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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by O’Rourke et al (US 2009/0088233).
Re claims 1, 8, and 15, O’Rourke discloses a system comprising: one or more processors and non-transitory computer-readable media (fig. 10, 1014 and 1016) storing instructions causing the processor to: operate, during gameplay of a game including a set of controls for a player of the game (via input devices 1036 utilized with operating system 1028 and system applications, see par. [0057]), a simulated player model to provide gameplay complexity assistance for the player ([0023] and [0031], the information can be collected from other users) including: inputting a game state of the game to the simulated player model ([0027]-[0028]) to cause the simulated player model to generate at least one simulated control corresponding to at least one control of the set of controls for the player ([0030]-[0031], based on the inputs to the system, the system provides assistance or help to the player);
receiving the at least one simulated control input from the simulated player model and utilize, in the gameplay of the game to control a player character of the player in the game ([0035] and [0044], wherein a role-playing, virtual world, first person, action, racing, fighting, strategy, sport, etc. game are considered games with player characters controlled by the player in the game), the at least one simulated control input from the simulated player model as a player input of the corresponding one of the set of controls of the player ([0022], [0025]-[0026]).
Re claims 7 and 14, O’Rourke discloses receiving one or more additional control inputs from the player ([0027]-[0028] and [0042], the system gathers portions of data from users, including inputs from input devices); and combine the one or more additional control inputs with the at least one simulated control input as a combined input ([0030]-[0031], the gameplay assistance is provided in addition to the player’s game play, such as by providing text, graphical, visual, or audio data during game play); and wherein the utilizing, in the gameplay of the game, the at least one simulated control input from the simulated player model as the player input utilizes the combined input as the player input (see above, the game incorporates both the gameplay assistance inputs along with the player’s inputs together in the presentation of the game).
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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rourke in view of Yu (US 2021/0220742).
Re claims 2, 9, and 16, O’Rourke discloses determining an occurrence of an interaction trigger in the gameplay of the game and outputting a prompt for the player to input an interaction input different from the at least one simulated control input and receiving a prompted input ([0042], where O’Rourke prompts the user for an answer to a question or for input for an option).
However, O’Rourke does not disclose the generation of the at least one simulated control input by the simulated player model based at least in part on the prompted input as O’Rourke only discloses the prompts being used for a question or option, rather than gameplay control.
Yu teaches a gameplay mechanic which allows players to provide input to a prompt that is separate from other control inputs which result in generated simulated control inputs (see figs. 6 and 7a-b). During a battle state, Yu prompts users to click or tap their screen in order to increase the amount of health for respawning. Clicking and tapping the screen for increasing health is considered to be different than other control inputs (e.g. moving the character, firing a weapon, etc.), and results in the simulated control input of respawning with increased health.
It would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to incorporate additional prompts into the game for players as taught by Yu with the game of O’Rourke in order to provide additional game features not directly related to control of the in-game character, increasing the variety of gameplay and decreasing gameplay monotony.
Re claims 3, 10, and 17, Yu teaches the interaction trigger is a determination of the simulated player model to perform an in-game action (figs. 7a-b, click/tap the screen); the simulated player model generates a first number of control inputs of the set of controls for a player of the game to perform the in-game action (fig. 6, during the player’s impending death state, the player inputs determines whether the player fails or succeeds in restoring health to full value); and the interaction input includes a second number of control inputs of the set of controls for a player of the game that is smaller than the first number of control inputs (see above, wherein the first number of control inputs can be considered to be successfully restoring the full value of health, and the second value being a failure to restore health due to the number of inputs, i.e. not clicking or tapping enough, being less than successful, see pars. [0094] to [0100]).
Re claims 4, 11, and 18, Yu teaches determining a metric associated with the interaction and prompted input (fig. 6, see the branch from “Impending death state”); wherein the controlling the generation of the at least one simulated control input by the simulated player model based at least in part on the prompted input is based at least in part on the metric (see fig. 6, wherein successful or failed prompts result in different control inputs to the player model to play a certain animation or die/respawn).
Re claims 5, 12, and 19, Yu teaches the prompt includes a timing for the interaction input ([0096], the player’s health continuously deducts over time, therefore the timing for the interaction input is based on the amount of temporary health); and the metric is based at least in part on a similarity of a timing of the prompted input to the timing for the interaction input (see above, if the player clicks/taps the screen enough times during the temporary health period and restores enough health, they are respawned).
Re claims 6, 13, and 20, O’Rourke discloses a first and second set of in-game actions associated with a first and second level of gameplay complexity assistance of a plurality of levels of gameplay complexity assistance, the second level including more in-game actions than the first ([0026] and [0030], the level of assistance is dynamic based on the skill level of the player). Yu has taught the interaction trigger being associated with an in-game action of a first set of in-game actions the simulated player model is configured to perform in place of the player (see rejection to claims 2-5 regarding the player in an impending death state).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed in the rejection above, O’Rourke discloses that the game being played in conjunction with the gameplay assistance tools can be any desired type, such as a role-playing game, fighting game, first person game, etc. (again, see [0044]). O’Rourke additionally discloses examples of gameplay assistance not limited to changes in a story line, character, rule, setting, equipment, control, difficulty, environment, etc. ([0032]). Given that these games are all examples of games wherein gameplay involves control of a player character of the player in the game, and the simulated control inputs affect variables and factors intrinsically tied to the player character, applicant’s arguments that O’Rourke does not disclose the claimed invention is not persuasive.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the simulated player model generates control inputs that actually control the player character on behalf of the player”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While the claim uses the language “to control a player character,” this is not the same as actually controlling the player character on behalf of the player. The limitation “control” in and of itself is broad and does not necessarily imply that the controls are “taking over” the player character, and can be interpreted in such a way that any influence over control of the player character would be sufficient. For example, O’Rourke discloses alterations to equipment, difficulty, and environment. Such changes would most certainly affect control of the player character, whether that be in increasing the difficulty of the game requiring different, more skillful inputs, or the environment causing the player character to be impeded (e.g. rain and mud impeding movement).
Regarding the arguments that O’Rourke does not disclose inputting a game state of the game to the simulated player model, these arguments also unpersuasive. As O’Rourke utilizes data from various sources to be used to assist players during gameplay, this is considered game state data as it is directly related to the state of the game and how it will be influenced via the gameplay assistance.
Additionally, while the Examiner disagrees with applicant’s arguments that a tip or advice displayed on screen is not a control input, O’Rourke has already discussed gameplay assistance/alteration involving control and the character (again, [0032]). Alterations to a control or the character are considered control inputs.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
