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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/30/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the IDS was filed after a non-final rejection but neither a fee was paid nor a statement made. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20200289943 to Rico in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0298118 to Yannakakis.
With regard to claim 1, Rico discloses a system comprising: circuitry configured to: implement a video game that involves a match whose player side is controlled by a human player and a match whose player side is controlled by a bot player(0055; 0082-0083); and select, based at least in part on a rating of the human player, the bot player that controls the player side of the second match (0055; 0082-0083); and a graphics processing unit (GPU) (0097) configured to: render a user interface that presents one or more digital elements of the video game that involves the first match and the second match in response to at least one instruction received from the circuitry (0038; 0055; 0062; 0082-0083); and render, in the user interface, at least one player-side character controlled by the bot player in response to the at least one instruction (0038; 0055; 0062; 0082-0083).
While Rico discusses playing on a team, it is not explicitly clear that such a team would be a player versus environment situation. However, Yannakakis teaches such (0166). The combination of Rico and Yannakakis teaches that the first PVE match involves the human player facing off against a first in-game environment and the second PVE match involves the both player facing off against a second in-game environment (Rico at 0082-0083; Yannakakis at 0166 wherein it discusses “a number of expansions for the game in the form of downloadable content (DLC), which added new areas, equipment, and both PvE and PvP content to the game.” Thus, since there are multiple environmental areas and a bot can replace a player at any point it would read on the claimed limitations).
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Rico and Yannakakis teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: search a database that identifies available human players for an additional human player to control the player side of the second PVE match; determine, based at least in part on the search, that no additional human player that satisfies a certain threshold of suitability is identified in the database; and select the bot player to control the player side of the PVE match in response to determining that no human player that satisfies the certain threshold of suitability is identified in the database (Rico at 0055; 0076-0083; Yannankis at 0166).
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Rico and Yannakakis teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: determine, based at least in part on the search, that the database indicates that no additional human players are currently available to control the player side of the second PVE match; and select the bot player to control the player side of the second PVE match in response to determining that the database indicates that no additional human players are currently available to control the player side of the second PVE match (Rico at 0055; 0082-0083; Yannakakis at 0166).
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Rico and Yannakakis teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: determine, based at least in part on the search, that no additional human players with a rating sufficiently similar to the rating of the human player are currently available to control the player side of the second PVE match; and select the bot player to control the player side of the PVE match in response to determining that no additional human players with a rating sufficiently similar to the rating of the human player are currently available to control the player side of the second PVE match (Rico at 0055; 0082-0083; Yannakakis at 0166)
With regard to claim 5, Rico discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to select, based at least in part on the rating of the human player and a rating of the bot player, the bot player from a group of bot players that have varying ratings or are programmed to compete with varying levels of skill (0082-0083).
With regard to claim 6, Rico discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to increase or decrease the ratings of the bot players included in the group based at least in part on one or more performances of the bot players (0085).
With regard to claim 7, Rico discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to: analyze one or more gameplay behaviors of human players competing in the video game; and generate the bot player to compete similar to one or more of the human players based at least in part on the one or more gameplay behaviors (0038).
With regard to claim 8¸Rico does not appear to be explicitly clear about a surge operation or a boost operation. However, does not appear to be explicitly clear about a surge operation or a boost operation. However, Yannakakis teaches wherein the gameplay behaviors comprise at least one of: a behavior associated with initiating a surge operation in which an increased number or frequency of opponent-side characters is applied to an opponent side of one or more additional PVE matches (0166; 0190).
With regard to claim 9, Rico discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to implement an artificial intelligence (AI) model to analyze the one or more gameplay behaviors of the human players or generate the bot player (0038; 0048; 0066).
With regard to claim 10, Rico discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to train the Al model with training data that includes samples of gameplay representative of the human players competing in the video game (0038; 0048; 0066).
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Rico and Yannakakis teaches discloses wherein the bot player comprise an Al bot that controls the player side of the second PVE match (Rico at 0038; 0048; 0066; 0082-0083; Yannakakis at 0166).
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Rico and Yannakakis teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to facilitate synchronous playing of the first PVE match and the second PVE match such that the human player and the bot player indirectly compete against each other in view of performances by the human player in the first PVE match and the bot player in the second PVE match (Rico at 0055; 0082-0083; Yannakakis at 0166).
With regard to claim 13, the combination of Rico and Yannakakis teaches discloses wherein the rating is based at least in part on: the human player's performance in at least one player-versus-player (PVP) match; or the human player's performance in at least one prior PVE match (Rico at 0062; 0074-0075 wherein the bot is trained by a human player and thus meets the limitations; Yannakakis at 0166).
With regard to claim 14, the combination of Rico and Yannakakis teaches wherein the first PVE match involves a first opponent side that includes one or more opponent-side characters controlled by a further bot player and the second PVE match involves a second opponent side that includes one or more additional opponent-side characters controlled by an additional bot player (Rico at 0055; 0082-0083; Yannakakis at 0166).
Claims 16-20 are mirrored claims to claims 1-4 and are rejected in like manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Yannakakis with the disclosure of Rico so that users could play in known game techniques such as player vs. environment and additionally with more than just one level to play in. Further, using a known game mechanic such as a surge in characters would have been obvious to implement in the game of Rico to provide a challenging and interesting game for the players by providing more enemies to attack.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rico in view of Yannakakis as applies to claim 1 and further in view of Heroes of the Storm, as evidenced by Heroes of the Storm Guide published by IGN.
With regard to claim 15, Rico does not appear to explicitly disclose the claimed features. However, Heroes of the Storm teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: identify one or more features of a first opponent-side character in the second PVE match; and upon defeat of the first opponent-side character, spawn a second opponent-side character that has the one or more features in the first PVE match and is controlled by an additional bot player in the first PVE match; and wherein the GPU renders, in the user interface, the second opponent-side character in the first PVE match in response to the defeat of the first opponent-side character (The Haunted Mines, entire article, where it discusses that after you defeat the mine golem, an overworld Golem is spawned above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Heroes of the Storm to Rico in order to provide an interesting game mechanic when playing with other players of respawning a golem to attack thus making the game more challenging and entertaining for players.
Response to Arguments
With regard to Applicant’s arguments to the 35 USC 112 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are found convincing. As such, the rejection has been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejection based upon 35 USC 102, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the new grounds of rejection provided above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights