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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 16 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (claims 17 and 18, reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. A data processing apparatus comprising:
receiving circuitry to receive video images and associated speech signals for a video game, the speech signals indicative of speech input for a plurality of users associated with the video game;
analysis circuitry to analyze at least some of the video images and generate video description data indicative of one or more properties for the video game; and
selection circuitry to select a subset of the speech signals to be output for the video game, wherein the selection circuitry is configured to select a respective speech signal responsive to whether a comparison for the respective speech signal and the video description data satisfies a selection condition.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Process. More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, the italicized limitations are drawn to the mental process of observing video images and speech signals, analyzing them to generate descriptive data relating to properties relating to a video game and based on the analyzation selecting a subset of speech signals to be output based upon the speech signal and the video description data satisfying a selection criteria. This represents an observation, evaluation and judgment.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): an apparatus and circuitry.
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. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer an apparatus and circuitry. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0041] Figure 3 schematically illustrates an example of a system in which the data processing apparatus 200 is provided at a server side. The data processing apparatus 200 may be implemented using one or more server devices. In the arrangement of Figure 3, the data processing apparatus 200 communicates with the client devices 101-1, 101-2 and 101-3 via the network 100 (which may be any suitable communications network e.g. the Internet). In the example of Figure 3, the client devices are each associated with a different user who may be any of a player user and a spectator user for a video game.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 11 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez et al (US 2020/0021894) in view of Duan et al (US 2022/0038790).
As per claim 1, Sanchez discloses:
receiving circuitry to receive video images and associated speech signals for a video game, the speech signals indicative of speech input for a plurality of users associated with the video game; (Sanchez discloses multiple users creating video comprising video images and commentary (speech signals) for a live game event that is occurring (Sanchez 0016, 0019, 0022, 0062, 0064, 0142). Sanchez discloses the system being used in the context of video games) (Sanchez 0083)
analysis circuitry to analyze at least some of the video images and generate video description data indicative of one or more properties for the video game; and (Sanchez disclose circuitry to analyze a plurality of videos to determine if they comprise properties indicative of keywords or graphics associated the live game, wherein these properties are used to select at least one video of the subset to provide to a first user thereby explaining some portion of the live game they wanted clarification about) (Sanchez 0142)
selection circuitry to select a subset of the speech signals to be output for the video game, wherein the selection circuitry is configured to select a respective speech signal responsive to whether a comparison for the respective speech signal and the video description data satisfies a selection condition. (Sanchez disclose circuitry to analyze a plurality of videos to determine if they comprise properties indicative of keywords or graphics associated the live game, wherein these properties are used to select at least one video of the subset to provide to a first user thereby explaining some portion of the live game they wanted clarification about, thus the audio propertied and the video properties match a selection criteria) (Sanchez 0142)
In the event that it could be argued that Sanchez fails to disclose the game being a video game, Duan discloses a multiplayer game system that utilizes a system to match video game events to game commentaries that describe video game events, Duan discloses the use of a video game system wherein the video game is a multiplayer game wherein the commentary is commentary from the multiplayer game (Duan 0216).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Sanchez in view of Duan to modify a similar system in the same way by utilizing a known technique to utilize game commentary that describes fetches the most relevant game commentary that matches the game situation that is occurring in the multiplayer game. This would be beneficial as it would keep players informed of events that are occurring dynamically within the game.
