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 § 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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0367484 A1 to Rodriguez et al.
Re claim 1, Rodriguez teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program causing a computer apparatus to implement a function of providing content to a user,
The abstract describes Rodriguez as being directed to improvements to a chat interface for a messaging application. Fig. 12 illustrates an exemplary computing device of the invention of the disclosure which comprises computer-readable media 1204 including a machine-learning application 1230 used as a companion to a messaging application 1201. [0406] notes that a chat bot “may be implemented as a computer program or application” such as a “software application … that is configured to interact with one or more users”.
the program causing the computer apparatus to perform functions comprising: storing progress information in the computer apparatus, the progress information comprising information for the user to progress the content;
[0043], database 199 stores the following types of data, all of which indicate progress made by one or more users: video data, images, audio data and game data.
[0104] describes stored game progress information that can be sent to update an embedded application. This game progress information includes “different game states” describing “a state of the game indicating a different position of a game piece or player character in a game environment, a state of the game indicating a win, loss, or change in a player’s score”
and [0122] describes that “The server can update a stored history of user selections of content items based on the input information, where the history is associated with the first user of the first device. The stored history can also indicate user selections of content items stored by the server and viewed in other applications used by the first user.”
storing progress control information in association with the progress information and a predetermined character string;
As discussed, in Rodriguez, a machine learning (ML) model controls conversation and/or game progress by outputting suggestions to users based on game states, conversation data, and user selection history. Any data associated with the ML model is interpreted as progress control information. See [0245], [0435].
And regarding an association with predetermined character strings, [0108], describes that text input in chat messages can be interpreted and correlated to contextually relevant topics. An example is interpreting that a text query “can indicate that a user desires to play on a particular side or team in a game”.
receiving an entry of information by the user; determining whether the received information is similar to the predetermined character string;
[0188], text inputs by users can receive language processing to determine semantic meanings.
progressing the content based on the progress control information when it is determined that the received information is similar to the predetermined character string; and outputting answer data responsive to the received information,
[0238], outputs ("answers") can be "hints or tips" describing "how to play the game". [0257], suggestions can be "an opportunity for a player to make a particular action or move" in a "game application" such as when "a game application is waiting on a player action to advance the game state".
[0270], "answers" can involve a "player's objects" such as an attack or conflict between objects, actions made by players, game states, offers or requests.
in [0275], other illustrative answers include outputted instructions to a player’s character to "build a tower," "move pawn to space D1", "play this video next". See also [0278].
wherein the functions further comprise changing the progress information stored in the computer apparatus, the progress information includes information indicating a history of the content, and includes elements obtained while the content progresses.
[0122], a server updates a stored history of user-selected content items (which is both "a history of the content" and "elements obtained while the content progresses"). This stored history is used to effect future suggestions outputted to the player.
[0189] describes changed progress scenarios wherein “a particular status or role” of a user changes “to a different status or role”. An example given is that a user changes from a player role to an observer role. Another example given is that a player character has been eliminated and becomes a ghost within the game environment.
[0342] a user's game performance is stored as historical and used to determine future messages, including objectives, scores attained by the user in the game. And an answer output could note "You're doing better than before" and make new suggested messages based on that new vs historical performance.
Re claims 2, 7, with respect to a plurality of types of answer data being stored and outputted, [0275] identifies a plurality of answer data including “build a tower”, “move pawn to space D1,” and “play this video next.”
Re claims 3-4, regarding decomposing received information into “key points for understanding content of the information,” [0108] describes that user text inputs can be parsed or otherwise processed for content that has meaning within an application. [0188] describes parsing text “to match predefined words or phrases” or “language processing techniques to determine semantic meanings of user input”.
Re claim 6, [0238], outputs ("answers") can be "hints or tips" describing "how to play the game". [0257], suggestions can be "an opportunity for a player to make a particular action or move" in a "game application" such as when "a game application is waiting on a player action to advance the game state".
Re claims 8-9, refer to the rejection of claim 1, wherein a computer apparatus and method of its use are necessarily discussed in the rejection under the computer readable medium of Rodriguez.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0367484 A1 to Rodriguez et al. in view of CN 101639829A to Qing Wang et al.
Re claim 10, Qing Wang is an analogous prior art computer software natural language processing reference that teaches it was known that natural language processing can involve converting text into a vector and searching other text vectors that are similar in order to determine what recommendations to output (see Abstract).
"The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "'[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.'" KSR, 550 U.S. at __, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the natural language processing of Rodriguez could have involved conversion of text into a vector for similarity finding as taught by Qing Wang without causing any unexpected results. This scenario represents rationale C provided by the court.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0024836 A1 Bennett is a prior art AI chatbot powered gaming reference that contains at least the following relevant passages:
teaching the claimed "storing progress information,"
in [0055], an inventory coach model 302 collects in-game data from reference players, such as elite players. This progress information includes useful features, player habits, metrics that can be binned, clustered.
in [0056], metrics quantify a reference player's performance including activity success ratio, scores/ratings, time consumption.
in [0058], illustrative progress information for elite players may be that they 1) crafted small potions, 2) cleansed water, 3) added bamboo to personal inventory.
Other progress information is a player character's own progress information - in [0060], a "current state of inventory management" that serves to compare to progress information of elite players.
in [0068], AI includes a feature extractor that processes raw game data to find useful features.
teaching the pending claimed “progress control information,”
certain GUI's are shown that illustrate inventory-coach-app derived correlations between game progress (inventory items held) and suggestions that can be made 904, 906. See [0076], [0078]
teaching the pending claimed “answers,” [0057], recommendations may be generated for a target player based on inventory resource management. See also [0065], [0069], [0070], [0071], [0079], [0083]
and teaching the claimed progress information including a history of content, elements obtained while content progresses: in [0084], the inventory coach can factor in a currently reached stage or level of a game, achievements, progress already accomplished, of a target player. At least progress already accomplished, already reached stages or levels, achievements and already-identified playstyles qualify as histories of progress information of the target player.
US 2014/0046876 Zhang is a prior art reference that analyzes natural language inputs including the use of semantic parser. A neural network regularly updates user interactions which records behaviors and conversation logs of a user. Refer to [0065], [0077], [0079], which describe semantic parsing and selecting most appropriate responses.
KR 20230171269A describes a game monitor daemon 810 monitoring a game's status through an API and updating a chatbot's server for use in AI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-530.
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.
/STEVEN J HYLINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights