teaches such a configuration provides for increased richness and diversity of video game content in the interests of promoting player engagement and enhancing player experience (¶0001). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Benedetto into the system of Callahan in order to provide for increased richness and diversity of video game content in the interests of promoting player engagement and enhancing player experience.
Re Claims 2, 14,
Benedetto discloses the computer simulation comprises a computer game (¶¶0023, 0053). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 3,
Callahan discloses at least some of the keyframes define lighting constraining output of the GM (¶¶0054-0060, 0065-0069).
Re Claim 4,
Callahan discloses at least some of the keyframes define style constraining output of the GM (¶¶0054-0060, 0065-0069).
Re Claim 5,
Callahan discloses at least some of the keyframes define objects constraining output of the GM (¶¶0054-0060, 0065-0069).
Re Claim 6,
Callahan discloses at least some of the keyframes define time periods constraining output of the GM (¶¶0054-0060, 0065-0069).
Re Claim 7,
Benedetto discloses at least a first one of the keyframes is constructed by a designer and is not part of an existing computer simulation (¶0023, 0053). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 8,
Benedetto discloses at least a first one of the keyframes is obtained from an existing computer simulation (¶¶0023, 0053). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 11,
Benedetto discloses at least a first one of the keyframes is selected based on the first keyframe exhibiting a predetermined type of action (¶¶0022-0023, 0027-0041, 0053-0054). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 12,
Claim is substantially similar to claim and further adds each keyframe comprising at least one parameter (¶¶0054-0057). See claim 1 for rejection.
Re Claim 13,
Callahan discloses at least one of the keyframes is generated and is not part of an existing computer game (¶¶0054-0060, 0065-0069).
Re Claim 15,
Benedetto discloses rejecting the video clip responsive to the video clip not being in consonance with the keyframes (¶¶0056-0057). See claim 1 for rejection.
Re Claim 16,
Callahan discloses the parameters comprises one or more of a video object, a color scheme (¶¶0054-0060, 0065-0069).
Re Claim 17,
Callahan discloses the parameters comprises one or more of a video object, a style (¶¶0054-0060, 0065-0069).
Re Claim 18,
Claim is substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection.
Re Claim 19,
Callahan discloses determining whether the output of the ML model is consonance with the keyframes based at least in part on one or more parameters of the keyframes (¶¶0054-0060, 0065-0069).
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
Prosecution Insights