As per claim 2, wherein the video description data is indicative of one or more types of object detected in at least some of the video images. (Sanchez 0019, 0142)
As per claim 3, wherein the video description data is indicative an audio description for at least some of the video images. (Sanchez 0142)
As per claim 4, wherein the selection circuitry is configured to select the respective speech signal responsive to whether the comparison for the respective speech signal and the video description data indicates that the respective speech signal has at least a threshold content relevance for the video images. (Sanchez discloses a degree of matching) (Sanchez 0022, 0061)
As per claim 5, wherein the selection circuitry is configured to select the respective speech signal in dependence upon a degree of match between spoken words indicated by the respective speech signal and words indicated by the video description data. (Sanchez discloses receiving a keyword input and determining a degree of match to a respective commentary video that is selected to then be presented to the user) (Sanchez 0061, 0138)
As per claim 6, wherein the selection circuitry is configured to select the respective speech signal in dependence on at least one of keyword matching and semantic matching. (Sanchez discloses the matching based upon keyword and tone or context (i.e. semantic) (Sanchez 0008, 0010, 0054, 0056)
As per claim 7, wherein the selection circuity is configured to select a threshold number of the speech signals to be included in the selected subset of the speech signals. (Sanchez discloses the selection of a number of commentary videos in a list of a plurality of videos comprising commentary (i.e. speech signals) (Sanchez 00146)
As per claim 8, wherein the threshold number corresponds to a plurality of speech signals. (Sanchez 00146)
As per claim 9, wherein the threshold number corresponds to one speech signal. (Sanchez 00146)
As per claim 10, wherein the selection circuitry is configured to select a first subset of the speech signals to be output for a first period of time and the selection circuitry is configured to select a second subset of the speech signals to be output for a second period of time that is subsequent to the first period of time, the second subset being different to the first subset. (Sanchez discloses multiple users making spoken word inputs wherein the matched subset of videos may be different selected videos that are presented at subsequent period of time) (Sanchez 0144)
As per claim 11, wherein the selection circuitry is configured to: determine an order of relevance for at least some of the speech signals responsive to a comparison for the at least some of the speech signals and the video description data; and select one or more speech signals according to the order of relevance so as to preferentially select a speech signal of higher relevance instead of another speech signal of lower relevance. (Sanchez discloses the selection of commentary videos based upon a ranked order of relevance 0146).
As per claim 16, Sanchez fails to disclose:
wherein the video game is a live online multiplayer video game and the speech signal correspond to live speech signals for each of a plurality of users associated with the live online multiplayer video game. (Combination of Sanchez in view of Duan as applied to claim 1, wherein Duan discloses a multiplayer video game system)
Independent claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are made obvious by the combination of Sanchez and Duan based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 12 - 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez et al (US 2020/0021894) in view of Duan et al (US 2022/0038790) in view of Vander Mey et al (US 9,113,023)
As per claim 12, Sanchez fails to disclose:
wherein the selection circuitry is configured to determine a first order of relevance for at least some of the speech signals for a first given time and determine a second order of relevance for at least some of the speech signals for a second given time subsequent to the first given time, wherein the selection circuitry is configured to determine the second order of relevance in dependence on a comparison for the at least some of the speech signals and the video description data and also a previous relevance ordering for each of the least some of the speech signals in the first order of relevance.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, the selection of speech signals that related to a video conference system comprising a number of voice signals wherein the subset of speakers that are selected to be presents are based upon a first and second order of relevance that is updated during at least a first and second period of time based upon signals such as who is speaking, how long they have spoken, whether they are the organizer, whether the user prefers them, and whether their video quality is acceptable (Vander Mey 0037-0038, 0053-0064). It then chooses a subset of participants with the most relevant ratings to display at once (Vander Mey 0034-0035, 0076-0082). The display can be adjusted dynamically as the call continues, so the shown participants can change over time (Vander Mey 0081, 0084).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Sanchez in view of Vander Mey to modify similar devices in the same way by means of ordering and reordering commentary or audio signals based upon a sorting metric such as video description data. This would enable the system to determine the most relevant commentary video to present in real-time in a dynamic manner depending on the content that is being talked about.
As per claim 13, wherein the selection circuitry is configured to periodically determine the order of relevance for at least some of the speech signals and periodically select one or more speech signals according to the order of relevance. (Combination of Sanchez in view of Vander Mey as applied to claim 12)
As per claim 14, herein the selection circuitry is configured to detect a predetermined change condition with respect to at least one of the video images and one or more of the speech signals in a currently selected subset and determine another order of relevance responsive to the detected change. (Combination of Sanchez in view of Vander Mey as applied to claim 12, wherein Vander Mey discloses a first and second order of relevance that is updated during at least a first and second period of time based upon signals such as who is speaking, how long they have spoken, whether they are the organizer, whether the user prefers them, and whether their video quality is acceptable (Vander Mey 0037-0038, 0053-0064)
As per claim 15, wherein, the selection circuitry is configured to vary the selected subset of the speech signals to include at least one speech signal determined as being highest relevance for successive time portions of the video images. (Combination of Sanchez in view of Vander Mey as applied to claim 12, wherein Vander Mey discloses a first and second order of relevance that is updated during at least a first and second period of time based upon signals such as who is speaking, how long they have spoken, whether they are the organizer, whether the user prefers them, and whether their video quality is acceptable (Vander Mey 0037-0038, 0053-0064)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
7/25/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights