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 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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the number of comments". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1-18 are drawn to an information processing apparatus (machine).
Claim 19 is drawn to an information processing method (process).
Claim 20 is drawn to a program (non-statutory, see further discussion below).
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that claims 1-19 are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
However, under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.
Let us begin by considering the requirements of each independent claim:
Thus, let us take Claim 1 as exemplary:
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
a presentation control unit that controls presentation of information regarding an action target to a first user on a basis of satisfaction of a predetermined condition; and
an information acquisition unit that acquires a first action of the first user after the information regarding the action target is presented (mental process: a mental observation or evaluation of the action being performed (i.e. observing which buttons are being pressed)).
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, independent claims 1, 19, and 20 cover the performance of the limitations in the mind, aside from the reference to generic computer components (e.g. a presentation control unit, an information acquisition unit, a processor).
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 19, and 20 recite the additional elements of a presentation control unit, an information acquisition unit, a processor, and controlling presentation of information. The presentation control unit, information acquisition unit, and processor are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a generic computer components performing generic computer functions like processing data) and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process in their ordinary capacity. In other words, the claims invoke the presentation control unit, information acquisition unit, and processor merely as a tool to execute the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional element of controlling presentation of information regarding an action target to a first user on a basis of satisfaction of a predetermined condition is considered insignificant extra-solution activities related to displaying data and does not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 do not include additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the presentation control unit, information acquisition unit, and processor are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions like processing data) and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The additional elements that were considered insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional. Specifically:
gather[ing] data is well understood, routine, and conventional [MPEP 2106.05(d)]
store[ing] data is well understood, routine, and conventional [MPEP 21060.05(d)]
display[ing] data is well understood, routine, and conventional [MPEP 2106.05(d)]
the combination of these additional elements is also well-known, routine, and conventional: gather[ing] data, store[ing] data, display[ing] data [MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.07(a)]
The combination of additional elements adds nothing that is not already present when considered separately. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims
Claims 2-18 inherit the same abstract idea as claims 1, 19, and 20.
Claims 2-18 recite further additional element limitations related to data gathering, data manipulation, user input, varying conditions for displaying data, and mental determination steps. These additional elements, under their BRI, fall within the mental process grouping(s) of abstract ideas and/or are additional elements that are considered insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activities, and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional, as would flow naturally from the similar recitations discussed above.
Claim 20 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 recites “a program causing a computer to function as an information processing apparatus”. Using its broadest reasonable interpretation, a program would include transitory data signals, which does not fall within a statutory category (see MPEP 2106.03, Section II. ELIGIBILITY STEP 1: WHETHER A CLAIM IS TO A STATUTORY CATEGORY, “For example, the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves).). To overcome the rejection, Applicant should amend claim 20 to recite subject matter that falls within a statutory category as defined by 35 U.S.C. 101.
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) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aghdaie et al. (US 2019/0358545 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Aghdaie discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
a presentation control unit that controls presentation of information regarding an action target to a first user on a basis of satisfaction of a predetermined condition (see par. [0052], On the other hand, if the user consistently does not perform a certain move that is commonly performed in response to a certain game state, this may be indicative of the user not being aware of the move or having trouble performing the move. In such cases, the tutorial engine can provide tutorial information to the user, which provides the user with additional guidance on how to perform the move when the game state is encountered); and
an information acquisition unit that acquires a first action of the first user after the information regarding the action target is presented (see par. [0065], In some embodiments, user feedback may comprise recording a user's actions when the user is presented with tutorial information. For example, various observations such as whether the user attempted to perform the move associated with the tutorial information, whether the user was successful in performing the move, subsequent user gameplay performance or behavior, subsequent user play time, and/or the like).
Regarding claim 2, Aghdaie discloses wherein the presentation control unit determines whether or not the first user has achieved the action target on a basis of the first action and the action target (see par. [0065], For example, various observations such as whether the user attempted to perform the move associated with the tutorial information, whether the user was successful in performing the move, subsequent user gameplay performance or behavior, subsequent user play time, and/or the like).
Regarding claim 3, Aghdaie discloses wherein the information acquisition unit acquires a second action of the first user before the information regarding the action target is presented, and the predetermined condition includes a condition that the second action is different from a predetermined action corresponding to statistical data of one or a plurality of actions recorded in an action log database (see par. [0052], On the other hand, if the user consistently does not perform a certain move that is commonly performed in response to a certain game state, this may be indicative of the user not being aware of the move or having trouble performing the move; having trouble would mean the player is performing the incorrect input).
Regarding claim 4, Aghdaie discloses wherein the statistical data is a frequency for each action in which the one or the plurality of actions recorded in the action log database is executed by one or a plurality of second users, and the predetermined action is an action selected from the one or the plurality of actions in accordance with the frequency (see par. [0052], On the other hand, if the user consistently does not perform a certain move that is commonly performed in response to a certain game state, this may be indicative of the user not being aware of the move or having trouble performing the move; commonly performed would mean that successful players perform a certain input with regular frequency).
Regarding claim 5, Aghdaie discloses wherein at least one of an action of the second user in a real space or an action of a virtual object operated by the second user is recorded in the action log database as the one or the plurality of actions. (see par. [0065], In some embodiments, user feedback may comprise recording a user's actions when the user is presented with tutorial information).
Regarding claim 6, Aghdaie discloses wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition that information issued from the first user is predetermined information set in advance (see par. [0052], On the other hand, if the user consistently does not perform a certain move that is commonly performed in response to a certain game state, this may be indicative of the user not being aware of the move or having trouble performing the move).
Regarding claim 7, Aghdaie discloses wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition that a presentation instruction of the information regarding the action target is input from the first user (see par. [0022], In some embodiments, tutorial information may be provided to the user when the user is playing the game in a tutorial mode; thus the predetermined condition could be the user entering the tutorial mode).
Regarding claim 8, Aghdaie discloses wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition that predetermined indexes obtained within a predetermined time from one or a plurality of second users with respect to the action target are equal to or more than a predetermined number (see par. [0052], On the other hand, if the user consistently does not perform a certain move that is commonly performed in response to a certain game state, this may be indicative of the user not being aware of the move or having trouble performing the move).
Regarding claim 9, Aghdaie discloses wherein the presentation control unit determines, as the action target, an action in which predetermined indexes obtained from one or a plurality of second users among one or a plurality of actions recorded in an action log database are equal to or more than a predetermined number (see par. [0052], On the other hand, if the user consistently does not perform a certain move that is commonly performed in response to a certain game state, this may be indicative of the user not being aware of the move or having trouble performing the move. In such cases, the tutorial engine can provide tutorial information to the user, which provides the user with additional guidance on how to perform the move when the game state is encountered).
Regarding claim 11, Aghdaie discloses wherein the information regarding the action target includes at least one of information obtained from one or a plurality of second users who has achieved the action target or information generated on a basis of an action log regarding achievement of the action target of the second user (see par. [0060], The moves associated with each set, such as move set 402, can be determined by aggregating historical information from a plurality of users. As different users play the game, the tutorial engine can determine which game states are encountered and which moves the users perform at various game states. If a move is determined to be commonly performed in response to a particular game state 400 (for example, performed at a rate above a threshold level), the move may be included in the set of moves 402 associated with the game state).
Regarding claim 12, Aghdaie discloses wherein the presentation control unit determines the action target from one or a plurality of actions recorded in an action log database on a basis of attribute information of the first user (see par. [0056], When providing tutorial information to a user, it may be beneficial to provide the user with information associated with moves that are appropriate to the user's level of skill in the game. For example, a user considered to be a beginner in terms of skill may be provided tutorial information for moves deemed appropriate for a beginner. Once the user has mastered a move (for example, performing the move consistently), the user can be provided with tutorial information for more advanced moves).
Regarding claim 13, Aghdaie discloses wherein attribute information is associated with each of the one or the plurality of actions, and the presentation control unit determines, as the action target, an action associated with attribute information that matches or is similar to the attribute information of the first user among the one or the plurality of actions (see par. [0056], When providing tutorial information to a user, it may be beneficial to provide the user with information associated with moves that are appropriate to the user's level of skill in the game. For example, a user considered to be a beginner in terms of skill may be provided tutorial information for moves deemed appropriate for a beginner. Once the user has mastered a move (for example, performing the move consistently), the user can be provided with tutorial information for more advanced moves).
Regarding claim 14, Aghdaie discloses wherein attribute information is associated with each of the one or the plurality of actions, and the presentation control unit determines, as the action target, an action associated with attribute information having a close similarity to the attribute information of the first user among the one or the plurality of actions with priority (see par. [0056], When providing tutorial information to a user, it may be beneficial to provide the user with information associated with moves that are appropriate to the user's level of skill in the game. For example, a user considered to be a beginner in terms of skill may be provided tutorial information for moves deemed appropriate for a beginner. Once the user has mastered a move (for example, performing the move consistently), the user can be provided with tutorial information for more advanced moves).
Regarding claim 15, Aghdaie discloses wherein the first action includes at least one of an action of the first user in a real space or an action of a virtual object operated by the first user (see par. [0042], For example, in some embodiments, a control pad may be used by the user to navigate the character 202 through a two or three-dimensional environment, while one or more buttons may be used to allow the user to instruct the character to perform various actions (for example, punch, kick, or jump)).
Regarding claim 16, Aghdaie discloses wherein in a case where the action target is selected by the first user, the presentation control unit controls presentation, to the first user, of information regarding an action candidate corresponding to a plurality of action sequences of one or a plurality of second users who has achieved the action target (see par. [0060], For example, a first move may be commonly performed by users of a first segment (for example, the “beginner” segment) in response to the game state 400, but by not users associated with other segments (for example, the “intermediate” and “advanced” segments).
Regarding claim 17, Aghdaie discloses wherein the presentation control unit maps the plurality of action sequences on a feature space having a predetermined parameter as an axis for each action sequence, assigns a label to each of a plurality of clusters generated by clustering the plurality of action sequences mapped on the feature space, and controls presentation of the label to the first user as the information regarding the action candidate (see par. [0055], Each game state can identify moves that are performed by characters within the game environment in response to the game state. In some embodiments, the game state model may be stored as a lookup table that maps each game state with one or more sets of moves that are associated with each game state).
Regarding claim 18, Aghdaie discloses wherein in a case where the action candidate is selected by the first user, the presentation control unit controls presentation, to the first user, of information regarding an action corresponding to a current action of the first user among action candidates (see par. [0046], In some embodiments, the tutorial information may comprise textual interface information 208, such as a text box, overlaid on the user interface 200, wherein the textual interface information 208 can display information informing the user of a particular move (for example, a move that causes the character 202 to lift and throw the object 204) and/or how to perform the move).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aghdaie et al. (US 2019/0358545 A1) in view of Benedetto et al. (US 2019/0209925 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Aghdaie discloses the information processing apparatus as discussed above. However, Aghdaie does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined indexes include at least one of a heart rate, the number of comments, or a predetermined number of words in a comment.
Benedetto teaches a system for generating contextual game play assistance wherein the predetermined indexes include at least one of a heart rate, the number of comments, or a predetermined number of words in a comment (see par. [0029], There may be key identifiers (e.g. specific words, gestures, facial expressions) that can be associated with increasing frustration at the event/challenge/obstacle. For example, during initially participating in an event, the user may provide little to no reaction upon failing. However, continued failure of the same event may detect, for example, increased frequency of certain words (e.g. expletives), increased heart rate, and certain facial expressions/gestures that can indicate increasing frustration levels for the user). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus of Aghdaie with the word and heart rate detection of Benedetto in order to provide an additional indication that some assistance information should be provided to the user (see Benedetto, par. [0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chung et al. (US 2013/0005471 A1), Park et al. (US 10,528,371 B2), Zalewski (US 2008/0148165 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM EST.
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.
/ALLEN CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 12/10/2025