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, 9, 18,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “establish a first game level style of a computer simulation to be consistent with identified play style of a first gamer, the play style of the first gamer comprising a passive style, the first game level style rewarding passive play; responsive to game play success of the first gamer at the first game level style, change to a second game level style comprising rewarding aggressive play; and responsive to success of the first gamer playing the second game level style not satisfying a threshold and/or responsive to identifying negative emotion of the first gamer, revert to the first game level style” (claim 1), “identify a game play style of a first gamer; present a computer simulation at a first level rewarding the game play style of the first gamer; responsive to success of the first gamer playing the simulation at the first level, present the computer simulation at a second level penalizing the game play style of the first gamer; and revert to presenting the computer simulation at the first level responsive to the first gamer playing at the second level not satisfying a threshold of success and/or responsive to the first gamer exhibiting negative emotion” (claim 9), “tailoring presentation of a computer simulation to reward a game style of a first gamer from game play of the first gamer; and tailoring presentation of the computer simulation to penalize the game style of the first gamer responsive to the first gamer achieving success satisfying a threshold” (claim 18), are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing relationships and/or interactions between people such as social activities). The mere nominal recitation of a social networking site, a virtual character and a virtual game area 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, 10-17, 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, at least one computer memory that is not a transitory signal and that comprises instructions executable by at least one processor system, a machine learning model”, 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, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Hill et al. (2024/0325923) teaches the additional elements (Fig 1, ¶¶0022-0026).
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.
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