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 .
Preliminary Amendment
After the preliminary amendments filed 02/13/2026, claims 1-14 were canceled and newly added claims 15-34 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) 15-20, 22-23 and 26-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isaak et al (U.S. 10,078,410).
Regarding claims 15, 27 and 31, Isaak discloses:
a content interaction system (3:65-4:20, gaming system 100), the system comprising:
one or more processors (3:65-4:20, gaming system 100 includes one or more processors);
a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (3:65-4:20, gaming system 100 includes data storage which stores a game application 110 which is executed by the one or more processors), cause the one or more processors to:
render interactive content (5:29-6:3, game engine 112 executes gameplay application 110 and renders display of the game according to game rules, user inputs and in-game events);
receive one or more inputs from a user (4:21-67, 6:22-36, touchscreen 103 receives input from a user and translates the input into input data); and
select one or more interactions to be performed with the interactive content based on a count of the one or more inputs provided by the user, wherein the selection is independent of an identity of the one or more inputs (10:23-47, two or more of the inputs may be inter-related such that a first number of inputs (e.g., a primary touch 220 and a single tap secondary touch 222) provides a first action (e.g., jump left) and a second number of inputs (e.g., a primary touch 220 and a double tap secondary touch 222) provides a second different action (e.g., run left)).
Regarding claims 16 and 28, Isaak discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the instructions further cause the one or more processors to select a number of interactions that is proportional to the count of inputs provided by the user (7:5-38, 10:23-47, based on a single touch input 220 the character is caused to move (i.e., 1 input resulting in 1 action) and based on a touch input 220 and a tap input 222 the character is caused to jump and move (i.e., 2 inputs resulting in 2 actions)).
Regarding claims 17 and 29, Isaak discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the instructions further cause the one or more processors to select one or more interactions having a complexity that is proportional to the count of inputs provided by the user (7:5-38, 10:23-47, based on a single touch input 220 the character is caused to move and based on a touch input 220 and a tap input 222 the character is caused to jump and move, the examiner interprets 2 inputs causing a jump and move of the character to be a more complex action than 1 input causing movement of the character ).
Regarding claims 18 and 30, Isaak discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the instructions further cause the one or more processors to select the one or more interactions based on one or more non-input actions performed by the user (11:42-55, a movement command associated with the touch input is determined based on touch input parameters such as speed and/or pressure of the input).
Regarding claim 19, Isaak discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the interactive content is a video game (¶3:65-4:20, gaming system 100 which provides a video game to a user).
Regarding claim 20, Isaak discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the one of more inputs comprise at least one of a button press, a trigger pull, a joystick manipulation, a gesture, or a detected motion (4:21-49, the user interacts with touchscreen display by tapping a virtual button or swiping).
Regarding claims 22 and 32, Isaak discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the instructions further cause the one or more processors to select the one or more interactions based on a predetermined threshold count of inputs, such that in response to the count exceeding the predetermined threshold count, the number of selected interactions is reduced (12:1-26, when the game engine 112 determines a directional threshold is exceeded by movement of the touch input the movement buffer is cleared and the replaces the accumulated movement commands with new movement commands).
Regarding claims 23 and 33, Isaak discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the instructions further cause the one or more processors to select the one or more interactions based on a context associated with the interactive content at a time the inputs are received (5:29-47, game engine 112 executes the game actions based on the received inputs and based on a current state of the game).
Regarding claims 26 and 34, Isaak discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the instructions further cause the one or more processors to select the one or more interactions from a list of actions generated by a trained model associated with the interactive content (5:14-28, the game data includes prerecorded motion capture poses/paths, constraints and skeleton models which and is used to determine the generated action).
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) 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaak et al (U.S. 10,078,410) in view of Menard (U.S. 2025/0288903).
Regarding claim 21, Isaak discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the instructions further cause the one or more processors to select the one or more interactions based on a user profile.
Menard teaches:
a gaming system which renders content of a video game (¶35, game engine 1 executes and displays a video game), wherein a player provides inputs which controls progression of the game (¶53-54, game actions are displayed based at least on inputs received by a player), and wherein the actions which are displayed are based on a user profile (¶53-54, mapping database B stores user programmed information relating to game motions and input parings in a user profile).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to integrate the profile based input customization, as taught by Menard, into the interaction selection system, as taught by Isaak, in order to yield the predictable result of allowing users to adapt the inputs to their individual preferences without altering the core functionality, thereby improving user experience through personalization.
Regarding claim 24, Isaak discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the instructions further cause the one or more processors to select the one or more interactions based on a random factor.
Menard teaches:
a gaming system which renders content of a video game (¶35, game engine 1 executes and displays a video game), wherein a player provides inputs which controls progression of the game (¶53-54, game actions are displayed based at least on inputs received by a player), and wherein an interaction is based on a random factor (¶52, based on a user input a random effect is provided as a function of any given action).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to integrate the random actions, as taught by Menard, into the interaction selection system, as taught by Isaak, in order to yield the predictable result of improving user experience through randomization of game outputs.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaak et al (U.S. 10,078,410) in view of Vange et al (U.S. 2022/0274023).
Regarding claim 25, Isaak discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the instructions further cause the one or more processors to select the one or more interactions from a list of possible interactions, wherein the list of possible interactions is ranked according to a likelihood of the input matching the user's intent.
Vange teaches:
a gaming system which renders content of a video game (¶16), wherein a player provides inputs which controls progression of the game (¶16, artificial intelligence powered game engine which receives user input from a user device and infers an intent of a desired in-game response), and wherein a list of possible interactions is ranked according to a likelihood of the input matching the user's intent (¶23, after a sufficient number of interactions game engine 208 learns various options for meeting an objective for a given operation and ranks and saves for later use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to integrate the artificial intelligence action ranking, as taught by Vange, into the interaction selection system, as taught by Isaak, in order to yield the predictable result of improving user experience through providing players with limited controllers the same quality of controls as those with traditional controls (Vange, ¶7-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Applicant is directed to the attached "Notice of References Cited" for additional relevant prior art. The Examiner respectfully requests the Applicant to fully review each reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights