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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically the claims are directed to a Mental Process. Claim 1 recites “while the video game is executing, receive input from a user, the input requesting an output related to one or more aspects of the video game, the one or more aspects being aspects that have already been played by the user; based on the input, …identify data to present as the output; and based on the identification, present the output in a voice of a video game character from the video game.” Claim 13 recites “receiving input from a user, the input requesting an output related to one or more aspects of a video game, the one or more aspects being aspects that have already been played by the user; based on the input, …identify data to present as the output; and based on the identification, presenting the output to the user.” Claim 18 recites “receive input from a user, the input requesting an output related to one or more aspects of a video game; based on the input, …identify data to present as the output; and based on the identification, present the output to the user.”
This represents a series of steps that can be performed as a mental process by a human. For example a human could observe another person playing a game, listen to a request be the user for advice based on their previous gameplay and then providing verbal advice to the game player based on that past gameplay. Essentially coaching. Further a human could perform a vocal impression of a video game character to “present the output in a voice of a video game character from the video game.”
. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a processor, computer readable medium, and “executing a model” generically and at such a high level amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, recitation of “executing a video game” at best amounts to insignificant extra solution activity. In this case generating the data upon which the abstract idea will be performed, see 2106.05(g). As such, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims 3-6, 8-12, 14-17, and 19-20 recite additional abstract details of the judicial exception and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent Claim 2 recites pausing the execution of game, but in the examiner’s opinion pausing the game represents insignificant extra-solution activity, and as such fails to integrate the abstract idea into the practical application. Finally generic recitation of an LLM in Claim 7, at such a high level, represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a processor, computer readable medium, and “executing a model” represent routine, well-understood, and routine, computer functionality. See Chiu, US 2024/0428042, Par. 4 which teaches that chatbots, including large language model chatbots, are conventional. See Toyohara et al., US 6,368,210, (Col. 6 lines 21-37) which teaches where it is conventional to have an apparatus which executes a game. As such, even when considered with the claims as a whole these elements fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent Claims 3-6, 8-12, 14-17, and 19-20 recite additional abstract details of the judicial exception and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent Claim 2 recites pausing the execution of game, but this is routine and conventional computer functionality (See Ohta, US 2007/0213128 Par. 6) which fails to add significantly more than the abstract idea. Finally, generic recitation of an LLM in Claim 7, at such a high level, represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (see Chiu as described above) and thus fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13 and 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Noce, US 2026/0007955.
In Reference to Claim 13
Noce teaches a method, comprising receiving input from a user, the input requesting an output related to one or more aspects of a video game (Abstract and Par. 53, 54, 106-108 which teaches a user inputting a request to a virtual assistant for a game) the one or more aspects being aspects that have already been played by the
User (Par. 94 which teaches the assistant can analyze “information from previous plays of games by the user 22 (FIG. 1)” as an information source.” And Par. 121-122 which teaches that the virtual assistant can analyze a user’s gameplay to provide suggestions or advice. See also Par. 111 which teaches where the assistant can track ammo usage by the player in the game); based on the input, executing a model to identify data to present as the output (Par. 93 and 95 which teaches the system using machine learning models including transformer-based language models to provide the “in-game guidance, tips, or suggestions”); and based on the identification, presenting the output to the user (Par. 83 which teaches where the virtual assistant provides spoken language assistance to the user. See also Abstract and Par. 16, 20-22).
In Reference to Claim 17
Noce teaches where the output comprises a summary of one or more game actions that the user can perform in the future to advance in the video game (Par. 107 “The inquiry may be a game-related inquiry, such as a request for information regarding the timing or location of the appearance of game characters, places, or objects, or for how to perform a given action in the game. The inquiry may be a request for hints or recommendations (advice) for gameplay, such as how to overcome a particular large or small gameplay challenge.”).
In Reference to Claim 18
Noce teaches An apparatus, comprising at least one computer readable storage medium (CRSM) that is not a transitory signal, the at least one CRSM comprising instructions executable by a processor system (Par. 87-89) to receiving input from a user, the input requesting an output related to one or more aspects of a video game (Abstract and Par. 53, 54, 106-108 which teaches a user inputting a request to a virtual assistant for a game. See also Par. 94, 11 and 121-122) based on the input, executing a generative model to identify data to present as the output (Par. 93 and 95 which teaches the system using machine learning models including transformer-based language models to provide the “in-game guidance, tips, or suggestions”); and based on the identification, presenting the output to the user (Par. 83 which teaches where the virtual assistant provides spoken language assistance to the user. See also Abstract and Par. 16, 20-22).
In Reference to Claim 19
Noce teaches where the one or more aspects are aspects that have already been played by the user (Par. 94 which teaches the assistant can analyze “information from previous plays of games by the user 22 (FIG. 1)” as an information source.” And Par. 121-122 which teaches that the virtual assistant can analyze a user’s gameplay to provide suggestions or advice. See also Par. 111 which teaches where the assistant can track ammo usage by the player in the game).
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, 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 1, 7-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noce, US 2026/0007955, in view of Khorshid, US 2024/0045704.
In Reference to Claim 1
Noce teaches An apparatus, comprising at least one processor system programmed with instructions to execute a video game (Par. 49. See also Par. 48 which teaches that the virtual assistant processing may also be performed on the game console); while the video game is executing, receive input from a user, the input requesting an output related to one or more aspects of the video game, (Abstract and Par. 53, 54, 106-108 which teaches a user inputting a request to a virtual assistant for a game) the one or more aspects being aspects that have already been played by the
user (Par. 94 which teaches the assistant can analyze “information from previous plays of games by the user 22 (FIG. 1)” as an information source.” And Par. 121-122 which teaches that the virtual assistant can analyze a user’s gameplay to provide suggestions or advice. See also Par. 111 which teaches where the assistant can track ammo usage by the player in the game) based on the input, execute a model to identify data to present as the output (Par. 93 and 95 which teaches the system using machine learning models including transformer-based language models to provide the “in-game guidance, tips, or suggestions”); and based on the identification, present the output in a voice (Par. 83 which teaches where the virtual assistant provides spoken language assistance to the user. See also Abstract and Par. 16, 20-22).
However, Noce does not teach where the verbal output is in a voice of a video game character from the video game.
Khorshid teaches a virtual assistant for a video game where the virtual assistant output is presented in a voice of a video game character from the video game (Par. 140 “after the user enters into a particular space-adventure game, the XR assistant avatar may start talking like a particular space alien character of the game by transposing verb/noun order, or talking in an alien accent.”).
It would be desirable to modify the apparatus of Noce to include virtual assistant voice output in the voice of a video game character from the game as taught by Khorshid in order to increase the enjoyment of the user by having the advice come from a familiar and appealing game character that the user likes rather than an impersonal generic voice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the apparatus of Noce to include virtual assistant voice output in the voice of a video game character from the game as taught by Khorshid.
In Reference to Claim 7
Noce teaches where the model is a large language model (Par. 29-30, 93, 95).
In Reference to Claim 8
Noce teaches where the input from the suer comprises audible input (Par. 14 and 22. See also Par. 24 and 84).
In Reference to Claim 9
Noce and Kharshid teach where the input is first input, wherein the output is
a first output, wherein the data is first data, and wherein the at least one processor system is programmed with instructions to while the video game is executing in a same game instance as when the first output is presented, receive second input from the user, the second input requesting a second output related to a future action the user desires to perform in the video game; based on the second input, execute the model to identify second data to present as the second output; based on the identification of the second data, present the second output in the voice of the video game character from the video game (Noce as described above in reference to claim 1, particularly Par. 107 “The inquiry may be a game-related inquiry, such as a request for information regarding the timing or location of the appearance of game characters, places, or objects, or for how to perform a given action in the game. The inquiry may be a request for hints or recommendations (advice) for gameplay, such as how to overcome a particular large or small gameplay challenge.” Which in the examiner’s opinion is a request for information related to a future action the user desires to perform, such as a challenge they want to complete. Thus the player could first request advice based on their past play such as described in Par. 121-122 and then request advice about a future action they wish to take as described in Par. 107. Finally see Kharshid Par. 140 for teaching of the voice of a videogame character as described above).
In Reference to Claim 10
Noce teaches wherein the second output indicates a way for the user
to navigate around an in-game obstacle (Par. 107 “how to overcome a particular large or small gameplay challenge”).
In Reference to Claim 11
Noce teaches where the second output indicates an action that the
user should perform next to progress in the video game (Par. 107 “how to perform a given action in the game” and “how to overcome a particular large or small gameplay challenge.” See also Par. 122 “The virtual assistant 26 may be configured to determine optimal (or more optimal) gameplay strategies for the user 22, and such determinations may take into account the abilities (such as skill level) of the user 22 in performing gameplay tasks.”)
In Reference to Claim 12
Noce teaches where the second output indicates an in-game virtual location to which the user should navigate to progress in the video game (Par. 107 “as a request for information regarding the timing or location of the appearance of game characters, places, or objects”).
In Reference to Claim 14
Noce teaches a method as described above in reference to Claim 13. Further Noce teaches where the output is presented via voice output (Abstract and Par. 46 “verbal information.” Par. 78 Speech. See also Par. 117). However, Noce does not teach where the output is presented in a voice of a video game character from the video game.
Khorshid teaches a virtual assistant for a video game where the virtual assistant output is presented in a voice of a video game character from the video game (Par. 140 “after the user enters into a particular space-adventure game, the XR assistant avatar may start talking like a particular space alien character of the game by transposing verb/noun order, or talking in an alien accent.”).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Noce to include virtual assistant voice output in the voice of a video game character from the game as taught by Khorshid in order to increase the enjoyment of the user by having the advice come from a familiar and appealing game character that the user likes rather than an impersonal generic voice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of Noce to include virtual assistant voice output in the voice of a video game character from the game as taught by Khorshid.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noce, US 2026/0007955, Khorshid, US 2024/0045704, further in view of Waldron et al., US 2014/0220541.
In Reference to Claim 2
Noce and Khorshid teach an apparatus as described above in reference to Claim 1. However, they do not teach where executing the video game comprises pausing the video game to present the output.
Waldron et al. teaches a help system for a game where executing the video game comprises pausing the video game to present the output of the help system (Par. 92 “the gaming module 210 may pause the game in response to the user pressing the help selection mechanism”).
It would be desirable to modify the apparatus of Noce and Khorshid to include pausing the video game to present the help output as taught by Waldron et al. in order to allow the user to focus on understanding the tips or advice from the virtual assistant rather than having to split their attention between the game and the advice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the apparatus of Noce and Khorshid to include pausing the video game to present the help output as taught by Waldron et al.
Claims 3-4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noce, US 2026/0007955, in view of Khorshid, US 2024/0045704 and Dutilly et al., US 2010/0190555.
In Reference to Claim 3-4
Noce and Khorshid teach an apparatus as described above in reference to Claim 1. However, Noce does not explicitly teach where the output comprises a summary of one or more game actions that the user has performed in the past, or a summary of one or more plot aspects related to the video game, the one or more plot aspects being related to parts of the video game that the user has already played.
Dutilly teaches a game system which gathers past player gameplay as inputs and teaches where output comprises a summary of one or more game actions that the user has performed in the past, as well as a summary of one or more plot aspects related to the video game, the one or more plot aspects being related to parts of the video game that the user has already played (Fig. 4, Abstract, Par. 45 and 52 which teach presenting a “recap” of the events of a players first gameplay session to the player at the beginning of their second gameplay session. See also Par. 34 which teaches where the recap can be provided via audio).
It would be desirable to modify the apparatus of Noce and Khorshid to include the game assistant providing a recap of game events in a prior session as taught by Dutilly et al. in order to provide information to refresh the player’s memory of where they were at in a game and what they were doing, such as if they take a break in a game, so that they are ready to continue their game play seamlessly with before. See Dutilly et al. Par. 6-8 and 17 which teaches where it is desirable to refresh a player’s memory with a game recap in this manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of Noce and Khorshid to include the game assistant providing a recap of game events in a prior session as taught by Dutilly et al.
In Reference to Claim 20
Noce teaches a method as described above in reference to claim 18, including where the system uses prior player actions as input (Par. 94, 11 and 121-122). And further Noce teaches where the player inquiry can be for gameplay or background information about the game (Par. 107-108) and teaches an audible request for information related to a specific game from the digital assistant (Par. 14 and 22. See also Par. 24 and 84). However, Noce does not teach where the output is presented in a voice of a video game character from the video game or where the information a reminder of the one or more aspects as played by the user in the past and where the output summarizes one or more prior actions taken by the user in the video game.
Khorshid teaches a virtual assistant for a video game where the virtual assistant output is presented in a voice of a video game character from the video game (Par. 140 “after the user enters into a particular space-adventure game, the XR assistant avatar may start talking like a particular space alien character of the game by transposing verb/noun order, or talking in an alien accent.”).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Noce to include virtual assistant voice output in the voice of a video game character from the game as taught by Khorshid in order to increase the enjoyment of the user by having the advice come from a familiar and appealing game character that the user likes rather than an impersonal generic voice.
Dutilly teaches a game system where the information for a user is a reminder of the one or more aspects as played by the user in the past and where the output summarizes one or more prior actions taken by the user in the video game (Fig. 4, Abstract, Par. 45 and 52 which teach presenting a “recap” of the events of a players first gameplay session to the player at the beginning of their second gameplay session. See also Par. 34 which teaches where the recap can be provided via audio).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Noce to include the game assistant providing a recap of game events in a prior session as taught by Dutilly et al. in order to provide information to refresh the player’s memory of where they were at in a game and what they were doing, such as if they take a break in a game, so that they are ready to continue their game play seamlessly with before. See Dutilly et al. Par. 6-8 and 17 which teaches where it is desirable to refresh a player’s memory with a game recap in this manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the apparatus of Noce to include virtual assistant voice output in the voice of a video game character from the game as taught by Khorshid to modify the method of Noce to include the game assistant providing a recap of game events in a prior session as taught by Dutilly et al.
Claims 5-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noce, US 2026/0007955, Khorshid, US 2024/0045704, further in view of Yazdian et al., US 2018/0018373.
In Reference to Claims 5 and 6
Noce and Khorshid teaches an apparatus where voice output is provided by a video game character as described above in reference to Claim 1. However, they do not explicitly teach where the video game character is the narrator or the character currently being played by the user as a part of the video game.
Yazdian et al. teaches a digital assistant with voice output where the output is customized to be the whichever character is the favorite of the user (Par. 60 which teaches where a user can specific a “favorite” fictional character and the voice of the digital assistant is presented in the voice of that fictional character. As such a player could choose the game character providing narration or the game character they are playing as their “favorite” character whereupon the video game character speaking via the virtual assistant would be the narrator or the currently played character).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Noce and Khorshid to include user customization of the digital assistant based on user preferences as taught by Yazdian et al. in order to increase the enjoyment of the user by letting the user pick their “favorite” character from game and have the digital assistant speak using that favored voice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of Noce and Khorshid to include user customization of the digital assistant based on user preferences as taught by Yazdian et al.
In Reference to Claim 15
Noce and Khorshid teach a method as described above in reference to Claim 14, including where voice output can be in the voice of a game character. However, they do not explicitly teach where the output is customized in a speaking style preferred by the user.
Yazdian et al. teaches a digital assistant with voice output where the output is customized in a speaking style preferred by the user (Par. 60 which teaches where a user can specific a “favorite” fictional character and the voice of the digital assistant is presented in the voice of that fictional character).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Noce and Khorshid to include user customization of the digital assistant speaking style as taught by Yazdian et al. in order to increase the enjoyment of the user by letting the user pick their “favorite” character from game and have the digital assistant speak using that favored voice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of Noce and Khorshid to include user customization of the digital assistant speaking style as taught by Yazdian et al.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noce, US 2026/0007955, in view of Dutilly et al., US 2010/0190555.
In Reference to Claim 16
Noce teaches a method as described above in reference to claim 13, including where the system uses prior player actions as input. And further teaches where the player inquiry can be for gameplay or background information about the game (Par. 107-108). However, Noce does not explicitly teach where the output comprises a summary of one or more game actions that the user has performed in the past.
Dutilly teaches a game system which gathers past player gameplay as inputs and teaches where output comprises a summary of one or more game actions that the user has performed in the past (Fig. 4, Abstract, Par. 45 and 52 which teach presenting a “recap” of the events of a players first gameplay session to the player at the beginning of their second gameplay session. See also Par. 34 which teaches where the recap can be provided via audio).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Noce to include the game assistant providing a recap of game events in a prior session as taught by Dutilly et al. in order to provide information to refresh the player’s memory of where they were at in a game and what they were doing, such as if they take a break in a game, so that they are ready to continue their game play seamlessly with before. See Dutilly et al. Par. 6-8 and 17 which teaches where it is desirable to refresh a player’s memory with a game recap in this manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of Noce to include the game assistant providing a recap of game events in a prior session as taught by Dutilly et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL V LARSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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 at (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 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.
/CARL V LARSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715