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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/12/24 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application no 17/074314, filed 10/19/20, prior application no 17/656322, filed 3/24/22, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes a continuation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 6, 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11311810, 12109496. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, 14 of the present application are merely broader in scope than that of U.S. Patent No. 11311810, 12109496. Therefore, U.S. Patent No. 11311810, 12109496 “invention” meets the limitations of the instant application. See below for a comparison example.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11311810
U.S. Patent No.12109496
1. A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving gameplay data associated with a player; generating, based at least in part on the gameplay data, a persona of the player; generating, during gameplay of an online game by the player, content that is tailored to the player, wherein generating the content is based at least in part on: inputting the persona into a content generation algorithm or model; and receiving, as the content, a result from the content generating algorithm or model; and outputting the content to the gameplay of the online game.
1. A system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a request for content based on a persona of a player; receive gameplay data associated with gameplay of the player in a plurality of games; generate a player persona of the player based on the gameplay data associated with the gameplay of the player in the plurality of games; determine persona based content based at least in part on a portion of the player persona; and output the persona based content in response to the request, wherein: the persona based content is a recommendation for an additional game unlockable in-game content, and the determining the persona based content comprises: determining an average player persona of a player base of the game or unlockable in-game content; and determining a degree of similarity between the average player and player persona of the player and wherein outputting the persona based content in response to the request outputs the recommendation for the additional game or the unlockable in-game content as the persona based content based at least in part on the degree of similarity.
1. A system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a request for content based on a persona of a player; receive gameplay data associated with gameplay of the player in one or more games; generate a player persona of the player based on the gameplay data associated with the gameplay of the player in the one or more games; generate, based at least in part on a portion of the player persona of the player, custom persona based content for the player, wherein the custom persona based content for the player is custom content for the player in a game associated with the player including: retrieving a dynamic content generation algorithm or model from a datastore based at least in part on the request, the dynamic content generation algorithm or model associated with the content based on the persona of the player; inputting at least a portion of the player persona into the dynamic content generation algorithm or model; and receiving a result of the dynamic content generation algorithm or model; and output the custom persona based content for the player in response to the request, wherein the custom persona based content includes at least the result of the dynamic content generation algorithm or model.
6. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause a system to perform operations comprising:
generating, based at least in part on the gameplay data, a persona of the player; generating, during gameplay of an online game by the player, content that is tailored to the player, wherein generating the content is based at least in part on: inputting the persona into a content generation algorithm or model; and receiving, as the content, a result from the content generating algorithm or model; and outputting the content to the gameplay of the online game.
14. A system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving a request for content based on a persona of a player; receiving gameplay data associated with gameplay of the player in a plurality of games; generating a player persona of the player based on the gameplay data associated with the gameplay of the player in the plurality of games; determining persona based content based at least in part on a portion of the player persona; and outputting the persona based content in response to the request, wherein: the persona based content is a recommendation for an additional game unlockable in-game content, and the determining the persona based content comprises: determining an average player persona of a player base of the game or unlockable in-game content; and determining a degree of similarity between the average player and player persona of the player and wherein outputting the persona based content in response to the request outputs the recommendation for the additional game or the unlockable in-game content as the persona based content based at least in part on the degree of similarity.
14. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving a request for content based on a persona of a player; receiving gameplay data associated with gameplay of the player in one or more games; generating a player persona of the player based on the gameplay data associated with the gameplay of the player in the one or more games; generating, based at least in part on a portion of the player persona of the player, custom persona based content for the player, wherein the custom persona based content for the player is custom content for the player in a game associated with the player including: retrieving a dynamic content generation algorithm or model from a datastore based at least in part on the request, the dynamic content generation algorithm or model associated with the content based on the persona of the player; inputting at least a portion of the player persona into the dynamic content generation algorithm or model; and receiving a result of the dynamic content generation algorithm or model; and outputting the custom persona based content for the player in response to the request, wherein the custom persona based content includes at least the result of the dynamic content generation algorithm or model.
14. A method comprising:
generating, based at least in part on the gameplay data, a persona of the player; generating, during gameplay of an online game by the player, content that is tailored to the player, wherein generating the content is based at least in part on: inputting the persona into a content generation algorithm or model; and receiving, as the content, a result from the content generating algorithm or model; and outputting the content to the gameplay of the online game.
7. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a request for content based on a persona of a player; receiving gameplay data associated with gameplay of the player in a plurality of games; generating a player persona of the player based on the gameplay data associated with the gameplay of the player in the plurality of games; determining persona based content based at least in part on a portion of the player persona; and outputting the persona based content in response to the request, wherein: the persona based content is a recommendation for an additional game unlockable in-game content, and the determining the persona based content comprises: determining an average player persona of a player base of the game or unlockable in-game content; and determining a degree of similarity between the average player and player persona of the player and wherein outputting the persona based content in response to the request outputs the recommendation for the additional game or the unlockable in-game content as the persona based content based at least in part on the degree of similarity.
7. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a request for content based on a persona of a player; receiving gameplay data associated with gameplay of the player in one or more games; generating a player persona of the player based on the gameplay data associated with the gameplay of the player in the one or more games; generating, based at least in part on a portion of the player persona of the player, custom persona based content for the player, wherein the custom persona based content for the player is custom content for the player in a game associated with the player including: retrieving a dynamic content generation algorithm or model from a datastore based at least in part on the request, the dynamic content generation algorithm or model associated with the content based on the persona of the player; inputting at least a portion of the player persona into the dynamic content generation algorithm or model; and receiving a result of the dynamic content generation algorithm or model; and outputting the custom persona based content for the player in response to the request, wherein the custom persona based content includes at least the result of the dynamic content generation algorithm or model.
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, 6, 14,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “receiving gameplay data associated with a player; generating, based at least in part on the gameplay data, a persona of the player; generating, during gameplay of an online game by the player, content that is tailored to the player, wherein generating the content is based at least in part on: inputting the persona into a content generation algorithm or model; and receiving, as the content, a result from the content generating algorithm or model; and outputting the content to the gameplay of the online game”, are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, rules). The mere nominal recitation of a social networking site, a virtual character and a virtual game area 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 2-5, 7-13, 15-20 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 “one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors”, 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, Muller teaches the recited additional elements (Fig 1A-1B, ¶¶0059, 0089, 0092, 0096-0097, 0301).
In addition, with regards to the present 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, and 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) 1-10, 12-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (2012/0142429) in view Krishnamurthy (2019/0060759).
Re Claim 1,
Muller discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the system to perform operations (Fig 1A-1B, ¶¶0059, 0089, 0092, 0096-0097, 0301) comprising:
receiving gameplay data associated with a player (¶0275; the system analyzes the player's performance within the virtual world by accessing a player's performance within one or more games);
generating, based at least in part on the gameplay data, a persona of the player (Fig 7, 17A-17B, ¶¶0095, 0134-0137; the system determines a player’s profile based on the collected gameplay data, for example, a player can be determined as a crafter, a role-player, an explorer, a grinder).
Muller does not explicitly disclose generating, during gameplay of an online game by the player, content that is tailored to the player, wherein generating the content is based at least in part on: inputting the persona into a content generation algorithm or model; and receiving, as the content, a result from the content generating algorithm or model; and outputting the content to the gameplay of the online game.
However, Krishnamurthy teaches generating, during gameplay of an online game by the player, content that is tailored to the player, wherein generating the content is based at least in part on: inputting the persona into a content generation algorithm or model; and receiving, as the content, a result from the content generating algorithm or model; and outputting the content to the gameplay of the online game (Fig 5-8, ¶¶0049, 0051, 0053, 0056, 0080-0081; the system monitors features of player, wherein player-specific game session data is input to the artificial intelligence model. Further, the artificial intelligence model determines how the adaptive context generated for the player in a virtual environment of the video game. In other words, a portion of the player's features is input to the neural network as a feature vector, the output of the automated analysis is a set of selected parameters and parameter values relevant for that player’s features, as such, the parameters and parameter values personalize a current context or a set of immediate next contexts such that a narrative of the video game is adapted to the player's features, and the video game console to present a UI element shows the adaptive context). Krishnamurthy further teaches such a configuration improves the video game code by providing adaptive game assistance and video games (¶¶0003-0004). 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 Krishnamurthy into the game system of Muller in order to improve the gameplay experience for the player by providing a more adaptive video game.
Re Claims 2, 7, 15,
Muller discloses all limitations as set forth above including determining a role of the player in the online game but does not explicitly disclose generating the content is further based at least in part on the player profile. However, Krishnamurthy teaches generating the content is further based at least in part on the player profile (¶¶0049, 0051, 0053, 0056, 0080-0081).
Re Claims 3, 8, 13, 16
Muller discloses the player is a first player associated with a team of players, the team of players including the first player and a second player, determining a second persona associated with the second player; and generating, based at least in part on the persona and the second persona, a combined persona (¶¶0067, 0080, 0092, 0095, 0134-0137) but does not explicitly discloses generating the content is further based at least in part on the persona. However, Krishnamurthy teaches generating the content is further based at least in part on the persona (¶¶0049, 0051, 0053, 0056, 0080-0081). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 4, 9, 17,
Muller discloses the content includes at least one of: a level map, an enemy, a challenge, a mission, a puzzle or a trap, or an item (¶¶0134-0137, 0143, 0149, 0172-0174, 0176).
Re Claims 5, 10, 18,
Muller discloses the persona comprises a persona classification and a plurality of persona dimensions associated with the gameplay of the player in one or more games (¶¶0134-0137, 0143, 0149, 0172-0174, 0176, 0275).
Re Claims 6, 14,
Claims are substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Re Claims 12, 20,
Muller discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on retrieving the content generation algorithm or model from a datastore based at least in part on a request for the content, wherein the content generation algorithm or model is associated with the online game and a type of the content; and generating, based at least in part on the persona and the content generation algorithm or model, the content. However, Krishnamurthy teaches retrieving the content generation algorithm or model from a datastore based at least in part on a request for the content, wherein the content generation algorithm or model is associated with the online game and a type of the content; and generating, based at least in part on the persona and the content generation algorithm or model, the content (¶¶0049, 0051, 0053, 0056, 0080-0081).
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
Prosecution Insights