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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,375,636; claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,889,380; claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,322,350; claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,933,329; claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,571,624; and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,980,819. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims contain similar and broader claim language as the parent applications.
Claim objection
The claims have a minor grammatical error.
Claims 1 and 11 recite, “obtain and/or determine particular in-game content within the online game that are to be made available to individual ones of the users within the online game, wherein the particular in-game content are based on the user types of the users, …” The “particular in-game content” used to be “customizations of in-game content” in the parent application. “particular in-game content” appears to be singular and the sentence still uses the plural “are” from “customizations”. This could be fixed by replacing the two instances of “are” with “is” or possibly making the subject of the sentence “particular in-game content items”.
35 USC § 101 note
The claims recite executing an instance of an online game. The instance and in-game content are integral to the claim language in a significant manner. An instance in an online game cannot reasonably be considered merely an abstract idea of mental steps. Per the current guidelines, Step 2A, Prong One is NO. Per Pathway B, the claims qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Muller (US PG pub 2012/0142429).
Muller shows
In regards to claims 1 and 11,
A system for making in-game content available to users of an online game (figure 1A), the system comprising:
one or more processors (MMO host 115) configured by machine-readable instructions to:
execute an instance of the online game to facilitate presentation of the online game to the users via client computing platforms associated with the users, wherein the users include a first user and a second user (figure 1A);
determine user types of the users based on usage of the online game by the users, wherein the user types include a first user type for the first user; (paragraph [0058], “the system permits automated classification of players to enhance user or player interactions and/or promote system hardware power efficiencies, etc.” The classification is considered to be a type and the players are users including a first user.) and
obtain and/or determine particular in-game content within the online game that are to be made available to individual ones of the users within the online game, wherein the particular in-game content are based on the user types of the users, such that a first instance of the particular in-game content was not previously available to the first user but is to be made available to the first user within the online game, wherein the particular in-game content is based on the first user type; (paragraph [0274], “The different world instances might have slightly different or entirely different content. There could be more characteristic-specific content based on the types of avatars transferring to the world (e.g., more raid content for higher level raiders, more quests or lands for explorers, more solo content for solo players, etc.).”)
wherein the execution of the instance of the online game is further performed such that (i) the first instance of the particular in-game content is made available to the first user, and (ii) the first user and the second user can interact with each other within the online game. (paragraph [0111], “The system can then determine that the groups or users that are able to more quickly progress through a given level or area all have a particular set of characters with particular classes/races/levels/guilds/other statistics, and thus the system can thereby determine a "optimal" group or user makeup. This group or user composition could also be pre-determined and the system trained to identify users and groups satisfying various criteria corresponding to desirable groupings and classifications.” The group has more than one user. One of the other users is considered to be the second user.)
In regards to claims 2 and 12,
wherein the first user type for the first user is determined based on a first set of user gameplay information. (paragraph [0059], “Aspects of the invention described herein monitor user or player behavior and identified characteristics, generate metrics, and thereby classify players to perform improved matching or other functions.”)
In regards to claims 3 and 13,
wherein the first user type for the first user is based on information provided by the first user. (paragraph [0058], “a graphical user interface (GUI) to permit players to adjust criteria for the classification.”)
In regards to claims 4 and 14,
wherein the user types characterize prospective usage of the online game by the users. (From above, paragraph [0274], “The different world instances might have slightly different or entirely different content. There could be more characteristic-specific content based on the types of avatars transferring to the world (e.g., more raid content for higher level raiders, more quests or lands for explorers, more solo content for solo players, etc.).”)
In regards to claims 6 and 16,
wherein the one or more processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to monitor the users' usage of the online game. (paragraph [0150])
In regards to claims 7-8 and 17-18
wherein the first set of user gameplay information comprises online game usage information pertaining to other users that are associated with the first user and other users' usage of the online game, wherein the other users are associated with the user.
(from the abstract, “For example, the method automatically obtains player data regarding interactions by each of multiple players with a multiplayer electronic game via each player's corresponding data processing device connected via the network.”)
In regards to claims 5, 9-10, 15 and 19-20,
wherein the first instance of the particular in-game content is made available to the first user through first user's in-game actions, wherein the first user's in-game actions comprise at least one of exploring a map, researching a technology or skill, purchasing an in-game item, and/or completing an in-game achievement or specific in-game actions and a player versus environment type preferring completing quests. (paragraph [0237], “Referring to FIG. 14A, an example of a routine 1400 for identifying new games, sessions, quests or other online endeavors in which players can share an experience is shown. In this manner, the system can tailor the game play to the player's preferences and/or style. For example, if a player is known as an explorer, the system can identify quests that will cause the player to explore new lands or undiscovered territory.” And “For example, an explorer may be enticed by the opportunity to explore a new map and be rewarded with access to a new map with a group of similar or like-minded players or some ability that makes exploring more enjoyable.” The “identifying new games” is considered to be particular in-game content is made available to the first user through first user's in-game actions. The explorer type is considered to be a player versus environment type preferring completing quests.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. 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, 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.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715