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 § 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 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 21, 24, and 25 are directed towards a device, server, and a medium, (machine) and claims 22 and 23 are directed towards a method, (process), which are a statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A user device configured to provide a computer implemented game, the user device comprising: a memory configured to store a plurality of sets of snapshot data for the computer implemented game, each set of snapshot data being associated with a respective time; a receiver configured to receive, from a server, information identifying a plurality of said sets of snapshot data, and difference data; and at least one processor configured to: determine a predicted set of snapshot data using the sets of snapshot data which have been identified by the information; and apply the difference data to the predicted set of snapshot data to provide a next set of snapshot data.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 10 and 22 – 25. Dependent claims 2 – 9 and 11 – 21 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of managing personal behavior which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that presents a game to a player, wherein the gaming system receives and stores a plurality of sets of snapshot data, and then determines a predicted set of snapshot data to provide a next set of snapshot data. Collection, analysis, and display of data represents managing personal behavior, (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (830 F.3d 1350, 2016).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites gaming system that presents a game to a player, wherein the system identifies and determines a predicted set of snapshot data to provide a next set of snapshot data. The claims recite instructions for controlling a game with these features. Here, a human can observe and predict snapshot data to be provided for a next set of snapshot data. The courts have determined that data collection, recognition, and storage is a well-known practice that humans have always performed. (See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank (776 F.3d 1343). Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor, memory, and a server, along with instructions that generate and present a video game to a player, wherein a plurality of sets of snapshot data is identified, stored, and then difference data is then applied to a predicted set of snapshot data for a next set of snapshot data. The claims further recite that the stored snapshot is not used beyond the step prediction of snapshot data and applying of difference data, wherein this is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception, and the claims not being integrated into a practical application.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a processor, memory, and a server, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. The claims further recite that the stored snapshot is not used beyond the step Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
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.
Claims 1 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Cerny et al. (U.S. 2021/0099713).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 22 – 25, Cerny discloses a user device, server, method, and medium configured to provide a computer implemented game, (“System 200A may provide gaming control to one or more users playing one or more games through the cloud game network 290 via network 250 in either single-player or multi-player modes”, par. 0032), the user device comprising a memory, (“Memory 704 stores applications and data for use by the CPU”, par. 0098), and server, (fig. 3, part 260), that is configured to store and information identifying a plurality of sets of snapshot data for the computer implemented game, (“the scene change logic 520 analyzes game state data collected during execution of the video game”, par. 0076), each set of snapshot data being associated with a respective time, (“For example, game state data defines the state of the game at that point”, par. 0076), wherein the Examiner views game state data as being equivalent to snapshot data, and game state data defining the state of the game at a certain point as being equivalent to snapshot data being associated with a respective time. Cerny further discloses receiving difference data, (“the delta between frames”, par. 0095), wherein the Examiner views delta as being equivalent to difference data, wherein delta is known as the change, difference, or update between two states of data. Cerny further discloses at least one processor, (“a computer system includes a processor”, par. 0008), configured to determine a predicted set of snapshot data using the sets of snapshot data which have been identified by the information, (“The method including executing a scene change logic to predict a scene change in the plurality of video frames, wherein the prediction is based on game state collected during execution of the game logic”, par. 0008), and apply the difference data, (“For example, the encoder determines that the delta between frames was large enough that a scene change is warranted”, par. 0095), to the predicted set of snapshot data to provide a next set of snapshot data, (“The scene change logic is configured to predict a scene change based on tracking of game state collected when generating the plurality of video frames. For example, the scene change logic can predict when a scene change is about to occur, such as when a character is moving from one scene to another scene in a virtualized gaming environment”, par. 0088), wherein the Examiner views that the delta warranting a change between frames and the scene logic being configured to predict a scene change during the generating of the plurality of video frames, as being equivalent to apply difference data to a predicted set of snapshot to provide a next set of snapshot data.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Cerny discloses wherein the respective set of snapshot data comprises one of a time stamp or a time range, (“For example, game state data defines the state of the game at that point”, par. 0076), wherein the Examiner views game state data defining the state of the game at a certain point as being equivalent to snapshot data being associated with a respective time.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Cerny discloses wherein one or more of the sets of snapshot data comprises data for one or more different entities of the computer implemented game, (“For example, a scene may be described as a cave environment within which a character being played by a user is engaged in a boss battle”, par. 0064).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Cerny discloses wherein one or more of the sets of snapshot data comprises a plurality of fields for one or more of the one or more different entities, (“location of a character within a gaming world of the game play of the player”, par. 0076).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Cerny discloses wherein one or more of the one or more different entities is controlled by one or more players playing on respective different user devices, , (“For example, a scene may be described as a cave environment within which a character being played by a user”, par. 0064).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Cerny discloses wherein the computer implemented game is a multiplayer computer implemented game where one instance of the computer implemented game is played by a plurality of different players on respective user devices, (“a plurality of game processors of game server 260 associated with a plurality of virtual machines is configured to execute multiple instances of one or more games associated with gameplays of a plurality of users”, par. 0034 and fig. 2c, part 210).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Cerny discloses wherein the information identifying a plurality of said sets of snapshot data identifies a plurality of sets of snapshot data which are consecutive, (“the multiple GPUs can perform alternate forms of frame rendering, wherein GPU 1 renders a first frame, and GPU 2 renders a second frame, in sequential frame periods”, par. 0103).
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Cerny discloses wherein the information identifying a plurality of said sets of snapshot data identifies a plurality of sets of snapshot data which are not consecutive, (“The rendering operations can overlap, wherein GPU 2 may begin rendering the second frame before GPU 1 finishes rendering the first frame”, par. 0103).
Regarding claim 9, Cerny discloses wherein the difference data is applied to the predicted set of snapshot data to provide the next set of snapshot data using one of a subtraction operation or an addition operation, (“the encoder determines that the delta between frames was below the threshold thereby indicating that compression as a P-frame would be more efficient. As such, there may be a termination of the encoding of the corresponding video frame as an I-frame, and the encoding of the corresponding video frame as a P-frame”, par. 0095), wherein the Examiner views the termination of the video frame as being equivalent to a subtraction operation.
Regarding claim 11, Cerny discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine for which one or more game entities of the computer implemented game, data is to be included in a respective set of snapshot data, (“For example, a scene may be described as a cave environment within which a character being played by a user is engaged in a boss battle”, par. 0064).
Regarding claim 12, Cerny discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine for which one or more game entities of the computer implemented game, data is to be included in a respective set of snapshot data based on a priority of a respective game entity, (“For example, a scene may be described as a cave environment within which a character being played by a user is engaged in a boss battle”, par. 0064).
Regarding claim 13, Cerny discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine for which one or more game entities of the computer implemented game, data is to be included in a respective set of snapshot data based on one or more of a relevance associated with a respective game entity or an urgency associated with a respective game entity, (“For example, a scene may be described as a cave environment within which a character being played by a user is engaged in a boss battle”, par. 0064).
Regarding claim 14, Cerny discloses wherein the difference data is determined by subtracting one of the predicted set of snapshot data and the next set of snapshot data from the other of the predicted set of snapshot data and the next set of snapshot data, (“the encoder determines that the delta between frames was below the threshold thereby indicating that compression as a P-frame would be more efficient. As such, there may be a termination of the encoding of the corresponding video frame as an I-frame, and the encoding of the corresponding video frame as a P-frame”, par. 0095), wherein the Examiner views the termination of the video frame as being equivalent to a subtraction operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 at 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 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.
/E.M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights