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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1, 10, and 12, applicant claims “the application of the second video game being independent of the application of the first video game”, this limitation is effectively a negative limitation, as applicant is arguing that these two video games have no contingencies or relationship with one another. There is nothing within the specification that explicitly states this to be the case, and as such this limitation is new matter. A lack of teaching of a dependence would not be sufficient to overcome this rejection, as a negative limitation is not taught by the specification merely via absence of a teaching, however the claims themselves appear to show a clear dependence, as both the first video game and second video game are on the same data processing apparatus, which stores information of a general difficulty rating for both video games which is used by both video games to determine their game specific video game parameters, thus showing that these two games are not independent. The dependent claims are further rejected for including the new matter of the independent claims.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-21 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.
In claims 1, 10, and 12, applicant claims “the application of the second video game being independent of the application of the first video game” but claims these two games as residing on the same data processing apparatus, which stores information of a general difficulty rating for both video games which is used by both video games to determine their game specific video game parameters, thus showing that these two games are not independent. The dependent claims are further rejected for including the indefinite language of the independent claims.
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 1-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 and 12 pass step 1 of the test for eligibility.
As per step 2A prong one, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Representative claim 1 recites, with emphasis added:
A data processing apparatus comprising circuitry configured to:
store information indicative of a general difficulty rating associated with each of one or more general gaming characteristics applicable to a plurality of video games;
provide access to the stored information to an application of a first video game to enable a specific difficulty rating associated with a specific gaming characteristic applicable to the first video game to be determined based on each general difficulty rating according to a lookup table specific to the first video game; and
provide access to the stored information to an application of a second video game, the application of the second video game being independent of the application of the first video game to enable a specific difficulty rating associated with a specific gaming characteristic applicable to the second video game to be determined based on each general difficulty rating according to a lookup table specific to the second video game
wherein one or more game specific difficulty parameters of the second video game are automatically configured based on the specific difficulty rating.
The above underlined portion of representative claim 1 recites a judicial exception because they are mental processes, as all of the steps could be performed entirely with the human mind or with pen and paper as a human (such as a game master in a tabletop role playing game) could write down general difficulty preferences of various players of physical games, and modify the specific physical games based upon these preferences.
Next, as per step 2A prong two, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements recited above that are not underlined in representative claim 1 comprise the additional elements. As discussed in more detail below, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
A data processing apparatus comprising circuitry as well as the game being a video game is/are not an integration into a practical application as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Providing access to stored information to an application as well as lookup tables specific to the video games is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are insignificant data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. 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.
Next, as per step 2B, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
A data processing apparatus comprising circuitry as well as the game being a video game does not amount to significantly more as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Providing access to stored information to an application as well as lookup tables specific to the video game is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are well known data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), thus they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception. 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.
The dependent claims of 2-9, 13-21 are further rejected under 101 for the reasons described above as they simply further define the abstract idea (which makes the abstract idea no less abstract) without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. 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.
Further, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 5-8, 10, 12, 13, and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aghdaie (US 20170259177).
In claim 1, Aghdaie discloses
Store information indicative of a general difficulty rating associated with each of one or more general gaming characteristics applicable to a plurality of video games (Paragraph 90-93, 101-104 discloses a user’s engagement characteristics such as being more successful at certain challenges than other users. This user engagement characteristics would be general difficulty ratings associated with general gaming characteristics applicable to a plurality of video games)
Provide access to the stored information to an application of a first video game to enable a specific difficulty rating associated with a specific gaming characteristic applicable to the first video game to be determined based on each general difficulty rating according to a lookup table specific to the first video game and (paragraphs 107-119 discloses adjusting the difficulty of a video game based on the user engagement characteristics. These are specific difficulty ratings associated with specific gaming characteristics such as “modify the timing of item drops within the video game and/or the type of item drops within the video game” or “modifying the layout of a level within the video game” as per paragraph 115. These configuration values are associated with a specific cluster as per paragraph 111, which would be a lookup table)
Provide access to the stored information to an application of a second video game, the application of the second video game being independent of the application of the first video game to enable a specific difficulty rating associated with a specific gaming characteristic applicable to the second video game to be determined based on each general difficulty rating according to a lookup table Wherein one or more game specific difficulty parameters of the second video game are automatically configured based on the specific difficulty rating (paragraph 89 discloses that this invention is described as being related to one video game, however it may be implemented on a plurality of video games, thus this limitation is also taught by paragraphs 107-119 as described above, but for a second game as taught by paragraph 89, these video games are independent, and are taught to be distributed across a number of different genres, and teaches specific difficulty parameters to the second game, such as an item drop rate, or the layout of the level)
In claims 2 and 13, Aghdaie discloses the one or more general gaming characteristics comprise one or more of: an indication of a reaction speed required by a suer in responding to stimuli in a video game, an indication of a complexity of a problem a user must solve in a video game, an indication of a number of simultaneous tasks a user must perform in a video game, an indication of an ability of a competitor in a video game, and an indication of a capacity of an in game character or object controlled by a user to sustain injury or damage (it is noted by examiner that this is a Markush group, and as such, only 1 of these limitations must be taught, in this case, paragraph 40 discloses modifying the health of the enemy character)
In claims 5, 16 and 18, Aghdaie discloses receive gameplay data generated by a user playing the first video game and adjust, using the gameplay data, a specific difficulty rating associated with a specific gaming characteristic applicable to the second video game (paragraphs 90-93, and 101-104. The player’s historical gameplay affects/adjusts the users general difficulty rating, which in turn adjusts the specific difficulty rating. Paragraph 150 discloses using historical data from second video games to affect the user general ratings used for first video games.)
In claims 6, 17 and 19, Aghdaie discloses determine, using the gameplay data, a classification of the user indicative of a gaming ability of the user and adjust the specific difficulty rating associated with the specific gaming characteristic applicable to the second video game using the determined classification (paragraph 53 discloses a clustering system which classifies users together)
In claims 7 and 20, Aghdaie discloses the first and second video game are of the same video game category and the classification of the user is applicable to video games of the same video game category (paragraph 89 discloses the games may be of the same genre)
In claims 8 and 21, Aghdaie discloses the first and second video games are of different respective video game categories and the classification of the user is applicable to video games of the different video game categories (paragraph 89 discloses the plurality of video games may be distributed among a number of genres)
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) 3, 4, 9, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aghdaie.
In claims 3 and 14, Aghdaie discloses the claimed invention except the circuitry is configured to receive an input from a user selecting a general difficulty rating associated with each of the one or more general gaming, however Official notice is taken that manually setting difficulty settings rather than automatically was notoriously well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Aghdaie with this well known technique in order to allow for the user to have more control over their profile
In claims 4 and 15, Aghdaie discloses the information indicative of the general difficulty rating associated with each of one or more general gaming characteristics is stored in associating with a gaming profile of the user (the BRI of “user profile” is just information about a user. The “user engagement characteristics” of paragraphs 90-93 and 101-104 teaches the BRI of user profile)
In claim 9, Aghdaie discloses the claimed invention except the circuitry is configured to receive an input from a user activating or deactivating the adjustment of the specific difficulty rating associated with the specific gaming characteristic applicable to the second video game, however Official notice is taken that providing a user with an option to turn off a feature was notoriously well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Aghdaie with this well known technique in order to provide the user with more control over adjustments made by their profile, as well as to avoid unwanted adjustments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 overcomes the 101 rejection as it is directed towards a technical implementation, pointing to the instant application’s specification. This is non responsive to Examiner’s rejection, and provides no arguments as to why the limitations found to be abstract are not abstract beyond conclusory statements.
Applicant argues that the claims do not contain new matter, Examiner disagrees, and made this concern of note during the interview conducted on 4/9, and yet no guidance was provided in the arguments as to where in the specification this independence between games was disclosed.
Applicant argues generally that the newly added limitations are not taught by Aghadie, however examiner disagrees as set forth above.
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.
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 THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, 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 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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights