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 1-17, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim (1-16 and 18) recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
With the exception of claim 17, claim 17 is directed to against a processing resource. A processing resources can not be interpreted to be directed as either process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Accordingly, claim 17 fails the STEP 1 test.
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 16, 17 and 18 recite(s):
A computer-implemented method of providing a first player presence in a computer generated gaming environment, the method implemented by a processing resource, the method comprising:
obtaining game play data associated with a second player presence in the computer generated gaming environment;
using the game play data associated with the second player presence to train a neural network associated with the second player presence;
providing the first player presence by:
determining a requirement for a response to a first game state provided in the computer generated gaming environment;
generating the response using the neural network associated with the second player presence.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer generated gaming environment”, “a processing resource”, “neural network”, “computer generated gaming environment” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people or be directed to a certain method of organizing human activities. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a game designer observing behaviors of a player via player data and designing a response that is appropriate with the player’s action.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – ““computer generated gaming environment”, “a processing resource”, “neural network”, “computer generated gaming environment”
The ““computer generated gaming environment”, “a processing resource”, “neural network”, “computer generated gaming environment” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or it is considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see page 6 line 7-10 and line 15-20 showing the use of generic computing device, cloud computing and generic mobile computing device).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-15, and 16-18 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. For example, claims 2-4, 12-15 are directed to the step of generic neural training network with out claiming the steps that desired function, claims 5-11 are directed to the type of player data and its demographic. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at 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. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
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)(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 1-8, 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saeedi US 20230310995
Claim 1: The Saaedi reference a computer-implemented method of providing a first player presence in a computer generated gaming environment (see abstract), the method implemented by a processing resource, the method comprising:
obtaining game play data associated with a second player presence in the computer generated gaming environment (see paragraph 41 capturing the movement of the player control character);
using the game play data associated with the second player presence to train a neural network associated with the second player presence (paragraph 58 determining movement of the player character and training of the neural network based on the player data 1020);
providing the first player presence by:
determining a requirement for a response to a first game state provided in the computer generated gaming environment (see paragraph 58 changing the rules based on the user gameplay data);
generating the response using the neural network associated with the second player presence (see paragraph 41 generate movement of the non player character).
Claim 2: The Saaedi reference provides a teaching of wherein the neural network associated with the second player presence is trained using reinforcement learning (see paragraph 40 reinforcement learning engine 510).
Claim 3: The Saaedi reference provides a teaching of wherein reinforcement learning is used to optimise a policy function configured to generated responses expected from the second player presence (see paragraph 40 “… to continue to adapt the weights of the layers of neural network and RL engine 510 to improve the movements of NPCs. These updated weights can be uploaded to the cloud to allow these updates to be applied to other neural networks.”).
Claim 4: The Saaedi reference provides a teaching of wherein game play scenario characteristics are used to train the neural network (see paragraph 28 training the neural network based on the specific game scenario and location).
Claim 5: The Saaedi reference provides a teaching wherein the first player presence is a non-player character (See FIG. 6 item 615) and the second player presence represents at least one user who controls or has previously controlled a character in the computer generated gaming environment (see FIG. 6 item 605).
Claim 6: The Saaedi reference provides a teaching of wherein the first player presence is provided responsive to a user encountering a first game state (see paragraph 29 maintaining distance of the computer controlled character with the player character)
Claim 7: The Saaedi reference provides a teaching of wherein the first player presence is provided responsive to a request from a user with an active presence in the computer-generated gaming environment (see paragraph 29 maintaining distance of the computer controlled character with respect to the player character)
Claim 8: The Saaedi reference provide a teaching of wherein the second player presence corresponds to at least one user of the computer-generated gaming environment (see paragraph 45 player 605).
Claim 12: The Saaedi reference provide a teaching wherein the training of the neural network is repeated at specified intervals (see paragraph 53 item 735 being retrain over a period of time).
Claim 13: The Saaedi reference provides a teaching wherein the repetition of the training is initialized autonomously (see paragraph 58 being retrained depending on the rules set by the designer).
Claim 14: The Saaedi reference provides a teaching of wherein the gameplay data is associated with a response action to a game state (see paragraph 52).
Claim 15: The Saaedi reference provide a teaching of wherein the training is repeated for all game states which can be provided in the computer generated gaming environment (see paragraph 22).
Claim 16: The Saaedi reference provides teaching of a system for providing a first player presence in a computer generated gaming environment (see abstract), comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions (see paragraph 23 item 130); and a processor configured to implement the method of Claim 1 (see paragraph 23 item 105A).
Claim 17: The Saaedi reference provide a teaching of processing resource configured to implement the method of Claim 1 (see paragraph 22).
Claim 18: The Saaedi reference a teaching of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer readable code to provide a first player presence in a computer generated gaming environment on a system which, when executed by a processing resource, causes the system to implement the method of Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1).
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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeedi US 20230310995 and in view of Ntoulas et al US 20160067612
Claim 9: The Saaedi reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the second player presence corresponds to a group of users of the computer generated gaming environment.
However, the Ntoulas reference provides a teaching of wherein the second player presence corresponds to a group of users of the computer generated gaming environment (see paragraph 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Saaedi reference with the feature of wherein the second player presence corresponds to a group of users of the computer generated gaming environment, as taught by the Ntoulas reference, in order to provide a suitable playing experience according to the user’s game experience (see paragraph 7).
Claim 10: The Saaedi reference provides at teaching of wherein the group of users are unified by a demographic characteristic.
However, the Ntoulas reference provides a teaching of wherein the group of users are unified by a demographic characteristic (see paragraph 67 players from a certain age group or a certain playing style).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Saaedi reference with the feature of wherein the group of users are unified by a demographic characteristic, as taught by the Ntoulas reference, in order to provide a suitable playing experience according to the user’s game experience (see paragraph 7).
Claim 11: The Saeedi reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the group of users are unified by a competence level in the computer generated gaming environment.
However, the Ntoulas reference provides a teaching of wherein the group of users are unified by a competence level in the computer generated gaming environment (see paragraph 67 players from a certain playing style and difficulty level and paragraph 69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Saaedi reference with the feature of wherein the group of users are unified by a competence level in the computer generated gaming environment, as taught by the Ntoulas reference, in order to provide a suitable playing experience according to the user’s game experience (see paragraph 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715