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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 06/27/2024.
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 06/27/2024 are noted.
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 to 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 25 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a computer implemented method, a system, and a non-transitory medium in Claims 1-25. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Specifically, independent Claim 1 (and similarly recited Claims 24 and 25) recites “…1. A computer implemented method for adding a new gaming engine to a gaming services platform, comprising:
identifying the new gaming engine to add to the gaming services platform, wherein the gaming services platform includes a plurality of other gaming engines operating thereon;
initiating an integration process between the gaming services platform and the new gaming engine, the integration process including modifying at least one aspect of the new gaming engine to conform to a gaming services interface (GSI) of the gaming services platform for facilitating the integration;
analyzing at least one metric associated with the new gaming engine using the GSI; and
based on the analyzing, modifying at least one aspect of playing a game with the new gaming engine via the GSI, for improving the analyzed at least one metric.”
As indicated above, the underlined portions of representative Independent Claim 1, and similarly recited Independent Claims 24 and 25, generally encompass the abstract ideas, which may be viewed, for example, as:
use of machine learning in a given environment as discussed in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025);
mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I); and/or
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., platform management) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
Like the claims in Recentive, the instant claims merely recite the use of generic machine learning applied to a given data environment. The Recentive court determined that claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that using existing machine learning technology they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved. The courts have consistently held, in the context of computer-assisted methods, that such claims are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because they speed up human activity. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 to 25 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. According to 2019 PEG, the following considerations indicative of integration into a practical application includes looking at the elements individually and in combination:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1, 24, and 25 further recite additional elements such as a processor, machine learning model, yet these are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The identifying, initiating, analyzing, and modifying steps are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation for the use of the judicial exception and similarly are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 24, and 25 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 24, 25, and their dependent claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1-25 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Independent Claims 1, 24, and 25 do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional elements in the claim of a processor, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components used as tools. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Further, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Here, the identifying, initiating, analyzing, and modifying steps of the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation extra-solution activity. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) and then to present or display said information is well known as in presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. While, the specification discusses the use of machine learning, it does not provide any indication that the machine learning themselves are improved in any way. In light of the court decision in Recentive, this is not sufficient to save a claim from abstraction. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses of Claims 1 to 25 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., rules for conducting a game and/or mental process) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1 to 25 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Furthermore, taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 24 and 25 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to conduct a game and/or mental process with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 to 25 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1 to 25 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: NO).
Accordingly, Claims 1 to 25 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and the 2019 PEG.
Dependent Claims are ineligible and lack a practical application. They further recite extra-solution activities and further define the abstract idea of the independent claims.
Claims 2-23 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
AIA Notice
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 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 § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-8, 15, 18-19, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0119275 A1 to Kobrin et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0259177 A1 to Aghdaie et al.
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 24 and 24, Kobrin discloses a computer implemented method for adding a new gaming engine to a gaming services platform, comprising:
identifying the new gaming engine to add to the gaming services platform, wherein the gaming services platform includes a plurality of other gaming engines operating thereon (fig. 1, ¶¶ 9-10 discloses a plurality of dissimilar gaming engines that transmit and receive a plurality events between the plurality of dissimilar games; an interchange protocol for permitting use of a common vocabulary between the plurality of dissimilar engines of the plurality of events… permitting use of a common vocabulary between the plurality of dissimilar engines of the plurality of events via an interchange protocol; and mapping internal events from a first engine of the plurality of dissimilar gaming engines to external events of a second engine of the plurality of dissimilar gaming engines via a vocabulary generation system);
initiating an integration process between the gaming services platform and the new gaming engine, the integration process including modifying at least one aspect of the new gaming engine to conform to a gaming services interface (GSI) of the gaming services platform for facilitating the integration (figs. 1, 3, ¶¶ 9-10, 23-24, 47-48 discloses providing a plurality of dissimilar gaming engines that transmit and receive a plurality events between the plurality of dissimilar games; permitting use of a common vocabulary between the plurality of dissimilar engines of the plurality of events via an interchange protocol; and mapping internal events from a first engine of the plurality of dissimilar gaming engines to external events of a second engine of the plurality of dissimilar gaming engines via a vocabulary generation system, … the interchange vocabulary is a mapping from internal events (or combinations thereof) in one engine to external events in another. The vocabulary description system defines how the mapping can be defined at runtime if the two games do not already share a common vocabulary). However, Kobrin does not explicitly disclose:
analyzing at least one metric associated with the new gaming engine using the GSI; and
based on the analyzing, modifying at least one aspect of playing a game with the new gaming engine via the GSI, for improving the analyzed at least one metric.
In related invention, Aghdaie discloses
analyzing at least one metric associated with the new gaming engine using the GSI (¶¶ 32-35 discloses monitoring user behavior and gameplay data to determine skill, challenge, and engagement); and
based on the analyzing, modifying at least one aspect of playing a game with the new gaming engine via the GSI, for improving the analyzed at least one metric (¶¶ 4, 27, 31-35 discloses dynamically adjusting one or more aspects of a video game, including knob values and other gameplay aspects, based on monitored user behavior and prediction models to improve engagement or challenge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kobrin with the metrics adjustment features of Aghdaie in order to further improve engagement and performance of the players during game play.
Regarding Claim 5, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of other gaming engines and the new gaming engine added to the gaming services platform are operated and/or accessed via a common GSI of the gaming services platform (Kobrin, ¶¶ 17-19, 47-50 discloses two completely different gaming engines to interact by creating of a protocol, which can be used for any type of game or simulation).
Regarding Claim 6, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein each one of the plurality of other gaming engines and the new gaming engine added to the gaming services platform is associated with a respective instance of the GSI (Kobrin, ¶¶ 17-19, 47-50 discloses two completely different gaming engines to interact by creating of a protocol, which can be used for any type of game or simulation).
Regarding Claim 7, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 6, wherein the plurality of other gaming engines and the new gaming engine are hosted by an external computing environment that is different than a computing platform hosting the gaming services platform (Kobrin, ¶¶ 17-19, 47-50 discloses two completely different gaming engines to interact by creating of a protocol, which can be used for any type of game or simulation).
Regarding Claim 8, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 6, wherein each one of the plurality of other gaming engines and the new gaming engine uses its respective instance of the GSI for communicating with a service engine, for being accessed and/or controlled and/or managed by the service engine (Kobrin, ¶¶ 17-19, 47-50 discloses two completely different gaming engines to interact by creating of a protocol, which can be used for any type of game or simulation).
Regarding Claim 15, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein analyzing comprises predicting a target set of configuration parameters, that when the at least one aspect of playing the game is modified to the target set of configuration parameters, the target set of configuration parameters improves the at least one metric (Aghdaie, ¶¶ 10, 27, 29, 31, 39-40, 48-49 discloses determining knob values using parameter functions or prediction models and dynamically adjusting aspects of the game using those predicted values).
Regarding Claim 18, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 15, wherein the at least one metric is for measuring a user achievement requirement denoting goals and/or milestones for the player to accomplish within a type of game for which the new gaming engine is designed to support and/or designed for optimal performance (Aghdaie, ¶¶ 10, 27, 29, 31, 39-40, 48-49).
Regarding Claim 19, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 15, wherein the target set of configuration parameters comprises a combination of a first type of configuration parameters and a second type of configuration parameters, the first type of configuration parameters being associated with setting an effort level predicted to be tolerated by the player, and the second type of configuration parameters associated with setting a reward level predicted as an incentive by the player (Aghdaie, ¶¶ 10, 27, 29, 31, 39-40, 48-49).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0119275 A1 to Kobrin et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0259177 A1 to Aghdaie et al. and further in view of 2014/0087355 A1 to Henry et al.
Regarding Claim 2, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of other gaming engines are designed for supporting and/or for optimal performance of different types of games, and the new gaming engine is identified according to being designed for supporting and/or being designed for optimal performance of a type of game not currently supported and/or not currently optimized for execution by any of the plurality of other gaming engines hosted by the gaming services platform. In a related invention, Henry discloses wherein the plurality of other gaming engines are designed for supporting and/or for optimal performance of different types of games, and the new gaming engine is identified according to being designed for supporting and/or being designed for optimal performance of a type of game not currently supported and/or not currently optimized for execution by any of the plurality of other gaming engines hosted by the gaming services platform (¶¶ 28, 30-31, 36 discloses multiple game types and components on a common platform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kobrin and Aghdaie with the features of Henry in order to improve on the gaming system and engine such that it includes streamlined integration into third-party systems, customization, the capacity to quickly introduce enhancements, and to assess and implement user feedback.
Regarding Claim 3, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie and Henry discloses the computer implemented method of claim 2, wherein the different type of games include one or more of: 2D versus 3D, single player versus multi-player, fast graphic rendition, and type of client terminal on which game is being played (Henry, ¶¶ 10, 28, 30-31, 36 discloses different game types and user interface/game-content adaptation across devices/platforms).
Regarding Claim 4, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie and Henry discloses the computer implemented method of claim 2, wherein the at least one metric is for measuring the performance of and/or user satisfaction in conjunction with, the new gaming engine running the type of game not currently supported and/or not currently optimized for execution by any of the plurality of other gaming engines hosted by the gaming services platform (Aghdaie, ¶¶ 4-11, 30, 41, 43 discloses metrics directed to engagement, skill level, and desired challenges, which are examples of performance and user satisfaction for a game running on an engine).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0119275 A1 to Kobrin et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0259177 A1 to Aghdaie et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent 11,748,072 to Cappello et al.
Regarding Claim 9, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the integration process comprises:
obtaining a source code operative to implement the new gaming engine;
applying a machine learning (ML) model to the source code, wherein the ML model is pre-trained to identify at least one region in the source code to be modified to conform to the GSI; and
receiving, from the ML model, at least a suggestion indicating modification of the at least one region of the source code to conform to the GSI.
In a related invention, Cappello discloses wherein the integration process comprises:
obtaining a source code operative to implement the new gaming engine (figs. 1-5, Col. 2:34-55, Col. 5:15-58 discloses compiling source code, profiling it, and recommendation circuitry to output the recommendation information for the source code);
applying a machine learning (ML) model to the source code, wherein the ML model is pre-trained to identify at least one region in the source code to be modified to conform to the GSI (fig. 1-5, Col. 2:25-50, Col 5:60 – Col. 7:30); and
receiving, from the ML model, at least a suggestion indicating modification of the at least one region of the source code to conform to the GSI (fig. 1-5, Col. 2:25-50, Col 5:60 – Col. 7:30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kobrin and Aghdaie with the features of Cappello in order to assist a developer when creating or editing source code to improve optimisation of source code for a system such as a gaming system.
Regarding Claim 10, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie and Cappello discloses the computer implemented method of claim 9, wherein applying comprises applying the ML model to the source code in combination with at least one aspect of the new gaming engine for modification to conform to the GSI, wherein the suggestion indicates modification of the at least one aspect of the source code of the new gaming engine to conform to the GSI (Cappello, fig. 1-5, Col. 2:25-50, Col 5:60 – Col. 7:30).
Regarding Claim 11, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie and Cappello discloses the computer implemented method of claim 9, wherein the at least the suggestion comprises automatically modifying the at least one region of the source code and compiling the source code including the modifications to create an executable version of the new gaming engine for adding to the gaming services platform (Cappello, fig. 1-5, Col. 2:25-50, Col 5:60 – Col. 7:30).
