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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
I. The claims are drawn to apparatus, process and CRM categories.
II. Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2a:
III. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A computer-implemented method comprising: providing, for display at a first user interface, a first skill node associated with a first gameplay skill; determining, based on player gameplay data associated with a player profile, that a condition associated with a first state of a first skill node has been satisfied for the player profile; based on the satisfaction of the condition, causing the first skill node to progress from the first state to a second state; and based on the progression of the first skill node from the first state to the second state, providing statistical information associated with the first skill node in a post-match user interface of a match.
The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Fundamental economic principles or practices
Commercial or legal interactions
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims are directed towards incentivizing the behavior of users playing a game via group agreements or contract. This is viewed by the Examiner as a fundamental economic practice, an agreement in the form of contracts, and managing personal behavior or relationships between people, which are all considered to be abstract ideas according to the 2019 guidelines.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
iii. Although the claims recite additional limitations, such as random generator, the said additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations such as an interface.
iv. These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claim language does recite additional elements such as a random generator, however, viewed as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by the video game “Madden NFL 19” (released August 2018).
Regarding claim 1, Madden NFL 19, hereinafter Madden, discloses a computer-implemented method comprising, providing, for display at a first user interface, a first skill node associated with a first gameplay skill, (12:54 of NPL), determining, based on player gameplay data associated with a player profile, that a condition associated with a first state of a first skill has been satisfied for the player profile, (12:20 – 12:50 of NPL), based on the satisfaction of the condition, causing the first skill node to progress from the first state to a second state, (12:50 – 13:00 of NPL), and based on the progression of the first skill node from the first state to the second state, providing statistical information with the first skill node in a post-match user interface of a match, (12:50 – 13:00 of NPL).
Regarding claim 2, Madden discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining that the match associated with the player profile concluded; determining a portion of the match at which a character associated with the player profile failed to properly execute the first gameplay skill; and based on the match having concluded, providing, for display, a replay of the portion of the match, (7:00 – 11:44 of NPL).
Regarding claim 3, Madden discloses wherein the portion of the replay is provided for display in the post-match user interface, (9:50 of NPL, “retry”).
Regarding claim 4, Madden discloses wherein the statistical information is a success rate associated with the first gameplay skill for the player profile and corresponding to the match, (12:50 – 13:00 of NPL).
Regarding claim 5, Madden discloses wherein the progression from the first state to the second state comprises providing, for display at a user interface, a success rate of the first gameplay skill for the player profile, (12:50 – 13:00 of NPL).
Regarding claim 6, Madden discloses wherein the determining that the condition associated with the first state has been satisfied comprises determining, for the PvP gameplay data, that a success rate associated with the first gameplay skill is above a threshold, (7:00 – 11:44 of NPL).
Regarding claim 7, Madden discloses wherein the gameplay data is a predetermined number of most-recent matches associated with the player profile, (12:50 – 13:00 of NPL).
Regarding claim 8, Madden discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining, for the player profile, and based on the gameplay data, a success rate for the first gameplay skill; determining, for a plurality of other player profiles, success rates for the first gameplay skill; and providing, for display, a comparison of the success rate for the player profile relative to the success rates for the plurality of other player profiles, (12:50 – 13:00 of NPL).
Regarding claim 9, Madden discloses wherein the method further comprises: based on determining that a second condition associated with the second state has been satisfied, identifying a second gameplay skill for which a success rate for the player profile is below a threshold, wherein the second gameplay skill is associated with a second skill node, and wherein the second gameplay skill is different than the first gameplay skill; and based on the identifying the second gameplay skill, automatically recommending selection of the second skill node at a second user interface, (12:50 – 13:00 of NPL).
Regarding claim 10, Madden discloses wherein the gameplay data is associated with a player-versus-player (PvP) combat game played over the internet, (7:00 – 11:44 of NPL).
Regarding claim 11, Madden discloses wherein the gameplay skill comprises at least one of: blocking, normal attacks, and combination attacks, (7:00 – 11:44 of NPL).
Regarding claim 12, Madden discloses a non-transitory computer storage medium storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by one or more computing devices, (0:00 – 17:40 of NPL), cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising: facilitating a match, wherein gameplay data is generated for a player profile for the match, (7:00 – 11:44 of NPL), and causing progression of a first skill node from a first state to a second state, wherein the progression is based on a determination that a condition associated with the first state has been satisfied for the player profile, and wherein the determination is based at least in part on the gameplay data for the player profile, (12:50 – 13:00 of NPL).
Regarding claim 13, Madden discloses wherein the operations further comprise: causing display of a replay of a portion of the match, wherein the portion of the match corresponds to a character associated with the player profile failing to successfully execute the gameplay skill, (9:50 of NPL, “retry”).
Regarding claim 14, Madden discloses wherein the replay is automatically displayed in a post-match user interface corresponding to the match, (9:50 of NPL, “retry”).
Regarding claim 15, Madden discloses wherein the operations further comprise: causing display, in a post-match user interface, of a visual indication that the gameplay skill would have been executed successfully if a character associated with the player profile had performed the action at an earlier time, wherein the causing display of the visual indication is based on the gameplay data, (12:50 – 13:00 of NPL).
Regarding claim 16, Madden discloses wherein the operations further comprise: determining, for the player profile, and based on the gameplay data, a success rate for the first gameplay skill; determining, for a plurality of other player profiles, success rates for the first gameplay skill; and providing, for display, a comparison of the success rate for the player profile relative to the success rates for the plurality of other player profiles, (12:50 – 13:00 of NPL).
Regarding claim 17, Madden discloses wherein the gameplay data comprises gameplay events including interactions between characters in the match, (7:00 – 11:44 of NPL).
Regarding claim 18, Madden discloses A computerized system comprising one or more non-transitory computer storage media storing computer-usable instructions that, when used by the one or more processors, (0:00 – 17:40 of NPL), cause the one or more processors to identify a target success rate for a skill node associated with a gameplay skill, (12:50 – 13:00 of NPL), determine a success rate for the skill node based on gameplay data associated with a player profile; and based on the success rate exceeding the target success rate, cause the skill node to progress from a first state to a second state, wherein the progression causes determination and display of a comparison of the success rate to success rates of other player profiles for the skill node, (12:50 – 13:00 of NPL).
Regarding claim 19, Madden discloses wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: analyze the gameplay data; and based on the analysis, provide gameplay feedback related to the gameplay skill, the gameplay feedback comprising at least one selected from the following: a gameplay exercise, a training match against a computerized opponent, a training challenge, text-based advice, and audio-based advice, (7:00 – 11:44 of NPL).
Regarding claim 20, Madden discloses wherein the gameplay data comprises gameplay events, and wherein the gameplay events comprise interactions between at least two player controlled characters in gameplay matches, (0:00 – 17:40 of NPL).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715