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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 11, 20,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “responsive to assigning a plurality of non-playable characters (NPCs) to a first NPC group, selecting one or more NPCs of the plurality of NPCs as at least one leader NPC and designating remaining NPCs of the plurality of NPCs as follower NPCs; configuring the at least one leader NPC to make decisions; and providing a decision made by the at least one leader NPC to the follower NPCs” (claims 1, 11), “obtaining, by a first non-playable character (NPC), a first decision made by a second NPC and a second decision made by a third NPC; responsive to applying, by the first NPC, a heuristic function to each of the first decision and the second decision, generating a third decision for the first NPC; and updating the virtual digital environment based on at least one of the first decision, second decision, or the third decision” (claim 20), are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing relationships/interactions, rules). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 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 generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “a virtual digital environment, a machine learning-based policy, a plurality of hardware components”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements 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. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Cai (2023/0302361) teaches the recited additional elements (Fig 1, 11-12, ¶¶0140-0176).
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-20, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp, rules in In re Smith.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (2023/0302361) in view of Wu et al. (2022/0054943).
Re Claim 1,
Cai discloses a method comprising:
responsive to assigning a plurality of non-playable characters (NPCs) in a virtual digital environment to a first NPC group, selecting one or more NPCs of the plurality of NPCs as at least one leader NPC and designating remaining NPCs of the plurality of NPCs as follower NPCs (Fig 2, 4-5,¶¶0024, 0026, 0032, 0035-0036, 0040-0041, 0046, 0050-0054, 0197; when under attacked from the player character, at least two non-player characters would gather towards a boss object to perform the group movement towards the player character, wherein a determination process of the boss object is used to select the leader);
configuring the at least one leader NPC to make decisions; and providing a decision made by the at least one leader NPC to the follower NPCs (Fig 2, 4-5, ¶¶0040-0041, 0059; the boss character is controlled by AI logic, wherein the boss character performs group movement towards the player character in the virtual environment, i.e., the boss makes decision to lead other non-player characters to perform group movement).
Cai does not explicitly disclose using a machine learning-based policy.
However, Wu teaches using a machine learning-based policy for non-playable characters (¶¶0005-0007, 0031-0032, 0066, 0077). Wu further teaches such a configuration allows game developers to implement complex NPC behaviors (¶0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Wu into the NPC system of Cai in order to enhance game play experience by allowing the game developers to implement complex NPC behaviors.
Re Claims 2, 12,
Cai discloses configuring each of the follower NPCs to make decisions using at least one heuristic function based on the decision provided for the at least one leader NPC or a decision of one or more NPCs of the plurality of NPCs designated as a sub-leader (¶¶0052-0054, 0063-0065, 0070).
Re Claims 3, 13,
Cai discloses updating the virtual digital environment based on at least one of: the decision made by the at least one leader NPC, the decision of the one or more NPCs designated as a sub-leader, or decisions made by the follower NPCs (¶¶0040-0041, 0046, 0050-0054, 0197).
Re Claim 5,
Cai discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the machine learning-based policy is one of a reinforcement learning-based policy, a large language model-based policy, or an offline machine-learning based policy. However, Wu teaches the machine learning-based policy is one of a reinforcement learning-based policy, a large language model-based policy, or an offline machine-learning based policy (¶¶0005-0007, 0031-0032, 0066, 0077). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 6, 15,
Cai discloses responsive to an NPC of the plurality of NPCs having moved outside of a splitting boundary of the first NPC group, removing the NPC from the first NPC group and assigning the NPC to a second NPC group (¶¶0102-0108, 0112-0118).
Re Claims 7, 16,
Cai discloses the second NPC group is a new NPC group or an existing NPC group and is one of a multi-NPC group or a single-NPC group (¶¶0102-0108, 0112-0118).
Re Claims 8, 17,
Cai discloses responsive to a merge boundary of the first NPC group intersecting with a merge boundary of a second NPC group, combining the first NPC group and the second NPC group into a third NPC group (¶¶0102-0108, 0112-0118).
Re Claims 9, 18,
Cai discloses responsive to detecting an NPC promotion condition, promoting at least one of: one or more of the follower NPCs to a leader NPC, or one or more NPCs of the plurality of NPCs designated as a sub-leader to a leader NPC (¶¶0052-0054, 0063-0065, 0070, 0102-0108, 0112-0118).
Re Claim 10, 19,
Cai discloses responsive to detecting an NPC demotion condition demoting the at least one leader NPC to a follower NPC (¶¶0052-0054, 0063-0065, 0070, 0102-0108, 0112-0118).
Re Claim 20,
Cai discloses a method comprising:
obtaining, by a first non-playable character (NPC) in a virtual digital environment, a first decision made by a second NPC and a second decision made by a third NPC (Fig 2, 4-5,¶¶0024, 0026, 0032, 0035-0036, 0040-0041, 0046, 0050-0054, 0072-0073, 0197; each non-player character of the at least two non-player character follows the rules determined by the system to gather towards a boss character or moves toward an aggregation point);
responsive to applying, by the first NPC, a heuristic function to each of the first decision and the second decision, generating a third decision for the first NPC; and updating the virtual digital environment based on at least one of the first decision, second decision, or the third decision (Fig 4-8, ¶¶0040-0041, 0046, 0050-0054, 0072-0073, 0197; the boss character determines the group action based on the actions performed by other non-player characters, for instance, the other non-player characters follows rules to gather toward a boss character, then a boss character determines to perform group movement or allied attack).
Cai does not explicitly disclose a machine learning-based policy. However, Wu teaches a machine learning-based policy (¶¶0005-0007, 0031-0032, 0066, 0077). See claim 1 for motivation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached on 571-272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715