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.
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, 9, 16 recite the limitation "the one or more indicators". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims recite “one or more in-game difficulty level indicators” and “one or more game session duration indicators”. The limitation “the one or more indicators” does not clearly reflect one, either, both of the previously stated indicators. The examiner is uncertainly if the recited “the one or more indicators” would be inclusive or exclusive of other player or state information.
All dependent claims are rejected to at least the same reasons.
For the purposes of prior art the examiner is interpreting “the one or more indicators” to be inclusive or any or all indicators of the system regardless of content.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaleal (US 20210358613 A1) and Leurs (WO 2005022910 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, 16 Kaleal teaches :
a method and system (Kaleal, Fig. 1), comprising:
at least one controller communicatively coupled to a hub device executing a gaming application (Kaleal, Fig. 1 element 106 & 116 paragraph [0217]); and
the hub device configured to:
receiving, by a hub device during execution of a gaming application on the hub device, one or more biofeedback indicia for a player of the gaming application via a controller (Kaleal, Fig. 1 element 118) communicatively coupled to the hub, a player profile associated with the player, and in-game contextual information (Kaleal Figs. 5 and 6, profile & context of the user is loaded and used [paragraph 0071], biometric feedback - heart rate, body temp, etc [paragraph 0029]) including at least one or more in-game difficulty level indicator, or one or more game session duration indicators (Kaleal, paragraph [0217] as well as paragraph [0182] custom profiles and exercises, including “intensity, duration, frequency, range of motion, speed, etc” it’s clear that Kaleal teaches a system inclusive of game contextual information as claimed), wherein the one or more indicators are monitored by the hub device continuously or at discrete intervals (Kaleal, paragraph [0217 0219 0247 0262] both real time (continuous) or non real time (discrete) timing can be used to transmit all manner of indicators including player performance, actions, game state, biometrics, etc);
determining, by the hub device, a first mood value for the player (Kaleal, paragraph [0076]);
determining, by the hub device, that the first mood value satisfies one or more criteria, wherein the one or more criteria is determined based on the player profile and the in-game contextual information (Kaleal, mood is used to adjust approach of message delivery based on the user profile and contextual information, paragraph [0040]); and
executing, by the hub device in response to determining that the first mood value satisfies the one or more criteria, an action based on a rule, wherein the rule is based on the first mood value, the player profile, and the in-game contextual information (Kaleal, mood is used to adjust approach of message delivery based on the user profile and contextual information, paragraph [0040]).
Kaleal further teaches :
a wireless interface (Kaeal, Figs. 1 & 21);
at least one processor (Kaleal, Figs. 1 & 20); and
a memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to: receive, during the execution of a gaming application on the at least one processor, integrated with the system described above (Kaleal, Fig. 1, 20 & 21).
Kaleal fails to teach, however Leurs teaches :
determining, by the hub device, a first mood value for the player based on the one or more biofeedback indicia, the player profile, and the in-game contextual information (Leurs summary of invention & page 4 line 25 – page 6 line 25, Fig. 1, this teaches the use of all 3, profile, biometrics, and context data to infer mood).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a mood value based on biofeedback indicia, player profile and in game contextual information as taught by Leurs in order to provide a more nuanced and directed mood analysis as well as better utilize physiological data to the system of Kaleal.
Regarding claims 2, 10, 17 Kaleal in view of Leurs further teaches :
receiving, by the hub device, after the executing, one or more second biofeedback indicia for the player (Kaleal, Fig. 1 paragraph [0125], Leurs pg. 5 lines 20-25); and
determining, by the hub device, a second mood value of the player based on the one or more second biofeedback indicia, the player profile, and the in-game contextual information (Kaleal, Fig. 1 paragraph [0125, 0193, 0196, 0279] continuous adjustments or change, Leurs pg. 5 lines 20-25).
Claims 3-5, 11-13, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal (US 20210358613 A1) and Leurs (WO 2005022910 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 16, 17 above, and further in view of Palamadai (US 20240221909 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 18, 19 Kaleal in view of Leurs further teaches :
Where in the profile of the user can be constantly updated either manually or automatically with edits or additional biometric information (Kaleal, paragraph [0080, 0195])
evaluating, by the hub device, that the second mood value is greater or less than the first mood value; identifying, in response to the evaluating and using machine learning, a respectively positive or negative causal relationship between the first mood value, the action, and the second mood value (Palamadai, Fig. 1, 7 paragraphs [0024, 0025]); and
recording, by the hub device, the positive or negative causal relationship, wherein the recording comprises adding the positive or negative causal relationship into a plurality of recorded causal relationships included in the player profile (Palamadai, Fig. 1, 7 paragraphs [0024, 0025] actions and reactions/feedback are recorded through machine learning nad are added to user profile through causal relationships and a mood value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the machine learning mood and causal relationships and dynamic profile updates to provide a more robust and adaptive profile for the system of Kaleal & Leurs.
Regarding claims 5, 13, 20 Kaleal in view of Leurs further teaches :
identifying, in response to determining that the first mood value satisfies the one or more criteria and using machine learning, a negative causal relationship between the in-game contextual information and the first mood value (Palamadai, Fig. 1, 7 paragraphs [0024, 0025]); and
recording, by the hub device, the negative causal relationship, wherein the recording comprises adding the negative causal relationship into a plurality of recorded causal relationships included in the player profile (Palamadai, Fig. 1, 7 paragraphs [0024, 0025] actions and reactions/feedback are recorded through machine learning nad are added to user profile through causal relationships and a mood value).
Same reasoning for combining as above claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 18, 19.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal (US 20210358613 A1) and Leurs (WO 2005022910 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 16, 17 above, and further in view of Roberts (US 20080227546 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7 Kaleal in view of Leurs further teaches :
wherein the one or more biofeedback indicia comprises a heart rate of the player (Kaleal, Fig. 1 element 118, paragraph [0035], [0217], [0313]).
wherein the heart rate is measured via heart rate monitor located on the controller (Kaleal, Fig. 1 element 118).
Kaleal & Leurs fails to teach, however Roberts teaches :
wherein the one or more biofeedback indicia comprises a heart rate of the player (Roberts, Figs. 1 and 4 [0029]) and a grip force of the player on the controller (Roberts, Fig. 4 paragraph [0009] element 182).
wherein the heart rate is measured via heart rate monitor located on the controller (Roberts, paragraph [0029]), and wherein the grip force is measured via at least two force sensors located on opposite outward faces of a gripping surface of the controller (Roberts, Fig. 4 paragraph [0009] element 182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the controller including grip force of Roberts in to the system of Kaleal & Leurs in order to provide a simple and singular control point from which to obtain biometric data and expand biometric data to be inclusive of grip force which can also be added to the profiles of Kaleal & Leurs.
Note, further regarding claim 7, Kaleal, Leurs and Roberts fail to teach an optical heart rate monitor. The examiner takes official notice that optical heart rate monitors are well known in the art and it would have been obvious to use optical heart rate monitor or any other type of monitor as referred by the designer or user based on need.
Regarding claim 8 Kaleal in view of Leurs and Roberts further teaches :
wherein executing the action comprises initiating haptic cues to the player via the controller, initiating visual lighting cues to the player via the controller, or a combination thereof (Roberts, Fig. 4 display 184 & haptic feedback sensors 182 can be used in combination to provide cues to user paragraph [0009]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection with new interpretation of all claim limitations and their broadest reasonable interpretation & scope.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ke Xiao whose telephone number is 571-272-7776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri from 6AM-2PM.
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.
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.
/KE XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights