DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “moduleswith” should read “modules with.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations switching probabilities PMLi, PSLi, PSLd, and PSLm. There are no explanations, descriptions, or definitions in the claim defining these variables, their subscripts, and how they differ (or indeed, do not differ) from each other. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the probabilities being taken into consideration in the processes defined by the claims and therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-11 are dependent on claim 1 and inherit these deficiencies.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the respective game module.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation PSLD1. Similarly to claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning or definition of the subscript in the variable P. Furthermore, while claim 2 recites the language “the probability,” the claim follows up with the aforementioned PSLD1. Claim 1 has previously defined switching probabilities with multiple different subscripts, and as such, it is unclear whether “the probability” of claim 2 is meant to be a reference to one of the probabilities already defined by claim 1 and thus claim 1 is missing the limitation PSLD1, or whether claim 2 is meant to be reciting a new, different probability, with the language of claim 2 being deficient. The Examiner will assume that the probability of claim 2 is a new probability to be added onto the previously defined probabilities until correction and clarification can be provided by Applicant.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the respective level dimension." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the region" and “the boundary values.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the respective minimum sub-level value" and “the respective level dimension.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the probabilistic processes.” It is unclear whether this refers to the first and second probabilistic processes claimed in claim 12, or whether a new set of probabilistic processes separate from the first and second are being claimed. The Examiner will assume that they refer to the first and second probabilistic processes until correction by Applicant.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the current difficulty level." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the weight." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the user’s current gaming performance." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the respective game." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a subset for next quest.” It is unclear whether this is a grammatical or typographical error, or whether the limitation “next quest” should have been defined somewhere in claim 1. It will be assumed that the limitation is a typographical error and the Examiner will interpret the claim as reading “a next quest” until further clarification and correction can be provided by Applicant.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the user’s current gaming performance." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation "the action video game hub." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the following brain functions." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the difficulty level." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the main level." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the sub-levels." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the current sub-level." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the one sub-level." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the probability." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the current sub-level." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the maximum sub-level value." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 states “such distances.” It is unclear what is being referred to with the word “such,” as this could either suggest that the comparison is using only distances matching those found in the current sub-level value, or possibly distances closely matching, or perhaps even not matching at all.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the current main level." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the respective level dimension." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the region" and “the boundary values.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the probabilistic processes.” It is unclear whether this refers to the first and second probabilistic processes claimed in claim 12, or whether a new set of probabilistic processes separate from the first and second are being claimed. The Examiner will assume that they refer to the first and second probabilistic processes until correction by Applicant.
Claim 16 uses the language “wherein generating further comprises.” It is not clear whether this generating refers to the earlier limitation of “generate a setting,” or whether a new generating is taking place. The Examiner will assume the former until clarification can be provided.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the main level." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the sub-levels." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the one sub-level." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the probability to determine the current sub-level." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the distance of the current sub-level value" and “the maximum sub-level value” and “the particular.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the other level dimensions" and “the current main level.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 states “such distances.” It is unclear what is being referred to with the word “such,” as this could either suggest that the comparison is using only distances matching those found in the current sub-level value, or possibly distances closely matching, or perhaps even not matching at all.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the respective level dimension." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the region" and “the boundary values.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the probabilistic processes.” It is unclear whether this refers to the first and second probabilistic processes claimed in claim 12, or whether a new set of probabilistic processes separate from the first and second are being claimed. The Examiner will assume that they refer to the first and second probabilistic processes until correction by Applicant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable upon correction of the above-noted deficiencies.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of a system that automatically adapts difficulty levels of video games to improve a learning-to-learn capability of a user as outlined by the claims. While there are examples in the prior art of adaptive difficulty in games used to train users (see for example Cohen et al, US 2018/0147493, pars. [0034], [0068], [0074], and [0147] to [0151]), the particular way that the invention utilizes multiple modules, switching between multiple probabilistic processes, and level dimensions are not realized by the prior art. Even if such elements could be found individually in the prior art, there would be no motivation to combine them and arrive at the claimed invention without undue experimentation and/or impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715