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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. For example, all the independent claims states “appropriate time for alternate content”, however, the examiner cannot ascertain what is meant by the limitations such that the metes and bounds of the claims can clearly evaluated (what time “appropriate time” refer to? who is evaluating the “appropriate” aspect of timing? Furthermore, “alternate” to what?). The above limitations, result in failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Examiner finds that because the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, 2nd paragraph, it is impossible to properly construe claim scope at this time. However, in accordance with MPEP §2173.06 and the USPTO's policy of trying to advance prosecution by providing art rejections even though these claims are indefinite, the claims are given broadest reasonable interpretation and prior art is applied as much as practically possible.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S.___(2014).
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method of operating a gaming console, claims 9-16 are also directed to a gaming console, while claims 17-20 are directed to computer-readable storage medium having stored therein program code instructions. As such, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice flowchart to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Addressing the claims under Step 2A, the claims are held to be directed to concepts similar to those found to be abstract, either as outlined in the 2014 lEG/July 2015 Update to Subject matter eligibility, or, as compared to certain decisions rendered by the courts. The claims describe the steps of presenting information on a display device, as evident by the claim language of claim 1 “during game play, providing graphical game images to a screen; determining that an appropriate time for alternate content is beginning, wherein the appropriate time comprises a time before a commencement of a new game; prior to the commencement of a new game, providing informational images to the screen, the informational images indicating a list of players of the new game; retrieving information regarding one or more of the indicated players in the list of players; and providing alternate content, the alternate content comprising a report about the information retrieved regarding one or more of the indicated players in the list of players”. Independent claims 9 & 17 also recite similar limitations.
The additional features in the limitations that narrow the idea merely aide in the description of the abstract idea and therefore do not render the claims any less abstract.
The claims, as present are directed to the abstract idea of collecting information about players, analyzing or retrieving that information, and presenting the information on a display device during a pre-game interval. Identifying and transmitting information to users represents ‘an idea itself’ (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)) inasmuch as it is related to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data. Several precedential cases have found concepts relating to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data to be mere ideas in themselves. One example includes selecting/identifying displayed data, manipulating the data through encoding and decoding processes, and generating new outputs/displays (Recognicorp, LLC, v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01873-RAJ (2017)). The courts have addressed other computerized processes for of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data including data collecting and comparing known information (Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC 659 F.3d 1057(Fed. Cir. 2011)), collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016))] extracting, organizing, storing and transmitting data (Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass'n. 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc. 654 F.3d 1366, 99 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)).
Therefore, while it is understood that the claims in the current application are not verbatim recitations of the guidelines or case law, the detailed analysis provided above shows how the current claim limitations at issue closely parallel the concepts provided by the guidelines and the precedential case law, and are therefore considered to be directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claims recite a gaming console performing generic functions at a high level of abstraction, including “providing graphical game images,” “determining” an appropriate time, “providing informational images,” “retrieving information,” and “providing alternate content.” These recitations merely use a gaming console as a tool to collect, process, and display information, without reciting any specific improvement to computer functionality or any particular technological implementation. Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/computer components and is not a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. The gaming console is recited at a generic functional level hardware and performs conventional display, retrieval, and presentation operations. The claim does not include or provide any nonconventional arrangement of components, any specialized data structure, any new algorithm, or any other feature that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These limitations however are used for data gathering and presentation and as such merely represents insignificant pre and post solution activity. Even assuming arguendo that the claims are not insignificant pre and post solution activities or mental activities, each of the functions performed by the machinery are well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving and processing data, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data (see July 2015 Update: Section IV)).
Thus, under Step 2B, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims provide minimal technical structure or components for further consideration either individually or as ordered combinations with the independent claims. As such, additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the identified abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yu (12,220,632) refers to a method and apparatus for executing an interaction event. The method may include displaying a picture of a preparatory stage prior to start of an interaction process in a virtual scene. A first group of avatars may be engaging in the interaction process, and the interaction process may include one or more interaction events. The method may further include determining a target avatar in the first group of avatars based on attribute information of the first group of avatars. The target interaction event may be an interaction event that allows to be jointly executed by the first group of avatars. The method may further include, in response to the target avatar triggering the target interaction event in the preparatory stage, displaying a picture of a second group of avatars executing the target interaction event.
Cruz et al. (US Patent Pub. 20200016495) refers to session participation in online content streams or activities like multiplayer games is enhanced through management of session tracking and automated queuing of players via a central system between host/streamer client device and guest player client devices. Spectators viewing a content stream or waiting to join a multiplayer activity over a network via a game/streaming service request to be placed in a queue to participate in a session of the content stream or activity as guest players with the host/streaming user. Sessions are tracked to determine start and end events. Sets of prior guest players are removed from sessions when the sessions end, and sets of queued spectators are automatically added to the start of a new session of the content stream or activity as guest players. Queuing may be automatically prioritized for users based on user characteristics, and guest players removed at the end of sessions may be automatically re-queued.
The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...." In re Fulton, 391F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/SUNIT PANDYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights