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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 9, & 17, the Applicant argues [Remarks: pg. 11, last para. – pg. 13, 3rd para.], that “the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea” and that “the claims are nevertheless integrated into a practical application”.
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Regarding “the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea” [Remarks: pg. 11, last para. – pg. 12, 1st para.], there is no explicit recitation of what the telemetry data is. For example, in a player can observe that they lost, had a lower score, didn’t produce as many workers [Starcraft II], or they had low APM [actions per minute, Starctaft II telemetry data]. Based on the observation of losing and seeing the data, a human mind either mentally or using pen and paper, could easily determine and initiate assistance from a better gamer, such as the gamer that won the match.
The hub devices, user devices, and display devices, are generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in an information handling system.
Thus, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Regarding “the claims are nevertheless integrated into a practical application” [Remarks: pg. 12, 2nd para. – pg. 13, 3rd para.], the premise that “a gamer may be unaware of potential gaming resources local to the gamer (such as family member or roommates who are also gamers) with who they already have social connection and share common interests (such as playing the same games)” is highly unlikely.
At the time of and before the invention, adults that grew up gaming are parents that now have children. The parents and children would have their own devices to game on [for example individual laptops]. When the parent observes that their child is struggling with a gaming challenge [through yelling, crying, sweating, facial expression, throwing objects], the parent may intervene and help the child get through the gaming challenge by demonstrating the game play mechanic or strategy. Often times multiple sessions are required.
A child that’s interested in gaming will talk to their parents about the games that interest them, especially if the parent is a gamer themselves.
In another example, in Minecraft, where siblings like a younger and older brothers would play on the same session co-operatively working together, the younger brother, struggling to survive the creeper attacks [gets killed by creepers, a type of enemy in the game], express frustration through yelling, slamming the controller, appearing upset. The younger brother could observe and mentally identify that the older brother is surviving better than the himself and seek out assistance from the older brother regarding the challenges. The older brother can also mentally identifies that the younger brother is stuck in a challenge and the older brother assists the younger brother with the current challenge. The older brother may show the younger brother how to survive by showing the younger brother how to build structures and the brothers can work on building structures quickly by crafting improved tools in a cooperative learning session. The older brother may also show the younger brother how to craft armor and weapons to fight back against the creepers in a separate additional cooperative learning session.
Of course, the younger and older brother would be talking about Minecraft constantly sharing tips, tricks, and experiences [brothers typically being roommates and family members].
Again, the hub devices, user devices, and display devices, are generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in an information handling system.
Thus, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Thus, the rejection under § 101 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 9, & 17, the Applicant argues [Remarks: pg. 14, 1st para. – pg. 16, 2nd para.], that “Therefore, the cited portions of Benedetto describe assistance information in the form of short commentary or video recordings that may be provided to a user struggling with a game. These portions of Benedetto, however, do not disclose or suggest that a gaming assistance session of a gaming application, comprising both the first user and the second user, is initiated based on a recommendation for the first user. Stated another way, the cited portions of Benedetto do not describe initiating a gaming assistance session in which both the first user and second user can play together in the same environment.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Refer to paragraph 17 of Benedetto, which teaches displaying an in-game avatar that a first user can visually see when in-game that can provide assistance via a hub formed by first party platform 110, assistance server 130, & performance server 140. The in-game avatar corresponding to a second user providing assistance, in the same environment as the first user.
Thus, Benedetto teaches initiating a gaming assistance session in which both the first user and second user can play together in the same environment.
[An example implementation would be from the game Elden Ring, where an in-game avatar [player Let Me Solo Her, who won PC Gamer, Gamer of the year 2022, operating his own user device] is summoned into the player’s game environment to help defeat a challenging boss [Malenia a challenging boss battle in Elden Ring], often times summoned because the player themselves cannot defeat the challenging boss.]
Thus, Benedetto teaches the amended independent claims.
Regarding claim 6, the Applicant argues [Remarks: pg. 16, 3rd para. – pg. 17, 2nd para.], that “Therefore, the cited portions of Benedetto do not describe that an excitement level of an assisting user is used to determine a performance rating for said user. Accordingly, the cited portions of Benedetto fail to disclose "determining the second performance rating based on the skill level and the excitement level of the second user, wherein the second performance rating meets the threshold performance rating when the skill level of the second user meets a threshold skill level and the excitement level of the second user meets a threshold excitement level," as recited in claim 6. Thus, claim 6 is further distinguishable in its own right at least for the additional features it recites. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Refer to paragraph 72 of Benedetto, which states: “The frustration level of the user can also be compared with the general frustration level of other players within the same game facing the same event/obstacle/challenge. Based on whether the frustration level of the user is higher or lower than the general frustration level of the other players, the personal threshold level of the user can be adjusted accordingly since this may be indicative that the user is more or less frustrated than other players.”
Data corresponding to other users [players, assisting user] are tracked [see para. 21-22 of Benedetto], and the other user are utilized for assistance information. Some of the other users are characterized as experience or professional.
The frustration level of the other players [users] is also tracked. The frustration level of the other player is compared to the frustration level of the user [see para. 72].
Thus, Benedetto teaches claim 6.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes (concepts performed in a human mind, including as an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and/or mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claim(s) 1, 9, & 17 recite(s) a method, an information handling device, and a computer program product that matches a first user to a second expert user in a gaming environment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims 1, 9, & 17 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claims 1, 9, & 17 are directed to a method, an information handling device, and a computer program product for intelligent gaming assistant for relationship identification in a dynamic gamin environment.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claims 1, 9, & 17 comprise mental processes and/or mathematical concepts that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
As to independent claim(s) 1, 9, & 17, the limitations recite:
receiving, by a hub device from a first user device, first telemetry data associated with a first user during a first user session of a gaming application (this step falls into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas because gathering telemetry data can be performed by observing the final scores of a first user corresponding to a session of a game at the first user’s device, see example drawing 1 below “Skynet” of team 1 observing their score of 30,708 and defeat);
receiving, by the hub device from a second user device, second telemetry data associated with a second user during a second user session of the gaming application (this step falls into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas because gathering telemetry data can be performed by observing the final scores of a second user corresponding to a session of a game at the second user’s device, see example drawing 1 below “Skynet” of team 1 observing that “Yan” of team 2 has a score of 44,825 and telemetric data from “Yan”’s computer such as units produced);
generating, by the hub device, a recommendation for a gaming interaction between the first user and the second user based on a comparison of the first telemetry data and the second telemetry data, wherein the recommendation is for a gaming assistance session for the first user (this step falls into the “mental process” & “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because comparing telemetry data can be performed by observing the final scores of the first user and comparing the first user’s final score to the final scores of the second user, the first user can then decide how to interact with the second user, see example drawing 1 below “Skynet” of team 1 can decide to initiate a chat with “Yan” of team 2 for assistance);
“transmitting, by the hub device, the recommendation for the gaming assistance session for the first user to a display device associated with at least one of the first user device or the second user device as part of an audio/visual (AV) output generated by the hub device, wherein the display device is a first display device in a first gaming environment associated with the first user session” (this step falls into the “mental process” & “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the first user can send a chat request to interact with the second user to talk and/or set up another session, displaying a chat interface to user as means for communicated between “Skynet” of team 1 & “Yan” of team 2, Also StarCraft II is a video game played with a display, and when connected over Battle.net and/or over LAN, would be transmitting audio/visual (AV), wherein a display device of each user “Yan” & Skynet” displays a corresponding session corresponding to Starcraft II)
initiating, by the hub device, the gaming assistance session between the first and second users based on the recommendation via a second display device in a second gaming environment, wherein the gaming assistance session is of the gaming application and comprises the first user and the second user (this step falls into the “mental process” & “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the first user can send a chat request to interact with the second user to talk and/or set up another session [as a second gaming environment], displaying a chat interface to user as means for communicated between “Skynet” of team 1 & “Yan” of team 2, Also StarCraft II is a video game played with a display, and when connected over Battle.net and/or over LAN, would be transmitting audio/visual (AV) through a hub such as a server when playing over Battle.net, wherein “Skynet” and “Yan” can play another session).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
1200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing 1: Exemplary after multiplayer session summary with telemetric data for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty.
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could mentally observe their own telemetric data and compare their telemetric data to another user’s telemetric data to decide whether to seek out the another user for further interactions.
The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a hub device, a first user device, a second user device, and display device does not take the limitations out of the mental process and/or mathematical concepts groupings. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1, 9, & 17 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Independent claims 1, 9, & 17discloses a hub device, a first user device, a second user device, and display device, which are generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in an information handling system.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim(s) 1, 9, & 17 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claims 1, 9, & 17 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claims 1, 9, & 17 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
As to claim(s) 2, 10, & 18, the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “wherein each of the first and second user devices is a wireless game controller associated with the respective first and second users” are generic computer components.
As to claim(s) 3, 11, & 19, the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “wherein the recommendation is transmitted to the first user device, and wherein generating the recommendation comprises:
determining a first performance rating of the first user for a portion of the gaming application, based on the first telemetry data;
determining a second performance rating of the second user for the portion of the gaming application, based on the second telemetry data; and
generating the recommendation for the gaming assistance session between the first user and the second user when the first performance rating of the first user is below a threshold performance rating and the second performance rating of the second user meets the threshold performance rating” falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim(s) 4, 12, & 20, the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “wherein the threshold performance rating is based on an average performance rating of other users with respect to the portion of the gaming application” falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim(s) 5 & 13, the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “wherein the method further comprises:
displaying a prompt via the first display device, the prompt requesting confirmation that the first user agrees to receive gaming assistance from the second user for the portion of the gaming application;
receiving a response to the prompt from the first device of the first user; and
initiating the gaming assistance session between the first and second users via a second display device in a second gaming environment when the response includes the requested confirmation” falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim(s) 6 & 14, the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “wherein the second telemetry data includes session data and wellness data associated with the second user, and wherein determining the second performance rating comprises:
determining a skill level of the second user with respect to the portion of the gaming application, based on the session data;
determining an excitement level of the second user based on the wellness data; and
determining the second performance rating based on the skill level and the excitement level of the second user, wherein the second performance rating meets the threshold performance rating when the skill level of the second user meets a threshold skill level and the excitement level of the second user meets a threshold excitement level” falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim(s) 7 & 15, the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “determining, based on the first telemetry data and the second telemetry data, a first interaction event between the first user and the second user; and
determining a relationship between the first and second users based on a model associated with at least one of the first user or the second user,
wherein the recommendation is further generated based on the determined relationship” falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim(s) 8 & 16, the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “receiving third telemetry data for a second interaction event between the first user and the second user after transmitting the recommendation to the first device; and
updating the model based on the third telemetry data” falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Thus, since claims 1-20 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, & 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benedetto et al. (US 20190209925).
As to claim 1, Benedetto discloses a method [abstract] comprising:
receiving, by a hub device (hub device formed by first party platform 110, assistance server 130, & performance server 140) [fig. 1 & para. 20-21] from a first user device (gaming console 120 with controller 122) [fig. 1 & para. 20-21, 24, 28, & 40], first telemetry data associated with a first user during a first user session of a gaming application (tracking of user within game) [para. 20, 24-29, 28-29, 32, 40, & 58];
receiving, by the hub device from a second user device (other gaming consoles with corresponding controllers) [fig. 1 & para. 21-23, & 28], second telemetry data associated with a second user during a second user session of the gaming application (other users information collected) [para. 21, 24, 28-29, 32, 40, 58, & 72];
generating, by the hub device, a recommendation for a gaming interaction between the first user and the second user based on a comparison of the first telemetry data and the second telemetry data (gameplay information and/or commentary from experienced or professional user, in the form of a “hint”, “advice”, or “walk-through”) [para. 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72], wherein the recommendation is for a gaming assistance session for the first user [para. 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72];
transmitting, by the hub device, the recommendation for the gaming assistance session for the first user to a display device associated with at least one of the first user device or the second user device as part of an audio/visual (AV) output generated by the hub device (in-game ghost) [para. 17 & 21-22 & abstract], wherein the display device is a first display device in a first gaming environment associated with the first user session (gaming console 120 with controller 122) [fig. 1 & para. 20-21, 24, 28, & 40]; and
initiating, by the hub device, the gaming assistance session between the first and second users based on the recommendation via a second display device in a second gaming environment, wherein the gaming assistance session is of the gaming application and comprises the first user and the second user (in-game avatar appears in player’s game, in-game avatar corresponding to second user on second user) [para. 17, 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72].
As to claim 2, Benedetto discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second user devices is a wireless game controller associated with the respective first and second users [para. 40].
As to claim 3, Benedetto discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the recommendation is transmitted to the first user device (in-game ghost) [para. 17 & 21-22 & abstract], and wherein generating the recommendation comprises:
determining a first performance rating of the first user for a portion of the gaming application, based on the first telemetry data (tracking of user within game) [para. 20, 24-29, 28-29, 32, 40, & 58];
determining a second performance rating of the second user for the portion of the gaming application, based on the second telemetry data (other users information collected, other user considered “experienced” or “professional” based on past achievement) [para. 21, 24, 28-29, 32, 40, 58, & 72]; and
generating the recommendation for the gaming assistance session between the first user and the second user when the first performance rating of the first user is below a threshold performance rating and the second performance rating of the second user meets the threshold performance rating (thresholding determines if user needs help and type of help) [para. 21-29, 32, 40, 58, 64, & 72].
As to claim 4, Benedetto discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the threshold performance rating is based on an average performance rating of other users with respect to the portion of the gaming application [para. 32].
As to claim 6, Benedetto discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the second telemetry data includes session data and wellness data associated with the second user [para. 72, 21-22, 24-25, & 28], and wherein determining the second performance rating comprises:
determining a skill level of the second user with respect to the portion of the gaming application, based on the session data [para. 72, 21-22, 24-25, & 28];
determining an excitement level of the second user based on the wellness data [para. 72, 22, 24-25, & 28]; and
determining the second performance rating based on the skill level and the excitement level of the second user (determined experience or professional user) [para. 72, 21-22, 24-25, & 28], wherein the second performance rating meets the threshold performance rating when the skill level of the second user meets a threshold skill level and the excitement level of the second user meets a threshold excitement level [para. 72, 21-22, 24-25, & 28].
As to claim 7, Benedetto discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, based on the first telemetry data and the second telemetry data, a first interaction event between the first user and the second user (gameplay information and/or commentary from experienced or professional user, in the form of a “hint”, “advice”, or “walk-through”) [para. 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72]; and
determining a relationship between the first and second users based on a model associated with at least one of the first user or the second user (relationship being user needing help and an experienced or professional user) [para. 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72],
wherein the recommendation is further generated based on the determined relationship (user seeking help indicating preferred other user for help) [para. 27].
As to claim 8, Benedetto discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising:
receiving third telemetry data for a second interaction event between the first user and the second user after transmitting the recommendation to the first device (subsequent gameplay information and/or commentary from experienced or professional user, in the form of a “hint”, “advice”, or “walk-through”) [para. 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72-73]; and
updating the model based on the third telemetry data (user seeking help further indicating preferred other user for help) [para. 27].
As to claim 9, Benedetto discloses an information handling system configured as a hub device (hub device formed by first party platform 110, assistance server 130, & performance server 140) [abstract & fig. 1 & para. 20-21 & 47], comprising:
a memory [fig. 1 & para. 19 & 47];
at least one processor [fig. 1 & para. 19 & 47] coupled to the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform steps comprising:
receiving, by the hub device from a first user device (gaming console 120 with controller 122) [fig. 1 & para. 20-21, 24, 28, & 40], first telemetry data associated with a first user during a first user session of a gaming application (tracking of user within game) [para. 20, 24-29, 28-29, 32, 40, & 58];
receiving, by the hub device from a second user device (other gaming consoles with corresponding controllers) [fig. 1 & para. 21-23, & 28], second telemetry data associated with a second user during a second user session of the gaming application (other users information collected) [para. 21, 24, 28-29, 32, 40, 58, & 72];
generating, by the hub device, a recommendation for a gaming interaction between the first user and the second user based on a comparison of the first telemetry data and the second telemetry data (gameplay information and/or commentary from experienced or professional user, in the form of a “hint”, “advice”, or “walk-through”) [para. 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72], wherein the recommendation is for a gaming assistance session for the first user [para. 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72];
transmitting, by the hub device, the recommendation for the gaming assistance session for the first user to a display device associated with at least one of the first user device or the second user device as part of an audio/visual (AV) output generated by the hub device (in-game ghost) [para. 17 & 21-22 & abstract], wherein the display device is a first display device in a first gaming environment associated with the first user session (gaming console 120 with controller 122) [fig. 1 & para. 20-21, 24, 28, & 40]; and
initiating, by the hub device, the gaming assistance session between the first and second users based on the recommendation via a second display device in a second Page 5 of 18gaming environment, wherein the gaming assistance session is of the gaming application and comprises the first user and the second user (in-game avatar appears in player’s game, in-game avatar corresponding to second user on second user) [para. 17, 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72].
As to claim 10, Benedetto discloses the information handling system of claim 9, wherein each of the first and second user devices is a wireless game controller associated with the respective first and second users [para. 40].
As to claim 11, Benedetto discloses the information handling system of claim 9, wherein the recommendation is transmitted to the first user device (in-game ghost) [para. 17 & 21-22 & abstract], and wherein generating the recommendation comprises:
determining a first performance rating of the first user for a portion of the gaming application, based on the first telemetry data (tracking of user within game) [para. 20, 24-29, 28-29, 32, 40, & 58];
determining a second performance rating of the second user for the portion of the gaming application, based on the second telemetry data (other users information collected, other user considered “experienced” or “professional” based on past achievement) [para. 21, 24, 28-29, 32, 40, 58, & 72]; and
generating the recommendation for the gaming assistance session between the first user and the second user when the first performance rating of the first user is below a threshold performance rating and the second performance rating of the second user meets the threshold performance rating (thresholding determines if user needs help and type of help) [para. 21-29, 32, 40, 58, 64, & 72].
As to claim 12, Benedetto discloses the information handling system of claim 11, wherein the threshold performance rating is based on an average performance rating of other users with respect to the portion of the gaming application [para. 32].
As to claim 14, Benedetto discloses the information handling system of claim 11, wherein the second telemetry data includes session data and wellness data associated with the second user [para. 72, 21-22, 24-25, & 28], and wherein determining the second performance rating comprises:
determining a skill level of the second user with respect to the portion of the gaming application, based on the session data [para. 72, 21-22, 24-25, & 28];
determining an excitement level of the second user based on the wellness data [para. 72, 21-22, 24-25, & 28]; and
determining the second performance rating based on the skill level and the excitement level of the second user (determined experience or professional user) [para. 72, 21-22, 24-25, & 28], wherein the second performance rating meets the threshold performance rating when the skill level of the second user meets a threshold skill level and the excitement level of the second user meets a threshold excitement level [para. 72, 21-22, 24-25, & 28].
As to claim 15, Benedetto discloses the information handling system of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
determining, based on the first telemetry data and the second telemetry data, a first interaction event between the first user and the second user (gameplay information and/or commentary from experienced or professional user, in the form of a “hint”, “advice”, or “walk-through”) [para. 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72]; and
determining a relationship between the first and second users based on a model associated with at least one of the first user or the second user (relationship being user needing help and an experienced or professional user) [para. 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72],
wherein the recommendation is further generated based on the determined relationship (user seeking help indicating preferred other user for help) [para. 27].
As to claim 16, Benedetto discloses the information handling system of claim 15, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving third telemetry data for a second interaction event between the first user and the second user after transmitting the recommendation to the first device (subsequent gameplay information and/or commentary from experienced or professional user, in the form of a “hint”, “advice”, or “walk-through”) [para. 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72-73]; and
updating the model based on the third telemetry data (user seeking help further indicating preferred other user for help) [para. 27].
As to claim 17, Benedetto discloses a computer program product (hub device formed by first party platform 110, assistance server 130, & performance server 140) [abstract & fig. 1 & para. 20-21 & 47], comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium [abstract & fig. 1 & para. 19-21 & 47] comprising code for performing steps comprising:
receiving, at a hub device from a first user device (gaming console 120 with controller 122) [fig. 1 & para. 20-21, 24, 28, & 40], first telemetry data associated with a first user during a first user session of a gaming application (tracking of user within game) [para. 20, 24-29, 28-29, 32, 40, & 58];
receiving, at the hub device from a second user device (other gaming consoles with corresponding controllers) [fig. 1 & para. 21-23, & 28], second telemetry data associated with a second user during a second user session of the gaming application (other users information collected) [para. 21, 24, 28-29, 32, 40, 58, & 72];
generating, by the hub device, a recommendation for a gaming interaction between the first user and the second user based on a comparison of the first telemetry data and the second telemetry data (gameplay information and/or commentary from experienced or professional user, in the form of a “hint”, “advice”, or “walk-through”) [para. 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72], wherein the recommendation is for a gaming assistance session for the first user [para. 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72]; and
transmitting, by the hub device, the recommendation for the gaming assistance session for the first user to a display device associated with at least one of the first user device or the second user device as part of an audio/visual (AV) output generated by the hub device (in-game ghost) [para. 17 & 21-22 & abstract], wherein the display device is a first display device in a first gaming environment associated with the first user session (gaming console 120 with controller 122) [fig. 1 & para. 20-21, 24, 28, & 40]; and
initiating, by the hub device, the gaming assistance session between the first and second users based on the recommendation via a second display device in a second gaming environment, wherein the gaming assistance session is of the gaming application and comprises the first user and the second user (in-game avatar appears in player’s game, in-game avatar corresponding to second user on second user) [para. 17, 21-29, 32, 58, 64, & 72].
As to claim 18, Benedetto discloses the computer program product of claim 17, wherein each of the first and second user devices is a wireless game controller associated with the respective first and second users [para. 40].
