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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 21 recites “…wherein the predefined period of time for determining the amount of time elapsed between a prior gameplay session…” It appears a verb is missing in the claim after the word “wherein”. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “determining” the period of predefined period of time.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-21 recite a series of steps for controlling a computer applied to a game system. Thus, these claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
detecting selection of a training option from a user interface rendered on a client device for a video game selected by a user for gameplay, the training option allowing the user to improve on input skills for use during the gameplay of the video game;
forwarding a plurality of minigames for rendering on the user interface, in response to the selection of the training option by the user, the plurality of minigames for improving the input skills of the user are identified based on analysis of game inputs collected from one or more prior gameplay sessions of the user, each minigame of the plurality of minigames includes a portion of the video game that requires a distinct set of input skills to progress in said portion of the video game;
detecting selection of a minigame from the plurality of minigames presented at the user interface, the selection of the minigame by the user causing instantiation of an executable code for the portion of the video game to allow the user to practice the distinct set of input skills for the portion;
monitoring the input skills exhibited by the user during gameplay of the minigame selected by the user to identify an amount of progress made by the user in said portion of the video game; and
providing updates to the user interface, based on the input skills exhibited by the user during gameplay of the minigame selected by the user, the updates used to allow the user to improve the input skills and use the improved input skills for gameplay of the video game,
wherein operations of the method are performed by a game skill training module executing on a server computing device communicatively coupled to the client device.
the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind; and/or (b) a certain method of organizing human activity because they describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, and following rules or instructions). In the instant application, the claim is directed to merely detection of inputs, suggesting minigames to improve skills and the user playing the minigames, i.e. thereby following rules or instructions being provided.
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined and bolded above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The dependent claims and independent claim 19 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea. Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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)(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, 2, 4-8, 10, 11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fortuna US 11,524,240.
Regarding claim 1, Fortuna discloses a method comprising: detecting selection of a training option from a user interface rendered on a client device for a video game selected by a user for gameplay, the training option allowing the user to improve on input skills for use during the gameplay of the video game; (Figs. 3 & 8, col. 1 lines 60-64, col. 10 lines 61-67, col. 11 lines 1-14, i.e. a user may select to engage in training activities).
forwarding a plurality of minigames for rendering on the user interface, in response to the selection of the training option by the user (col. 10 lines 20-27, 61-67, col. 11 lines 1-14, i.e. the practice scenarios and training activities are considered minigames), the plurality of minigames for improving the input skills of the user are identified based on analysis of game inputs collected from one or more prior gameplay sessions of the user, each minigame of the plurality of minigames includes a portion of the video game that requires a distinct set of input skills to progress in said portion of the video game; (col. 4 lines 17-56, col. 6 lines 3-22, col. 9 lines 8-29, col. 10 lines 20-39).
detecting selection of a minigame from the plurality of minigames presented at the user interface, the selection of the minigame by the user causing instantiation of an executable code for the portion of the video game to allow the user to practice the distinct set of input skills for the portion; (Fig. 5, col. 13 lines 40-56)
monitoring the input skills exhibited by the user during gameplay of the minigame selected by the user to identify an amount of progress made by the user in said portion of the video game; and (col. 15 lines 54-67, col. 16 lines 1-41)
providing updates to the user interface, based on the input skills exhibited by the user during gameplay of the minigame selected by the user, the updates used to allow the user to improve the input skills and use the improved input skills for gameplay of the video game (Fig. 10, col. 15 lines 54-67, col. 16 lines 1-41),
wherein operations of the method are performed by a game skill training module executing on a server computing device communicatively coupled to the client device (Figs 1 & 2).
Regarding claim 2, Fortuna further discloses, wherein providing updates to the user interface includes providing an option for resuming the gameplay of the video game, the option provided upon detecting the user has acquired at least a predefined amount of the distinct set of input skills included in the minigame selected by the user (col. 12 lines 30-42).
Regarding claim 4, Fortuna further discloses, wherein providing updates to the user interface further including, tracking the progress of the user during the gameplay of the portion of the video game included in the minigame selected for practicing, the tracking performed by analyzing inputs provided by the user during current gameplay of the minigame, the analyzing of inputs used to determine a level of difficulty experienced by the user in successfully completing the minigame during the current gameplay; and dynamically identifying and forwarding additional minigames as updates to the user interface, the additional minigames identified to adapt to the level of difficulty experience by the user, the additional minigames are specific to the user and the minigame selected for practicing by the user (col. 11 lines 52-59).
Regarding claim 5, Fortuna further discloses, wherein each of the additional minigames is identified automatically by the game skill training module or is identified based on minigame-selection inputs provided by the user, and wherein the minigame-selection inputs define complexity of skills desired by the user for practicing, and the game skill training module identifies said each of the additional minigames based on said minigame-selection inputs of the user (col 10 lines 61-67, col. 11-16, 52-59).
Regarding claim 6, Fortuna further discloses, wherein each of the additional minigames is generated and presented on the user interface for user selection in substantial real-time, based on progress made in the minigame selected by the user for practicing (col. 4 lines 27-29, col. 11 lines 52-59).
Regarding claim 7, Fortuna further discloses, wherein each of the additional minigames for updating the user interface is identified to include a select portion of the video game that requires certain ones of basic input skills required to successfully attempt the distinct set of input skills of the minigame selected for practicing by the user, said each of the additional minigames for acquiring said certain ones of the basic input skills identified based on the level of difficulty experienced by the user during current gameplay of the minigame selected by the user (col. 7 lines 15-67, col. 8 lines 1-57).
Regarding claim 8, Fortuna further discloses, wherein each of the additional minigames for updating the user interface is identified to include a select portion of the video game that requires certain ones of advanced input skills the user desires to acquire for progressing in the video game, said each of the additional minigames for acquiring said certain ones of the advanced input skills identified based on the input skills exhibited by the user during current gameplay of the minigame selected by the user (col. 9 lines 38-64).
Regarding claim 10, Fortuna discloses, wherein the monitoring of the input skills further includes providing real-time feedback to the user during current gameplay of the minigame selected by the user for practicing, the real-time feedback provided as any one of a textual suggestion, a verbal suggestion, visual input tips or haptic input tips or audio input tips using user interface elements, timing indicators, and screen prompts, and wherein the portion of the video game included in each of the plurality of minigames presented in the user interface corresponds to a storyline of the video game that is non-linear (Fig. 4, col. 11 lines 60-67; col. 12 lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 11, Fortuna discloses, wherein each minigame of the plurality of minigames includes a tutorial option, which when activated by a selection option provided on the user interface, provides guidance to the user for providing game inputs required for progressing in the portion of the video game included in said each minigame, the tutorial option provided in a textual or a visual or an audio or a haptic guidance format (Fig. 4, Fig. 5 #530).
Regarding claim 13, Fortuna discloses, wherein the portion of the video game included in each minigame of the plurality of minigames is identified as the portion that the user previously attempted during prior gameplay session (col. 9 lines 8-29).
Regarding claim 14, Fortuna discloses, wherein the monitoring of the progress in the minigame further includes presenting a visual representation of the progress made by the user on the user interface during the gameplay of said minigame in a current gameplay session (Fig. 10 #1030).
Regarding claim 15, Fortuna discloses, wherein each minigame of the plurality of minigames is generated by taking into consideration characteristics of a character used for representing the user in the video game, the characteristics identifying a type of input skills exhibited by the character in the gameplay of the video game during the prior gameplay sessions, and said each minigame is generated to improve the type of input skills exhibited by the character representing the user (col. 7 lines 1-14, col. 11 lines 60-67, col. 12 lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 16, Fortuna discloses, wherein the training option is provided to the user based on evaluation of the input skills retrieved from the prior gameplay sessions of the user and one or more of other users who have played the video game (col. 2 lines 58-67, col. 9 lines 28-41).
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) 3, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuna as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Fortuna discloses wherein the option for resuming the gameplay includes an option to resume the gameplay from a resumption point, wherein the resumption point is defined by the user or is determined from the one or more prior gameplay sessions of the user for the video game, and wherein the resumption point is identified to be a point where the user stopped the gameplay or where the user had difficulty in progressing in the video game (col. 12 lines 30-40). Fortuna lacks in specifically disclosing an option to start game play from the beginning of the game. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to allow players to start the game back at the beginning of the game once they have completed minigame training sessions. By starting at the beginning of the game, the player can then see if they can improve their score and move forward in the game with the new skills they have learned.
Regarding claim 12, Fortuna discloses that the user can pause gameplay and enter the tutorial curriculum and then may resume gameplay (col. 12 lines 30-42). Fortuna does not explicitly mention generating guardrails for the portion of the video game, the guardrails identified to prevent exposing the user to other portions of the video game that are beyond a resumption point, wherein the resumption point is a point in the video game where the user has paused their gameplay. However, it implicit in Fortuna and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing that the tutorial curriculum of Fortuna may have “guardrails” not allowing players to move beyond the point in the game from which it was paused. The tutorial curriculum of Fortuna is to assist users in increasing their skill level based on game play that has already occurred and evaluating which portions of the game they player is struggling with. It would have been obvious to not allow a player to select or move further in a game beyond where their game play was already paused, as that would give a player an advantage in the game and spoil what is to come in game play.
Regarding claim 17, Fortuna discloses, wherein the plurality of minigames is identified and presented using the inputs skills of the user identified and extracted from one or more of the prior gameplay sessions and game state of the video game (col. 2 lines 58-67). Fortuna lacks in disclosing that a machine learning algorithm identifies the minigames for the user. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use train an AI model and have a machine learning algorithm select the minigames for the user based on identified user input skills. By using an AI model, the system could learn what areas the player struggles in and suggest further training curriculum.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuna as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arezina US 2012/0157193.
Regarding claim 9, Fortuna discloses selection of minigames by the user through a screen selection button (Fig. 5) which are used to build the input skills of the user necessary for progressing in the video game in a linear manner, and wherein the portion of the video game included in corresponding minigame associated with tutorial includes a key event of the video game (Fig. 8, col. 9 lines 8-29). Fortuna lacks in disclosing thumbnails. Arezina teaches of a gaming system in which a plurality of minigames are presented as thumbnails in a sandbox for selection by the user, the sandbox allowing a non-linear selection of any one of the thumbnails for accessing and practicing a corresponding portion of the video game (Arezina ¶ 150). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to use thumbnails to display available minigames. Thumbnails provide an easy selection and display for users to select.
Regarding claim 18, Fortuna discloses a display of distinct key event that can be achieved with the input skills required by the user to progress in the video game (Fig. 8). Fortuna lacks in disclosing thumbnails presented to include an image representation of the distinct key event associated with said each thumbnail. Arezina teaches of a gaming system in which a plurality of minigames are presented as thumbnails depicting image representation of distinct key events associated with the thumbnail (i.e. what the thumbnail refers to) (Arezina ¶ 150). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to use thumbnails to display available minigames. Thumbnails provide an easy and visual selection and display for users to select.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortuna in view of Gauffin et al. US 10,249,140.
Regarding claims 19, Fortuna discloses a video game training system where training scenarios and practice tutorials are presented to a player, including
presenting a training option on a user interface for user selection to enable the user to refresh their input skills for use in the gameplay of the video game (Fig. 5);
responsive to the user selection of the training option, presenting a plurality of minigames on the user interface, each minigame of the plurality of minigames including a portion of the video game that requires a distinct set of input skills and is identified to enable the user to improve the input skills for progressing in the video game (col. 10 lines 20-27, 61-67, col. 11 lines 1-14, i.e. the practice scenarios and training activities are considered minigames);
detecting selection of a minigame from the plurality of minigames presented at the user interface, the selection of the minigame by the user for current gameplay causing instantiation of an executable code for the portion of the video game to allow the user to practice the distinct set of input skills for the portion (Fig. 5, col. 13 lines 40-56);
monitoring the input skills exhibited by the user during the current gameplay of the minigame selected for gameplay to identify an amount of progress made by the user in said portion of the video game (col. 15 lines 54-67, col. 16 lines 1-41).; and
updating the user interface, based on the input skills exhibited by the user (Fig. 10, col. 15 lines 54-67, col. 16 lines 1-41).
Regarding claim 21 Fortuna further discloses wherein the training option is specific to the user and is defined based on the input skills exhibited by the user during the prior gameplay session of the video game (col. 2 lines 28-67).
For claims 19 and 21, Fortuna lacks in specifically disclosing determining an amount of time that has elapsed since the user previously selected the video game for the gameplay; and when the amount of time elapsed exceeds a predefined period of time presented training options to the user. Gauffin et al teaches that it is well know in the art to determine an elapsed period of time since a player had prior interaction with a game device (Gauffin claim 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to calculate the time period since a player last played a game and thereby present training options to a player when the amount of time since they last played the game was over a certain threshold. Fortuna specifically mentions that a user may forget details about game play if they have not played the game for a certain period of time and tutorials and training materials are a good way to assist a player with how to play the game (Fortuna col. 1 lines 30-47). Therefore, one could determine the period of time elapsed since a player last played a game as taught in Gauffin to determine the types of training materials to present to a player in Fortuna. Consequently, a player could practice the skills in the game to remember how to play the game.
Regarding claim 20, Fortuna discloses, wherein presenting the plurality of minigames further includes, evaluating input skills exhibited by the user during a prior gameplay session, to identify skill sets required by the user to progress in the video game; and identifying the plurality of minigames for presenting to the user, wherein each minigame of the plurality of minigames is identified to include the portion of the video game that requires at least a portion of the skill sets required by the user to progress in the video game (col. 6 lines 3-22, col. 9 lines 8-29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE K BROCKETTI whose telephone number is (571) 272- 0206. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/JULIE K BROCKETTI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3700