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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/26 has been entered.
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) 1-13, 5-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Connor (20160375363).
In claims 1, 11, and 19, Connor discloses
Monitoring gameplay of a user of a game, wherein the gameplay is monitored to identify interactive skills of the gameplay by the user during a session of the game (paragraphs 21, 23, 28, 31, 34, 38, figure 2 #210-230, figure 3 #302, 320, 322)
Determining that the interactive skills of gameplay have fallen below a threshold level for progressing the game to a predetermined goal (paragraphs 29, 31, 37, 38, figure 2 #240, figure 3. It is noted by examiner that the BRI of the term “progressing” would simply mean any sort of goal that a player may set for themselves within the game, such as achieving a higher score, or winning a race. The game is assigning a skill level to the game and providing assistance which would result in better results within the game which would result in achieving goals, and thus progressing, see for example paragraph 17, where the races between an elite athlete and a patient become competitive. As the patients “compete against” the elite athlete in a “race”, the predetermined goal is to win the race against the elite athlete)
Initiating gameplay assistance responsive to the interactive skills falling below the threshold level for progressing the game to the predetermined goal, (paragraphs 29, 31, 38, figure 2 #245, figure 3) the gameplay assistance includes a blended bifurcation of user inputs to complete one or more interactive tasks of the game, wherein the blended bifurcation of user inputs includes an amount of assistance inputs that override selected ones of the user inputs (paragraphs 22-25, 29-31, 35-38, figure 2 #250, figure 3 #308, 330)
Wherein the amount of assistance inputs are configured to vary over time during the gameplay of the game to maintain the interactive skills of the gameplay above the threshold level for progressing the game to the predetermined goal (paragraphs 23-25, 29-31, 35-38, figure 3 #308, 330)
In claims 2 and 12, Connor discloses the interactive skills of gameplay include a level of the gameplay (paragraphs 14, 21, 28)
In claims 3 and 13, Connor discloses the threshold level for progressing the game to the predetermined goal is a level for achieving a task during the session or a predetermined number of virtual points during the session or a combination thereof (paragraphs 21, 33)
In claims 5 and 15, Connor discloses the blended bifurcation is provided, generating an indicator indicating the provision of the blended bifurcation (figure 1 #146, paragraph 25)
In claims 6 and 16, Connor discloses said varying amount of assistance includes overriding input controls of a device used by the user (paragraphs 24, 37, 38)
In claims 7, 17, and 20, Connor discloses the assistive inputs are generated by an AI bot (paragraphs 36-38)
In claims 8 and 18, Connor discloses the user is a first user, wherein the assistive inputs are received from a second user having access to the session of the game (paragraphs 18-31, babysitter, mother, husband)
In claim 9, Connor discloses said initiating the gameplay assistance begins an interactive cue is provided to the user to notify that the gameplay assistance is being provided via the blended bifurcation of inputs (figure 1 #146, paragraph 25)
In claim 10, Connor discloses enabling a cancel of the gameplay assistance by the user, responsive to the interactive cue being provided to the user. (paragraphs 25, 31, putting down controller)
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) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor
In claims 4 and 14, Connor discloses providing a hint of an interactive skill of gameplay (It is noted by examiner that regular gameplay display output may teach the BRI of “hint”, as it at provides guidance as to what inputs should be pressed. For example, the display of the road in figure 1 would be a “hint” as to where you’d like for the car to go.), responsive to providing the hint, determining that the interactive skills of gameplay remain below the threshold level for progressing the game to the predetermined goal, (paragraphs 29, 31, 38, figure 2 #245, figure 3) wherein the blended bifurcation of user inputs to complete the one or more interactive tasks of the game is provided responsive to the determining that the interactive skills of gameplay remain below the threshold level for progressing the game to the predetermined goal (paragraphs 22-25, 29-31, 35-38, figure 2 #250, figure 3 #308, 330). Connor fails to disclose the hint is provided via a haptic input however Official notice is taken that use of haptic outputs within video games to provide information about a virtual world was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Connor with this well known technique in order to allow for the gameplay experience to have enhanced realism
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the newly added limitations overcome the prior art of record, arguing “Applicant respectfully requests clarification or correction pointing to the paragraphs of Connor that teach or suggest “the goal of the game itself may be to beat other players”, Examiner already provided paragraph 17 which shows patients competing against an elite athlete in a race. The predetermined goal of a competitive race is to place as highly as possible against other racers.
Applicant argues that paragraph 38 may hurt the player’s ability to progress towards a predetermined goal in some counterexamples, however paragraph 37 discloses an embodiment where the steering values are compared against “a computer controlled player perfom[ing] a perfect turn”.
Conclusion
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