As to claim 19, Benedetto discloses the computer program product of claim 17, wherein the recommendation is transmitted to the first user device (in-game ghost) [para. 17 & 21-22 & abstract], and wherein generating the recommendation comprises:
determining a first performance rating of the first user for a portion of the gaming application, based on the first telemetry data (tracking of user within game) [para. 20, 24-29, 28-29, 32, 40, & 58];
determining a second performance rating of the second user for the portion of the gaming application, based on the second telemetry data (other users information collected, other user considered “experienced” or “professional” based on past achievement) [para. 21, 24, 28-29, 32, 40, 58, & 72]; and
generating the recommendation for the gaming assistance session between the first user and the second user when the first performance rating of the first user is below a threshold performance rating and the second performance rating of the second user meets the threshold performance rating (thresholding determines if user needs help and type of help) [para. 21-29, 32, 40, 58, 64, & 72].
As to claim 20, Benedetto discloses the computer program product of claim 19, wherein the threshold performance rating is based on an average performance rating of other users with respect to the portion of the gaming application [para. 32].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto in view of Vidal (US 20210056603).
As to claim 5, Benedetto teaches the method of claim 3 (see above).
Benedetto does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises:
displaying a prompt via the first display device, the prompt requesting confirmation that the first user agrees to receive gaming assistance from the second user for the portion of the gaming application;
receiving a response to the prompt from the first device of the first user; and
initiating the gaming assistance session between the first and second users via the second display device in the second gaming environment when the response includes the requested confirmation.
Vidal teaches the concept of a method [abstract], wherein a display device [fig. 1 & para. 20-21, 24, & 29] is a first display device in a first gaming environment associated with a first user session [fig. 1 & para. 20-21, 24, & 29], and wherein the method further comprises:
displaying a prompt via the first display device, the prompt requesting confirmation that the first user agrees to receive gaming assistance from the second user for the portion of the gaming application (on-screen GUI element) [fig. 1 & para. 19-21];
receiving a response to the prompt from the first device of the first user [para. 20-21]; and
initiating the gaming assistance session between the first and second users via a second display device in a second gaming environment when the response includes the requested confirmation [fig. 1 & para. 29].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Benedetto, such that the method further utilizes displaying a prompt via the first display device, the prompt requesting confirmation that the first user agrees to receive gaming assistance from the second user for the portion of the gaming application; receiving a response to the prompt from the first device of the first user; and initiating the gaming assistance session between the first and second users via the second display device in the second gaming environment when the response includes the requested confirmation, as taught by Vidal, to improve usability by ensuring stuck user gets assistance by providing incentivize for helping the stuck user, as taught by Vidal [para. 3-4].
As to claim 13, Benedetto teaches the information handling system of claim 11 (see above).
Benedetto does not explicitly teach wherein the steps further comprise:
displaying a prompt via the first display device, the prompt requesting confirmation that the first user agrees to receive gaming assistance from the second user for the portion of the gaming application;
receiving a response to the prompt from the first device of the first user; and
initiating the gaming assistance session between the first and second users via the second display device in the second gaming environment when the response includes the requested confirmation.
Vidal teaches the concept of an information handling system [abstract & fig. 1], wherein a display device is a first display device [fig. 1 & para. 20-21, 24, & 29] in a first gaming environment associated with a first user session [fig. 1 & para. 20-21, 24, & 29] utilizing the steps of:
displaying a prompt via the first display device [fig. 1 & para. 20-21, 24, & 29], the prompt requesting confirmation that the first user agrees to receive gaming assistance from the second user for the portion of the gaming application (on-screen GUI element) [fig. 1 & para. 19-21];
receiving a response to the prompt from the first device of the first user [para. 20-21]; and
initiating the gaming assistance session between the first and second users via a second display device in a second gaming environment when the response includes the requested confirmation [fig. 1 & para. 29].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information processing system of Benedetto, such that the information processing system further utilizes the steps of displaying a prompt via the first display device, the prompt requesting confirmation that the first user agrees to receive gaming assistance from the second user for the portion of the gaming application; receiving a response to the prompt from the first device of the first user; and initiating the gaming assistance session between the first and second users via the second display device in the second gaming environment when the response includes the requested confirmation, as taught by Vidal, to improve usability by ensuring stuck user gets assistance by providing incentivize for helping the stuck user, as taught by Vidal [para. 3-4].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Colp, Tyler (PC Gamer: Gamer of the Year 2022: Let Me Solo Her).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID TUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 10:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at (571)-272-7603. 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.
/DAVID TUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622