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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection below.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-21, 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as anticipated by MIYAKE (US 2023/0010100 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MIYAKE (US 2023/0010100 A1) in view of Wu (US 2022/0054943 A1).
1. MIYAKE discloses a method comprising:
controlling, by anon-player state machine, game behavior of a defensive objective character in a virtual environment (a plan execution unit that controls behavior of a control-target character in a video game virtual environment), (Fig. 4), [0069], [0078];
providing a decision tree including a prioritized set of tasks for the defensive objective character to perform in the virtual environment, each task of the prioritized set of tasks having at least one condition for performing the task (utilizing hierarchical task network (HTN) to prioritize set of tasks (primitive/compound) in a tree/DAG structure with preconditions/conditions and offshoot priorities based on evaluation values similar to behavior tree), [0172]-[0173], [0262], [0308]; and
iteratively modifying, by the non-player state machine, the controlling of the game behavior of the defensive objective character in the virtual environment by processing at least a subset of tasks of the prioritized set of tasks in order of highest priority to lowest priority, wherein processing includes: determining whether the at least one condition associated with a given task of the prioritized set of tasks is satisfied, wherein the given task changes a priority of at least one task in the prioritized set of tasks; and modifying the controlling of the game behavior of the defensive objective character in the virtual environment to perform the given task when the at least one condition for the given task in accordance with the changed priority within the prioritized set of tasks is satisfied (the planner generates a plan with prioritized offshoots; the executor iteratively processes tasks (highest evaluation/priority first), checks conditions, and a given task’s execution (or state change) dynamically modifies/reprioritizes subsequent tasks/offshoots at runtime via replanning, pruning, or branching), [0184]-[0192], [0246], [0254], [0316].
Alternatively, Wu teaches a behavior-tree-based system for controlling non-playable characters (NPCs) in a computer game environment. Behavior trees are processed iteratively (highest-priority/selector nodes first), support dynamic re-ordering and modification of nodes/tasks at runtime (which directly changes priorities of actions), and enable adaptive, context-sensitive NPC behavior, [0002], [0029], [0033], [0046]. MIYAKE and Wu are in the same field (game AI / NPC behavior control) and address the same problem (making AI characters less predictable and more responsive). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine MIYAKE’s HTN plan-generation/execution system (with its explicit dynamic priority/offshoot modification based on task execution and game state) with Wu’s behavior-tree implementation and editing techniques to produce a more flexible, readable, and runtime-adaptable non-player state machine for controlling defensive objective characters (or any NPC) in a virtual environment. The combination would yield the claimed iterative processing of a prioritized set of tasks where a given task changes the priority of at least one other task, with immediate modification of character behavior “in accordance with the changed priority,” resulting in unpredictable, context-sensitive actions.
3. MIYAKE and Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the virtual environment is a player verses player (PvP) video game, MIYAKE (20A, 20B, 20C: Fig. 1), [0055].
4. MIYAKE and Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein processing further includes, after the given task is performed, iterating back to a task of the highest priority in the prioritized set of tasks (iterate back to highest priority after task), MIYAKE [0308].
5. MIYAKE and Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein processing includes, after the given task is performed, iterating to a task of lower priority in the prioritized set of tasks than the given task (iterate to next lower priority), (Fig. 31), MIYAKE [0263]-[0270].
6. MIYAKE and Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the given task creates a new task in the prioritized set of tasks with an associated condition (adding a new task to the plan), MIYAKE [0090], [0190].
8. MIYAKE and Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the given task changes the at least one condition of at least one task in the prioritized set of tasks (task execution alters world state/conditions affecting downstream priorities), MIYAKE [0199], [0283], [0309].
9. MIYAKE and Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the given task includes a plurality of sub-tasks to be performed when the at least one condition for the given task is satisfied (compound tasks decompose into sub-tasks), MIYAKE [0310].
10. MIYAKE and Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one condition of the given task includes that the at least one condition for each higher priority task was not satisfied, Wu [0061].
11-16. MIYAKE and Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one condition for performing the given task is that the defensive objective character is frozen, and wherein the given task is to iterate to a next task; a special ability of the defensive objective character is charged, and wherein the given task is to use the special ability; the defensive objective character is stuck, and wherein the given task is to jump toward a target point; the defensive objective character has moved beyond a threshold distance from a guard position, and wherein the given task includes: setting a retreating status of the defensive objective character; and causing the defensive objective character to move toward the guard position; the defensive objective character has the retreating status and is close to the guard position, and wherein the given task is to clear the retreating status; and the defensive objective character is proximate to a target, and wherein the given task is engaging the target as these conditions are routine defensive NPC behaviors taught or obvious in view of MIYAKE (retreat/guard/engage examples in game AI), MIYAKE [0008], [0066], [0075], [0117], [0173].
26. MIYAKE and Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein modification of task priorities causes the game behavior of the defensive objective character to be unpredictable to players, such that a sequence of actions performed by the defensive objective character varies based on real-time game context (dynamic branching, time-travel cancellation, and runtime changes produce emergent/unpredictable sequences), MIYAKE [0241], [0244], [0320].
17-21, 23-27. MIYAKE and Wu discloses a system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing a decision tree including a prioritized set of tasks for a defensive objective character to perform in a virtual environment, each task of the prioritized set of tasks having at least one condition for performing the task; wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform: controlling, by anon-player state machine, game behavior of the defensive objective character in the virtual environment;2025 iteratively modifying, by the non-player state machine, the controlling of the game behavior of the defensive objective character in the virtual environment by processing at least a subset of tasks of the prioritized set of tasks in order of highest priority to lowest priority, wherein processing includes determining whether the at least one condition associated with a given task of the prioritized set of tasks is satisfied, wherein the given task changes a priority of at least one task in the prioritized set of tasks; and modifying the controlling of the game behavior of the defensive objective character in the virtual environment to perform the given task in accordance with the changed priority within the prioritized set of tasks when the at least one condition for the given task is satisfied as similarly discussed above
25, 28. MIYAKE and Wu discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program code that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: controlling, by anon-player state machine, game behavior of a defensive objective character in a virtual environment; providing a decision tree including a prioritized set of tasks for [[a]]the defensive objective character to perform in the virtual environment, each task of the prioritized set of tasks having at least one condition for performing the task; and iteratively modifying, by the non-player state machine, the controlling of the game behavior of the defensive objective character in the virtual environment by processing at least a subset of tasks of the prioritized set of tasks in order of highest priority to lowest priority, wherein processing includes: determining whether the at least one condition associated with a given task of the prioritized set of tasks is satisfied, wherein the given task changes a priority of at least one task in the prioritized set of tasks; and modifying the controlling of the game behavior of the defensive objective character in the virtual environment to perform the given task in accordance with the changed priority within the prioritized set of tasks when the at least one condition for the given task is satisfied as similarly discussed above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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, David L. Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights