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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Byskal (US 12,303,791).
Per Claim 1:
Byskal teaches:
- receiving, through a player's interactions with a feature of a software, engagement trends indicating a tendency of the user to remain engaged with the software (“… At operation 514, event indications are received, via the first interface of the game feature integration service, of a plurality of events for which the first video game feature component is designated to send event notifications to the game feature integration service. In some examples, the event indications may be CreateGFCEvent calls that may be received by the game feature integration service. For example, as described above with reference to FIG. 3, line 326 of the API schema 300 specifies a CreateGFCEvent call, which allows an event to be created for a game feature component. The CreateGFCEvent call has parameters GFCid, eventName, and config. GFCid is an identifier for the game feature component for which the event is being created (e.g., the first video game feature component). The eventName parameter is a name for the event. And the config parameter allows a configuration for the event to be specified. As should be appreciated, actions may also be created for the first video game feature component, for example, via CreateGFCAction calls specified at line 321 of FIG. 3. …” in column 12, lines 18-37)
- determining, based on the engagement trends, one or more suggested interventions to the player's available interactions with the feature of the software; and based on the one or more suggested interventions to the player's interactions with the feature of the software, generating an integration code, that, when implemented into the software, allows the software to receive the one or more suggested interventions (“… At operation 516, action indications are received, via the first interface of the game feature integration service, of a plurality of actions that are designated for the game feature integration service to call on the second video game feature component. In some examples, the action indications may be CreateGFCAction calls that may be received by the game feature integration service. For example, as described above with reference to FIG. 3, line 321 of the API schema 300 specifies a CreateGFCAction call, which allows an action to be created for a game feature component. The CreateGFCAction call has parameters GFCid, actionName, and config. GFCid is identifier for the game feature component for which the action is being created (e.g., the second video game feature component). The actionName parameter is a name for the action. And the config parameter allows a configuration for the action to be specified. As should be appreciated, events may also be created for the second video game feature component, for example, via CreateGFCEvent calls specified at line 326 of FIG. 3. …” in column 12, lines 38-56; and also see e.g. column 13, lines 32-49)
Per Claim 2:
Byskal teaches:
- automatically adjusting one or more parameters of the software for the player based on the one or more suggested interventions (column 12, lines 51-56).
Per Claim 3:
Byskal teaches:
- tracking a success factor relating to the automatic integration of the one or more suggested interventions into the software and the engagement of the player with the one or more features of the software (column 14, lines 6-19).
Per Claim 4:
Byskal teaches:
- adjusting one or more of the one or more suggested interventions based on the success factor (column 14, lines 6-19).
Per Claim 5:
Byskal teaches:
- notifying, via a graphical user interface, a user of the one or more suggested interventions to the player's interactions with the feature of the software; and prompting the user to allow the one or more suggested interventions to the player's interactions with the feature of the software (column 13, line 62 to column 14, line 5).
Per Claim 6:
Byskal teaches:
- upon the user allowing the one or more suggested interventions to the player's interactions with the feature of the software, integrating the suggested interventions into the interactive software (column 14, lines 6-19).
Per Claim 7:
Byskal teaches:
- tracking a success factor relating to the integration of the one or more suggested interventions into the software and the engagement of the user with the one or more features of the software (column 14, lines 6-19).
Per Claim 8:
Byskal teaches:
- adjusting one or more of the one or more suggested interventions based on the success factor (column 14, lines 6-19).
Per Claim 9:
Byskal teaches:
- wherein the feature of a software may comprise one or more of: rewards earned in game, level in game, and frequency of interactions with an object or player in the game (column 12, lines 18-37).
Per Claims 11 & 13-18:
These are system versions of the claimed method discussed above (claims 1 and 3-8, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, these claims are also anticipated by Byskal.
Per Claim 12:
Byskal teaches:
- automatically integrating the one or more suggested interventions into the software (column 12, lines 51-56).
Per Claim 20:
This is a medium version of the claimed method discussed above (claim 1, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also anticipated by Byskal.
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) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byskal (US 12,303,791) in view of DeVico (US 2021/0023453).
Per Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, Byskal does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more suggested interactions may comprise one or more of: increasing a number of rewards, offering a discount, and decreasing level difficulty.
However, DeVico teaches wherein the one or more suggested interactions may comprise one or more of: increasing a number of rewards, offering a discount, and decreasing level difficulty (par. 0012).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Byskal to include wherein the one or more suggested interactions may comprise one or more of: increasing a number of rewards, offering a discount, and decreasing level difficulty using the teaching of DeVico. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use machine learning to increase or decrease a level of difficulty in video games (DeVico, par. 0001).
Per Claim 19:
This is a system version of the claimed method discussed above (claim 10, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hwang (US 2021/0252394) teaches a method for monitoring interactions in video games.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QAMRUN NAHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on (571)272-3759. 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.
/QAMRUN NAHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights