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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 4/20/26. Claims 1 – 20 were previously cancelled, claims 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 – 37, and 39 have been amended. Claims 21 – 39 are pending in the current application.
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 21 - 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 21 – 29, and 39 are directed towards a system and a medium, (machine), and claims 30 – 38 are directed towards a method, (process), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 21 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
21. A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory devices, each of the one or more memory devices communicatively coupled to at least one of the one or more processors, the one or more memory devices storing computer-executable instructions that when executed cause the one or more processors to: deploy an automated curiosity agent for a first instance of a first virtual interactive environment of a video game for a first deployment; associate the curiosity agent to a virtual character of the video game such that the curiosity agent is configured to control the virtual character within the first instance of the first virtual interactive environment; cause the curiosity agent to direct the virtual character to navigate the first virtual interactive environment from at least one spawn point, over a plurality of explorations, wherein each exploration is completed when an exploration threshold is satisfied; store data entries corresponding to each location visited by the virtual character during an exploration; and complete the first deployment when a deployment threshold is satisfied.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 30 and 39. Dependent claims 22 – 29 and 31 - 38 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of managing personal behavior which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that executes a video game wherein an automated non-player character is deployed to assist a player character to progress through the game, wherein the automated character takes control of the player and directs the player character to navigate a virtual environment. Controlling a video game that allows a player to progress through the game represents managing personal behavior.
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that executes a video game where an automated player character is deployed to assist a player character to progress through the game. The claims recite instructions for providing a game with these features. Here, a human can observe the deployment of an automated character, observe the automated character taking control and directing a player character to navigate a virtual environment. A human can then determine that the deployment has been completed and also determine that the exploration is completed when a threshold has met. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor and memory along with instructions that generates and presents a video game to a player, wherein an automated character is presented to assist the player in executing game actions to progress through the game, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
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.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a processor, memory, and a player character associated with a user. The claims further recite the use of an automated character or agent to assist a user, wherein automated gaming agents are known in the art, (See 9,147,314 col. 1, lines 59 – 63 regarding game agents acting on behalf of players and col. 41, lines 64 – 66 regarding automated procedures being known in the art). Therefore, viewed as a whole, this additional element is 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. Viewing 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 processing elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 - 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,878,249.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are drawn towards the system and method claim versions of the parent 11,878,249, except the current claims discloses an automated curiosity agent and the current claims do not include receiving perception data, a visitation buffer, and providing a reward based on the visitation buffer. Therefore the current claims are a broader version of the parent claims regarding this feature, as shown in table below. Independent claims 30 and 39 include similar language to that of independent claim 1, wherein dependent claims 22 – 29 and 31 - 38 include identical language as the dependent claims in the parent 11,878,249. Therefore the claims are not patentably distinct.
Pending Claim 1:
Patented Claim 1:
21. A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory devices, each of the one or more memory devices communicatively coupled to at least one of the one or more processors, the one or more memory devices storing computer-executable instructions that when executed cause the one or more processors to: deploy an automated curiosity agent for a first instance of a first virtual interactive environment of a video game for a first deployment; associate the curiosity agent to a virtual character of the video game such that the curiosity agent is configured to control the virtual character within the first instance of the first virtual interactive environment; cause the curiosity agent to direct the virtual character to navigate the first virtual interactive environment from at least one spawn point, over a plurality of explorations, wherein each exploration is completed when an exploration threshold is satisfied; store data entries corresponding to each location visited by the virtual character during an exploration; and complete the first deployment when a deployment threshold is satisfied.
1. A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory devices, each of the one or more memory devices communicatively coupled to at least one of the one or more processors, the one or more memory devices storing computer-executable instructions that when executed cause the one or more processors to: deploy a curiosity agent for a first instance of a first virtual interactive environment of a video game; associate the curiosity agent to a player character of the video game; cause the curiosity agent to direct the player character to navigate the first virtual interactive environment from a first spawn point, over a plurality of explorations until a navigation threshold is reached, by: (i) receiving, from the curiosity agent, perception data corresponding to one or more of the plurality of explorations performed by the player character, and (ii) providing, to the curiosity agent, one or more navigation commands to cause the curiosity agent to direct the player character, wherein the one or more navigation commands are based at least in part on the perception data and a visitation state buffer; store, within the visitation state buffer, a new data entry corresponding to a new location visited by the player character, wherein the new data entry corresponds to a location of an existing data entry of the visitation state buffer that is beyond a distance threshold; update, within the visitation state buffer, counters associated with each of the existing data entries when the curiosity agent directs a player character to visit a location within the distance threshold of the respective existing data entry; provide, to the curiosity agent, a reward based in part on the visitation state buffer; and determine if a spawn threshold is met, wherein meeting the spawn threshold causes a curiosity agent service to: (i) determine a location for a subsequent spawn point in the first instance of the first virtual interactive environment, and (ii) set the subsequent spawn point in the determined location for a subsequent exploration among the plurality of explorations.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the double-patenting rejection of claims 21 – 39, Applicants requests that the double-patenting rejection be held in abeyance. Therefore, the double-patenting rejection of claims 21 – 39 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 21 – 39 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 21 – 39, Applicants argue that “claims 21 – 39 are patent-eligible”. More specifically, it is argued that “the present rejection of claims 21 – 39 under § 101 is deficient at least because the office action fails to show the claims are directed to an abstract idea” and that “the claims as a whole are broadly overgeneralized and are not directed to commercial or legal interactions or managing personal behavior/interactions”, and that “the claims should be allowed as being directed towards patent eligible subject matter”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to this, while the Examiner agrees that the claims are not directed towards to commercial or legal interactions, the claims are directed towards managing personal behavior. As stated above, the claims are directed to a gaming system that executes a video game wherein an automated non-player character is deployed to assist a player character to progress through the game, wherein an automated agent is deployed into the virtual environment that directs a user character to complete game objectives. This clearly represents managing personal behavior, which falls into the category of organizing human activity. Claims that allow a user to play a game based on certain, (e.g. following rules relating to operational inputs), are transactions relate to the sort of organizing human activities discussed in Bilski and Marco Guldenaar, wherein when a player of the game fulfils certain obligations, (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F. 3d 1157).
Applicants further argue that the claims are “integrated into a practical application”. More specifically, it is argued that the concept of the claimed method of the system “ utilizing a specific video game application architecture to generate curiosity agents that control virtual characters to explore a virtual environment within a video game during an instance of a video game session”, is a practical application, and the claims “constitute significantly more than the abstract idea”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely deploying an automated agent to control and direct user characters to complete game objectives, does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. The claims do not recite how the automated agent improves performance or reliability. The automated agent is a field-of-use limitation, wherein steps like deploying, controlling, and directing, for example, are generic instructions to apply abstract commercial scheme using conventional components, (See 9,147,314 col. 1, lines 59 – 63 regarding game agents acting on behalf of players and col. 41, lines 64 – 66 regarding automated procedures being known in the art). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that claims 1 – 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights