DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or the rules of a game.
In regard to Claims 1 and 14, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., In re: Smith, In re: Marco Guldenaar, and Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] […] method of providing different recommended in-game actions to users of a game, wherein the different recommended in-game actions include a first recommended in-game action and a second recommended in-game action […], the method comprising:
obtaining a first subset of the users and a second subset of the users, such that the first subset of users includes a first user, and such that the second subset of users includes a second user;
effectuating delivery of the first and second recommended in-game actions to […] different users, such that the first recommended in-game action is delivered to the first user and the second recommended in-game action is delivered to the second user;
determining whether individual users in the first subset of users have effectuated performance of the first recommended in-game action, wherein the first user is determined to have performed the first recommended in-game action through first user input […];
determining whether individual users in the second subset if users have effectuated performance of the second recommended in-game action, wherein the second user is determined to have performed the second recommended in-game action through second user input […]; and
generating a new recommended in-game action for a particular subset of the users, wherein the new recommended in-game action is based on one or more of the first recommended in-game action, the second recommended in-game action, and/or determinations whether the individual users in the first subset of users and the second subset of users have effectuated performance of the different recommended in-game actions.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or the rules of a game.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to execute Applicant’s abstract idea embodied as computer code; client computing devices; user interfaces; these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to execute Applicant’s abstract idea embodied as computer code; client computing devices; user interfaces; these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same; and see, e.g., F2 and text regarding same in regard to the claimed user interfaces.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PGPUB US 20130268393 A1 by Haze et al (“Haze”).
In regard to Claim 1, Haze teaches a system configured to provide different recommended in-game actions to users of a game, wherein the different recommended in-game actions include a first recommended in-game action and a second recommended in-game action, the system comprising:
(see, e.g., F4, 400 in regard to “provide different recommended in-game actions to users of a game”);
one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
(see, e.g., F1, 136);
obtain a first subset of the users and a second subset of the users, such that the first subset of users includes a first user, and such that the second subset of users includes a second user; (see, e.g., F3, 302 and 304);
effectuate delivery of the first and second recommended in-game actions to client computing devices associated with different users, such that the first recommended in-game action is delivered to the first user and the second recommended in-game action is delivered to the second user;
(see, e.g., F3, 306);
determine whether individual users in the first subset of users have effectuated performance of the first recommended in-game action, wherein the first user is determined to have performed the first recommended in-game action through first user input into a first user interface of a first client computing device;
determine whether individual users in the second subset of users have effectuated performance of the second recommended in-game action, wherein the second user is determined to have performed the second recommended in-game action through second user input into a second user interface of a second client computing device; and
generate a new recommended in-game action for a particular subset of the users, wherein the new recommended in-game action is based on one or more of the first recommended in-game action, the second recommended in-game action, and/or determinations whether the individual users in the first subset of users and the second subset of users have effectuated performance of the different recommended in-game actions .
(see, e.g., F3, 308 and F7, 702 and 704; see, e.g., p30-31 regarding capturing user inputs made into a user interface).
In regard to Claim 2, Haze teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F3, 306; F3, 308 and F7, 702 and 704.
In regard to Claim 3, Haze teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p30-31 regarding capturing user inputs made into a user interface.
In regard to Claim 4, Haze teaches these limitations. See rejections of Claims 2 and 3.
In regard to Claim 7, Haze teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p29 and 47.
In regard to Claims 9-11, Haze teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p40.
In regard to Claim 14, see rejection of Claim 1.
In regard to Claim 15, see rejection of Claim 2.
In regard to Claim 16, see rejection of Claim 7.
In regard to Claim 18, see rejection of Claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haze, in view of PGPUB US 20130268651 A1 by Greenzeiger (“Greenzeiger”).
In regard to Claims 5-6, Greenzeiger teaches employing metrics including how much average time a user engages with recommended content (see e.g., p66 and 78);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have employed the teaching of Greenzeiger along with the system otherwise taught by Haze, and to have evaluated the effectiveness of a recommended action based on how much average time the user was engaging in that action, in order to increase user satisfaction.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haze, in view of official notice.
In regard to Claims 8 and 17, while Haze teaches making predictions based on, inter alia, a player profile that includes demographic data (see, e.g., p29 and 47), it may fail to specifically teach employing the claimed demographic data, however,
the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that employing such demographic data to characterize individuals was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for more nuanced recommendations to be made. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to allow for more nuanced recommendations to be made.
Claims 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haze, in view of official notice.
In regard to Claims 12-13 and 19-20, while Haze teaches calculating effectiveness metrics in regard to recommendations it may not specifically teach these metrics, however,
the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that calculating such metrics in regard to offers and recommendations was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for more nuanced recommendations to be made. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to allow for more nuanced recommendations to be made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, 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 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.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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
