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 1-11 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 either a “Mental Process” or “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” particularly “Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Claims 1 and 11 recite “setting a costume for two or more of a plurality of player characters, wherein the costume is selected by a player from among a plurality of costumes owned by the player; matching up the player characters whose costumes have been set; identifying, from among the matched up player characters, a player character whose set costume has a lower value than a predetermined value; and changing the set costume of the identified player character to a special costume having a higher value than the lower value of the set costume.”
Examiner notes these steps could simply be a mental process for normalizing player characters performed by players engaged in a multiplayer game, such as a board game or a tabletop roleplaying game. Players could choose their character, be matched up in game and then compare some kind game values or statistics, adjusting the characters for the player with lower values in game. For example players could mentally note a first character is wearing “Chain mail” armor with “AC 16” and a second player is wearing “Leather” armor with “AC 11” and choose to change the armor the second player is wearing to “Chain Mail” with “AC 16.” Alternatively the these steps represent rules or instructions for part of playing a multiplayer game, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) which teach “rules for playing games” are an example of Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, a computer, and a central processing unit are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). As such these limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims 2-10 recite additional abstract steps to be performed as a Mental Process or as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as such they 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 recitation of a computer readable medium, computer, and central processing unit are little more than well-understood routine and conventional recitation of computer elements. As such, even when considered with the claims as a whole, these elements fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-10 recite additional abstract steps to be performed as a Mental Process or as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as such they fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 1-3, 6-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over evidence of computer program “Star Citizen” (Cloud Imperium Games) hereinafter “Star Citizen”, further in view of gosunoob.com webpage “Division 2 Group Scaling – How do Parties Scale” (Gosunoob). The evidence constituting Star Citizen consists of 1) Wikipedia.org webpage title “Star Citizen” describing functionality of the Star Citizen software (SC Wikipedia), 2) Robertspaceindustries.com webpage titled “Design Notes: Rental Equipment Credits” describing functionality of the Star Citizen software (SC RSI), and 3) Robertspaceindustries.com webpage “Arena Commander” describing functionality of the Star Citizen software (SC AC).
In Reference to Claims 1 and 11
Star Citizen teaches an information processing device with a central processing unit and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions for executing a multiplayer game (SC Wikipedia page 1 “Platform Microsoft Windows” and “Star Citizen is a multiplayer space trading and combat simulation game that is in development. The game is being developed and published by Cloud Imperium Games for Microsoft Windows.” And “Cloud Imperium Games began releasing parts of
the game, known as "modules", to provide players with the opportunity to experience gameplay features prior to release. The latest of these modules, known as the "Persistent Universe", was made available for testing to pre-purchasers in 2015 and continues to receive updates.” See also Page 2 “Gameplay” “Arena Commander.”) the instructions causing the computer to execute setting a costume for two or more of a plurality of player characters, wherein the costume is selected by a player from among a plurality of costumes owned by the player (SC AC see Page 1 “What Ships will I be able to fly in Arena Commander,” “I have a variant (Cutlass Blue, Cutlass Red…) Can I still fly?” and page 4 “Can I try different ships and equipment” which teaches where players select swappable ships based on which ships they have purchased access to. Where, in the examiner’s opinion, the selectable ships constitutes a “costume” for play in game, See also page 3 “Multiplayer modes” which teaches competitive and cooperation player modes with multiple players); matching up the player characters whose costumes have been set (SC AC page 3 “Multiplayer modes” which teaches games “against other players;” and “with up to three player wingmen”).
Further Star Citizen teaches where players can change their ship (SC AC page 4 “Can I try Different Ships and Equipment?”) However, Star Citizen does not teach identifying, from among the matched up player characters, a player character whose set costume has a lower value than a predetermined value; and changing the set costume of the identified player character to a special costume having a higher value than the lower value of the set costume.
Gosunoob teaches a game which includes teach identifying, from among the matched up player characters, a player character whose set costume has a lower value than a predetermined value; and changing the set costume of the identified player character to a special costume having a higher value than the lower value of the set costume (Page 1 “Group scaling in The Division 2 allows players of different levels to play together without anyone suffering. It makes it so that high and low level players can form parties without it either being too hard or too easy for anyone.” And Page 2 “Groups are normalized in the Division 2. This means that when you join a party with someone that’s a higher level than you, the game will recalculate your stats so that you’re closer to each other. As far as we’ve seen, it scales lower level players up to higher level ones – the same goes for enemies. In practice, this means every group will be as efficient as its strongest member” which teaches a multiplayer game where in cooperative play lower powered players are have their character changed to equal the strength of the higher powered players).
It would be desirable to modify the medium and system of Star Citizen to include player scaling of ships for cooperative play similar to player scaling of characters taught by Gosunoob in order to allow players using ships of different strength to play together more enjoyably by changing the strength of player ships to match and allow play in combat against enemies of appropriate strength. Thus player can more easily enjoy playing coop with their friends.
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 medium and system of Star Citizen to include player scaling of ships for cooperative play similar to player scaling of characters taught by Gosunoob.
In Reference to Claim 2
Star Citizen and Gosunoob teach wherein the costume lacks a parameter advantageous to the game (Gosunoob page 2 “level” and “the game will
recalculate your stats so that you’re closer to each other”).
In Reference to Claim 3
Star Citizen and Gosunoob teach where the game is a cooperative game in which the player characters constituting a team cooperate with each other, and the player characters constituting the team are matched up (SC AC under “Multiplayer modes” “Cooperative horde mode with up to three player wingmen against Vanduul
pilots and ships.” And see also Gosunoob page 2 “when you join a party with someone” and which teaches that the player fight enemies).
In Reference to Claim 6
Star Citizen teaches giving a special reward to the player in response to a play evaluation of the player associated with the identified player character satisfying a game condition (SC AC page 4 “Completing multiplayer public matches earns you Rental Equipment Credits (REC), which can be used to rent ships and equipment for use within Arena Commander” see also SC RSI “How do I Earn REC”).
In Reference to Claim 7
Star Citizen and Gosunoob teach where the special reward is the special costume (SC AC page 4 and SC RSI page 5 which teaches that players can used the REC that they earn from gameplay to purchase better ships for use).
In Reference to Claim 8
Star Citizen and Gosunoob teach wherein the special reward is a right to purchase the special costume (SC AC page 4 and SC RSI page 5 where earning REC allows a player to purchase better ships for use).
In Reference to Claim 9
Star Citizen and Gosunoob teach the special reward is the right to purchase the special costume at a lower price than usual (SC RSI page 5 where earning REC allows a player to purchase better ships for use and where there are discounts available for purchasing ships “Renewal Discount”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Star Citizen, Gosunoob, further in view of Reiche, III et al., US 2019/0091582.
In Reference to Claim 4
Star Citizen and modified by Gosunoob teaches a medium as described above in reference to Claim 3 including set costumes of players. However, they do not teach the predetermined value is an average value of the remaining player characters constituting the team.
Reich, III et al. teaches a gaming system where the value used to scale a game for a multiplayer game is an average value of the remaining player characters constituting the team (Par. 86-87 “a predefined set of parameters in the gameplay session are modified, based on the acquired skill level data of the players.” “In one embodiment, the assessment may be based on an average skill level of all the players for the game.” And “Once an assessment is made, the computer program that executes the gaming environment modifies elements of the session and/or gameplay parameters as the session is being created based on the aggregate skill level.”).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Star Citizen and Gosunoob to use an average value of players for game adjustment as taught by Reiche, III et al. in order to still include power scaling to allow players to play better play with each other but still preserve some different between lower powered players and the highest powered players so they can still feel strong based on their game progress.
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 system of Star Citizen and Gosunoob to use an average value of players for game adjustment as taught by Reiche, III et al.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Star Citizen, Gosunoob, further in view of Shunya et al., JP2018143783A. In the interest of expediting prosecution reference to Shunya will be made to the English translation of the description of Shunya et al. obtained from Espacenet.
In Reference to Claim 5
Star Citizen and Gosunoob teaches changing a costume to adjust a player when they are determined to have a lower value in the game as described above in reference to Claim 1. However, they do not teach where the changing is by consuming a specific item possessed by a player associated with the identified player character.
Shunya et al. teaches a game which including changing a game to let a player that is at a disadvantage to “catch up” and where the changing is by consuming a specific item possessed by a player associated with the identified player character (Par. 60-61 “More specifically, as shown in the example game screen W4 in Figure 4, when it is determined that the advantage/disadvantage relationship between the player and the opponent has fallen below a predetermined standard, 1) an event play permission notification 30 is displayed, which serves as both a display of the advantage/disadvantage judgment result and a notification to the player that a catch-up event is playable, and 2) a confirmation display 32 (payment postponement icon 32a, payment operation icon 32b) is displayed to allow the player to select whether or not to activate the catch-up event” and “Furthermore, payment for the service may be made by consuming a given item.”).
It would be desirable to modify the medium of Star Citizen and Gosunoob to consume an item for a “catch-up” adjustment as taught by Shunya et al. in order to incentivizes players to progress the game and earn a stronger ship for themselves rather than always relying on the catch up mechanic.
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 medium of Star Citizen and Gosunoob to consume an item for a “catch-up” adjustment as taught by Shunya et al.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Star Citizen, Gosunoob, further in view of Jarrett et al., US 2021/0322876.
In Reference to Claim 10
Star Citizen and Gosunoob teach giving a special reward to a player based on play as described above in reference to Claim 6. However, they do not explicitly teach when determining that the player associated with the identified player character is a paying player during a specific period, the computer gives the special reward to the player.
Jarrett et al. teaches a game system that includes when determining that the player associated with the identified player character is a paying player during a specific period, the computer gives the special reward to the player (Par. 871, 881, 884, 889, 895 which teaches a “Battle Pass” where for a particular season the game provides special rewards as the player accumulates “points during the season” from play. And where the battle pass includes both free and “premium” rewards where some of the features are only available if the player has purchased the battle pass for the season).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the medium of Star Citizen and Gosunoob to include a battle Pass purchase for awarding players premium awards for play as taught by Jarrett et al. in order to encourage player to regularly purchase a battle pass with real money to obtain the best in game rewards. Thereby regularly spending money on the game.
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 medium of Star Citizen and Gosunoob to include a battle Pass purchase for awarding players premium awards for play as taught by Jarrett 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
Prosecution Insights