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 .
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,065. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application recite the same essential subject matter covering similar but not identical scope.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalker (US 6394904) in view of Krishnamurthy (US 20190060760)
In claims 1 and 14, Stalker discloses
implement one or more coaching actions that modify a set of player inputs under one or more associated conditions (column 4 lines 62-67, column 5 lines 1-17)
Generating at least one virtual avatar within a virtual environment during a gameplay session, wherein the at least one virtual avatar is configured for cooperative gameplay control by a first source device that receives input from a player and a second source device that receives input in accordance with the coaching model (column 4 lines 62-67, column 5 lines 1-17)
Identifying that a set of inputs received from the first source device is associated with an intent to perform a virtual action within the virtual environment based on one or more current conditions, wherein the received set of inputs is incomplete or erroneous in relation to the virtual action (column 5 lines 45-59, the responses are compared to parameters considered to be correct for the current condition.)
Modifying the received set of inputs based on the intended virtual action and a set of AI based inputs from the second source device and (column 5 lines 45-51, the students response is ignored when it is contrary to the trainers and thus deemed incorrect)
Initiating performance of the virtual action by the at least one virtual avatar within the virtual environment in accordance with the modified set of inputs (column 4 likes 62-67, column 1 lines 1-67, column 6 lines 1-4)
Stalker fails to disclose storing an artificial intelligence(AI)-based coaching model in memory, wherein the AI based coaching model is used for the coaching input, however Krishnamurthy discloses an AI based coaching model which determines correct inputs, identifies incomplete or erroneous inputs, and suggests modifications to inputs (paragraphs 22, 27, 28 discloses an AI agent which describes specific inputs such as “move to the right and hold the X button on the joystick to have a straight shot”, paragraph 37 discloses that wrong or unsuccessful attempts may result in the AI agent being called upon). This teaches the invention as claimed in combination as, Stalker discloses the invention as claimed, but with a human trainer, and Krishnamurthy teaches an AI trainer which is aware of the context and inputs as well as whether inputs are erroneous or unsuccessful. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Stalker with Krishnamurthy in order to allow for automation of the training portion of the invention described in Stalker.
In claims 2 and 15, Krishnamurthy discloses capturing one or more sets of inputs associated with the virtual action from a plurality of different source devices associated with different users during different gameplay sessions (paragraph 52)
In claim 3, Krishnamurthy discloses identifying a sequence and timing associated with the set of inputs and one or more conditions of the gameplay (paragraph 52)
In claim 4, Krishnamurthy discloses tracking metadata for each of the conditions identified for the gameplay sessions (paragraph 52, it is noted by examiner that metadata is just data)
In claim 5, Krishnamurthy discloses storing in memory a content control profile that includes the sequence and timing of the sets of inputs and updating the content control profile with one or more new sets of inputs received under similar conditions (paragraph 28 discloses the sequence and timing of sets of inputs including multiple sets under similar conditions)
In claim 6, Krishnamurthy discloses customizing the content control profile to a specific source device based on historical data associated with the specific source device (paragraph 28 discloses that the assistance is based on experience level of the user)
In claim 7, Krishnamurthy includes a pattern of inputs associated with the one or more conditions in the virtual environment (paragraph 22 discloses prediction of the players experience level)
In claim 8, Stalker discloses modifying the received set of inputs is further based on a combination of one or more inputs from the plurality of different source devices (column 4 lines 62-67, column 5 lines 1-17)
In claim 9, Stalker in view of Krishnamurthy discloses supplementing the modified set of inputs based on the inputs stored in the content control profile (Stalker discloses supplementing the modified set of inputs based on inputs from the second player as per column 4 lines 62-67, column 5 lines 1-17, Krishnamurthy discloses the inputs stored in the content control profile as per paragraph 28, as such this combination would teach the invention as described in Stalker but with the secondary player’s inputs being received from the AI agent’s stored inputs of Krishnamurthy)
In claims 10 and 16, Stalker discloses modifying the received set of inputs includes combining the received set of inputs and the set of AI based inputs into a combination set of inputs (column 4 lines 62-67, column 5 lines 1-17)
In claims 11 and 17, Stalker discloses identifying that the combination set of inputs is erroneous or incomplete (column 5 lines 45-59)
In claims 12 and 18, Krishnamurthy discloses using the set of AI based control inputs from the second source device as a fallback in accordance with a specified level of control (column 4 lines 62-67, column 5 lines 1-67, column 6 lines 1-4)
In claims 13 and 19, Krishnamurthy discloses prioritizing the received set of inputs from the first source device (column 5 lies 3-17, “the system could be configured so that only the first controller could influence some parameters”, column 5 lines 32-45, the training rule set determines which controls are prioritized, which may be the student’s controls)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights