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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a sequence of calculations which are analogous to a series of steps performable by a human mind.
The claim(s) recite(s), inter alia,
Receive data associated with an event
determine whether any notification events occur in association with the data received from the streaming device
responsive to the determination being that a notification event occurred in association with the data received from the streaming device automatically generate content associated with the event
communicate, to a device, a notification comprising the generated content
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1 and 10 recite limitations performable in the human mind. Regarding claims 1, 10 and 12, a human—using their mind, pen, and paper—is capable of watching a stream, marking any events in the stream that merit notification, generating content according to the event and communicating it.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a streaming device, a device, and an artificial intelligence model.
Processor and memory: are described in the specification with a high degree of generality:
[0130] The master gaming controller includes at least one processor. The at least one processor is any suitable processing device or set of processing devices, such as a microprocessor, a microcontroller-based platform, a suitable integrated circuit, or one or more application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), configured to execute software enabling various configuration and reconfiguration
tasks
[0131] The master gaming controller also includes least one memory device, which includes: (1) volatile memory (e.g., RAM, which can include non-volatile RAM, magnetic RAM, ferroelectric RAM, and any other suitable forms); (2) non-volatile memory (e.g., disk memory, FLASH memory, EPROMs, EEPROMs, memristor-based non-volatile solid-state memory, etc.); (3) unalterable memory (e.g., EPROMs 1008); (4) read-only memory; and/or (5) a secondary memory storage device, such as a non-volatile memory device, configured to store gaming software related information
Specific features are not claimed. Therefore, it would be reasonable to interpret these as routine and conventional computing components.
Streaming and client device: is described in the specification with a high degree of generality:
[0192] In various embodiments, the system includes a streaming device and/or a client device configured to communicate with a personal gaming device-such as a smartphone, a tablet computer, a desktop computer, or a laptop computer-to enable tethered mobile game play using the personal gaming device
Therefore, it would again be reasonable to interpret this as a routine and conventional computing component.
Artificial intelligence model: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, simply declaring that certain functions are performed by artificial intelligence per se amounts to an abstract human-performable mental step. If the claims were amended to specify the types of AI or machine learning algorithms used, and how they are applied to produce the given result, they could then meet the eligibility under the requirements of this section as non-practicably human-performable steps.
The additional elements, when considered individually and in combination are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements which were interpreted under step 2A prong 2 are re-evaluated in step 2B, and evidence is known that they are nothing more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing.
Artificial intelligence model: These steps are analogous to step (d) of claim 2 in Example 47 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.1 The example employs using a type of AI to search for anomalies in a data set, which resembles the recited “execute the one or more ML models to generate a report identifying at least a first portion of the computer game.”
The analysis of Example 47 states:
Step (d) recites detecting one or more anomalies in a data set using the trained ANN. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “detecting” encompasses mental observations or evaluations that are practically performed in the human mind. For example, the claimed detecting of anomalies in a data set encompasses observing data in a data set and performing an evaluation by comparing anomalous and non-anomalous data … Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “analyzing” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Claims 2-8, 11 and 13-19 are similarly human-performable to claims 1 and 10, and are thus also held as ineligible subject matter under 101/Alice for the reasons given supra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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 1-7 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mattar et al (US 2022/0032202 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mattar discloses a system comprising a processor and a memory device (Fig. 6) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to receive, from a streaming device, data associated with an event (¶ [0051]: video data and audio data output by the video game application as one or more data streams), determine whether any notification events occur in association with the data received from the streaming device (Abstract: events occurring during gameplay session), and responsive to the determination being that a notification event occurred in association with the data received from the streaming device automatically generate content associated with the event (Abstract: identify the segments associated with recorded gameplay events from the gameplay session), wherein at least one of the determination and the automatic generation occur based on a use of an artificial intelligence model (506) and communicate, to a device, a notification comprising the generated content (Abstract: create and output video data for a gameplay segment).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Mattar discloses wherein the event is currently occurring in association with the streaming device (¶ [0075]).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Mattar discloses using the artificial intelligence model to correlate the data associated with the event to a notification data cluster to determine whether any notification events occur (¶ [0068]: the storyboard generation system may use machine learning models to determine how to modify the output of events that are preferred by users).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Mattar discloses wherein the notification data cluster is associated with an identified user (¶ [0068]: the storyboard generation system may use machine learning models to determine how to modify the output of events that are preferred by users).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Mattar discloses use the artificial intelligence model to correlate the data associated with the event to a notification content data cluster to automatically generate the content (¶ [0068]: the storyboard generation system may use machine learning models to determine how to modify the output of events that are preferred by users).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Mattar discloses wherein the notification content data cluster is associated with an identified user (¶ [0068]: the storyboard generation system may use machine learning models to determine how to modify the output of events that are preferred by users).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Mattar discloses wherein the device comprises a client device (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Mattar discloses system comprising a processor and a memory device (Fig. 6) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive, from a streaming device, data associated with an event (¶ [0051]: video data and audio data output by the video game application as one or more data streams), and responsive to a notification event occurring in association with the data received from the streaming device automatically generate first content associated with the event (Abstract: identify the segments associated with recorded gameplay events from the gameplay session), wherein the automatically generated first content is based on a first use of an artificial intelligence model (506), communicate, to a first device, a first notification comprising the first generated content (Abstract: create and output video data for a gameplay segment), automatically generate second, different content associated with the event (Fig. 5), wherein the automatically generated second, different content is based on a second use of the artificial intelligence model (¶ [0068]: the storyboard generation system may use machine learning models to determine how to modify the output of events that are preferred by users … storyboard generation system may be configured to automatically perform the various modifications to the presentation of the events based on the storyboard configuration settings, user preference settings, social media data, and other types of inputs), and communicate, to a second device, a second, different notification comprising the second, different generated content (Abstract: create and output video data for a gameplay segment).
Regarding claim 11, Mattar discloses. The system of claim 10, wherein the notification event occurs based on a third use of the artificial intelligence model (¶ [0068]: models may be rerun with different input data any arbitrary number of times).
Claim 12 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitations as those in claim 1 above. It is accordingly rejected for the same reasons given supra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattar in view of Davis et al (US 2009/0264190 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Davis suggests—where Mattar does not disclose—wherein the notification event occurs based on an opportunity to place a wager on a play of a game occurring at the streaming device (¶ [0082]: as an example of an event-based notification, a player who is currently free to participate in wagering games may wish to receive notification of specified wagering conditions as soon as they arise, so as not to miss a wagering opportunity). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Mattar and Davis in order to build excitement and increase revenue.
Regarding claim 8, Davis suggests—where Mattar does not disclose—wherein the notification event occurs based on an opportunity to place a wager on a play of a game occurring at the streaming device (¶ [0082]: as an example of an event-based notification, a player who is currently free to participate in wagering games may wish to receive notification of specified wagering conditions as soon as they arise, so as not to miss a wagering opportunity). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Mattar and Davis in order to build excitement and increase revenue.
Response to Arguments
Claims 9 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. 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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf
Prosecution Insights