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 .
Status of Claims
In response to the Amendment filed on April 13th, 2026, claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benedetto et al. (US 2019/0291010 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Benedetto discloses an apparatus, comprising:
at least one computer medium that is not a transitory signal and that comprises instructions executable by at least one processor system to (see par. [0007], a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program for providing gaming assistance is disclosed):
execute a clustering model to match a first video game player with a second video game player that the first video game player is to coach in gameplay (see par. [0138], The matching engine 123 performs an expert selection process 570. For example, the matching vectors are given a matching value after performing criteria matching 540, weighting 550, and the consideration of additional factor 560. For example, for expert E1 a matching value 591 (3.0) is generated. Also, for expert E5 a matching value 595 (4.6) is generated. Between the two experts, expert E5 has a higher matching value, which may indicate a better quality match, such that expert E5 may be better suited in providing assistance for the query of player P1 than expert E1); and
based on the match, facilitate a communication channel between a first device of the first video game player and a second device of the second video game player for the first video game player to coach the second video game player regarding a particular aspect of a video game (see par. [0046], In that case, a help session is established between the player and the selected expert).
Regarding claim 18, Benedetto discloses wherein the instructions are executable to execute a second model to determine that the first video game player is a video game coach candidate (see par. [0045], For example, the qualification may be given to a player that is an expert of other games, or when a player has played the subject gaming application with high skill, or when a player achieves a certain task or quest identified as being a qualification standard (e.g., qualification boss, intermediate boss, end boss, etc.)); and
based on execution of the second model to determine that the first video game player is a video game coach candidate, present a prompt at the first device of the first video game player regarding whether the first video game player would like to be considered as a video game coach (see par. [0046], the request is sent to the available experts who are most likely to be able to help; also see par. [0102], In another embodiment, experts are polled one at a time to determine whether they want to provide assistance).
Regarding claim 19, Benedetto discloses wherein the instructions are executable to responsive to receiving a response to the prompt that the first video game player would like to be considered as a video game coach, begin parsing data associated with the first video game player to match the first video game player with the second video game player (see par. [0138], The matching engine 123 performs an expert selection process 570. For example, the matching vectors are given a matching value after performing criteria matching 540, weighting 550, and the consideration of additional factor 560. For example, for expert E1 a matching value 591 (3.0) is generated. Also, for expert E5 a matching value 595 (4.6) is generated. Between the two experts, expert E5 has a higher matching value, which may indicate a better quality match, such that expert E5 may be better suited in providing assistance for the query of player P1 than expert E1).
Regarding claim 20, Benedetto discloses wherein the instructions are executable to provide the data as input to the clustering model as part of execution of the clustering model (see par. [0138], The matching engine 123 performs an expert selection process 570. For example, the matching vectors are given a matching value after performing criteria matching 540, weighting 550, and the consideration of additional factor 560. For example, for expert E1 a matching value 591 (3.0) is generated. Also, for expert E5 a matching value 595 (4.6) is generated. Between the two experts, expert E5 has a higher matching value, which may indicate a better quality match, such that expert E5 may be better suited in providing assistance for the query of player P1 than expert E1).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest at least one processor system configured to: execute a first model to output data indicating (i) a success or failure of the first player to perform an in-game task and (ii) overall proficiency level for the in-game task; determine, from the output data, that a first video game player is a video game coach candidate by determining that the output data exceeds a threshold value; based on execution of the first model to determine that the first video game player is a video game coach candidate, present a prompt at a first device of the first video game player regarding whether the first video game player would like to be considered as a video game coach for any one of a plurality of players of the video game; receive an affirmative response to the prompt; based on the affirmative response, execute a second model to match the first video game player with a second video game player that the first video game player is to coach in gameplay.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 11 to include additional clarifying claim language, which in combination with Applicant’s remarks, result in allowable subject matter. However, independent claim 17, which contains different claim limitations than claims 1 and 11, has not been amended. Applicant also fails to provide any substantive arguments regarding the rejection of the claim. Therefore claims 17-20 remain rejected in view of the previously cited prior art (Benedetto).
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 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 5/23/2026
Prosecution Insights