Regarding Claim 12, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie and Cappello discloses the computer implemented method of claim 9, wherein the ML model is trained on a training dataset of a plurality of records, wherein a record includes a sample source code of a sample gaming engine and sample at least one aspect, and a ground truth indicating at least one recommendation for adapting the at least one aspect of the sample source code to conform to the GSI (Cappello, fig. 1-5, Col. 2:25-50, Col 5:60 – Col. 7:30).
Claims 16-17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0119275 A1 to Kobrin et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0259177 A1 to Aghdaie et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0060759 A1 to Krishnamurthy.
Regarding Claim 16, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the predicting is performed by a simulation engine for simulating implementation of a modified at least one aspect on playing the game for predicting an effect on the at least one metric.
In a related invention, Krishnamurthy disclose wherein the predicting is performed by a simulation engine for simulating implementation of a modified at least one aspect on playing the game for predicting an effect on the at least one metric (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54 discloses determines an experience level of the video game player in playing the video game. In yet another operation, the computer system selects an action for the assistance from potential actions. The action is selected based on predicted outcomes of performing the potential actions given the experience level of the video game player. The potential actions and the predicted outcomes are derived based on automated analysis of a database of historical interactions with the context of other video game players of the determined experience level).
Krishnamurthy discloses selecting potential actions or contexts based on predicted outcomes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kobrin and Aghdaie with the features as disclosed in Krishnamurthy such that the system can be further improved to provide more adaptive game assistance and video games.
Regarding Claim 17, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose herein the predicting is performed by a ML model trained to predict an effect on at least one metric in response to an input of a modified at least one aspect. In a related invention, Krishnamurthy discloses herein the predicting is performed by a ML model trained to predict an effect on at least one metric in response to an input of a modified at least one aspect (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74).
Krishnamurthy discloses selecting potential actions or contexts based on predicted outcomes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kobrin and Aghdaie with the features as disclosed in Krishnamurthy such that the system can be further improved to provide more adaptive game assistance and video games.
Regarding Claim 20, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the new gaming engine to be added to the gaming service platform is identified according to ability to run a candidate gaming scenario meeting a target, wherein the candidate gaming scenario is associated with at least one desired outcome of users interacting with the gaming engine implementing the candidate gaming scenario.
In a related invention, Krishnamurthy discloses wherein the new gaming engine to be added to the gaming service platform is identified according to ability to run a candidate gaming scenario meeting a target, wherein the candidate gaming scenario is associated with at least one desired outcome of users interacting with the gaming engine implementing the candidate gaming scenario (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74).
Krishnamurthy discloses selecting potential actions or contexts based on predicted outcomes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kobrin and Aghdaie with the features as disclosed in Krishnamurthy such that the system can be further improved to provide more adaptive game assistance and video games.
Regarding Claim 21, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie and Krishnamurthy discloses the computer implemented method of claim 20, further comprising:
identifying, in the new gaming engine, a sub-set of the users interacting with the gaming engine for analyzing the candidate gaming scenario implemented by the new gaming engine (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74);
virtually implementing the candidate gaming scenario by the new gaming engine for interaction by the users as if the candidate gaming scenario is not virtually implemented (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74);
collecting data on the sub-set of users identified, in conjunction with the users interacting with the gaming engine virtually implementing the candidate gaming scenario (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74);
computing at least one game related result predicted to occur when the new gaming scenario is explicitly implemented by the candidate gaming engine using the data collected for the virtually implemented candidate gaming engine scenario (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74); and
in response to the at least one game related scenario meeting a target, identifying the new gaming engine to be added to the gaming services platform for running the candidate gaming scenario for interaction by the users (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74).
Regarding Claim 22, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein analyzing at least one metric and modifying at least one aspect of playing the game with the new gaming engine via the GSI, for improving the analyzed at least one metric, comprises: but does not explicitly disclose:
accessing a candidate gaming scenario to be implemented in the new gaming engine and in conjunction with users interacting with the gaming engine implementing the candidate gaming scenario, wherein the candidate gaming scenario is associated with at least one desired outcome of users interacting with the gaming engine implementing the candidate gaming scenario;
identifying a sub-set of the users interacting with the new gaming engine for analyzing the candidate gaming scenario implemented by the new gaming engine;
virtually implementing the candidate gaming scenario by the new gaming engine for interaction by the users as if the candidate gaming scenario is not virtually implemented;
collecting data on the sub-set of users identified in conjunction with the users interacting with the new gaming engine virtually implementing the candidate gaming scenario;
computing at least one game related result predicted to occur when the candidate gaming engine is explicitly implemented by the new gaming engine using the data collected for the virtually implemented candidate gaming engine scenario; and wherein modifying at least one aspect comprises:
in response to the at least one game related scenario meeting a target, explicitly implementing the candidate gaming scenario in the new gaming engine for interaction by the users.
In a related invention, Krishnamurthy discloses:
accessing a candidate gaming scenario to be implemented in the new gaming engine and in conjunction with users interacting with the gaming engine implementing the candidate gaming scenario, wherein the candidate gaming scenario is associated with at least one desired outcome of users interacting with the gaming engine implementing the candidate gaming scenario (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74);
identifying a sub-set of the users interacting with the new gaming engine for analyzing the candidate gaming scenario implemented by the new gaming engine (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74);
virtually implementing the candidate gaming scenario by the new gaming engine for interaction by the users as if the candidate gaming scenario is not virtually implemented (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74);
collecting data on the sub-set of users identified in conjunction with the users interacting with the new gaming engine virtually implementing the candidate gaming scenario (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74);
computing at least one game related result predicted to occur when the candidate gaming engine is explicitly implemented by the new gaming engine using the data collected for the virtually implemented candidate gaming engine scenario; and wherein modifying at least one aspect comprises:
in response to the at least one game related scenario meeting a target, explicitly implementing the candidate gaming scenario in the new gaming engine for interaction by the users (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74).
Krishnamurthy discloses selecting potential actions or contexts based on predicted outcomes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kobrin and Aghdaie with the features as disclosed in Krishnamurthy such that the system can be further improved to provide more adaptive game assistance and video games.
Regarding Claim 23, Kobrin in view of Aghdaie discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one metric associated with the new gaming engine comprises a plurality of behavior parameters relating to in-game actions of a plurality of players using a plurality of client devices engaged in a game running on the new gaming engine,
wherein analyzing comprises balancing between a user experience of at least one of the plurality of players and at least one long-term factor of the game running on the new gaming engine by generating, based on the plurality of behavior parameters, at least one reward recommendation for allocating at least one reward to at least one of the plurality of players for at least one in-game action made by the at least one player ,
wherein modifying at least one aspect comprises causing the gaming engine to adjust a graphic user interface (GUI) of the client device of at least one of the plurality of players to reflect the at least one allocated reward.
In a related invention, Krishnamurthy discloses:
wherein the at least one metric associated with the new gaming engine comprises a plurality of behavior parameters relating to in-game actions of a plurality of players using a plurality of client devices engaged in a game running on the new gaming engine (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74),
wherein analyzing comprises balancing between a user experience of at least one of the plurality of players and at least one long-term factor of the game running on the new gaming engine by generating, based on the plurality of behavior parameters, at least one reward recommendation for allocating at least one reward to at least one of the plurality of players for at least one in-game action made by the at least one player (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74),
wherein modifying at least one aspect comprises causing the gaming engine to adjust a graphic user interface (GUI) of the client device of at least one of the plurality of players to reflect the at least one allocated reward (Krishnamurthy, ¶¶ 6, 22, 32-34, 51-54, 71, 74).
Krishnamurthy discloses selecting potential actions or contexts based on predicted outcomes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kobrin and Aghdaie with the features as disclosed in Krishnamurthy such that the system can be further improved to provide more adaptive game assistance and video games.
Conclusion
Claims 1-25 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715