DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “and a timer to track the inputs provided by the player meets the timing requirement…” is grammatically incorrect. It appears that this phrase should be corrected to ---a timer to track if the inputs provided by the player meet[[s]] the timing requirement---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to due to grammatical errors – the word “till” in the phrase “decreased till the timing requirement matches” should be corrected to ---until---.
Claims 9, 12, 19-20 are objected to due to grammatical errors—the phrase “further includes” should be corrected to ---further including—or ---wherein the method further includes---.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1 lines 14-15, the limitation “wherein operations of the method are performed by a muscle memory input training module…” renders the scope of the claim unascertainable. It is unclear what “operations of the method” are—whether this limitation intends to refer collectively to all of the analyzing, generating, and providing steps, or to at least one of these steps, or to other unspecified operations. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “in substantial real time” in claim 20 renders the claim and its dependents indefinite because “substantial” is a term of degree that, absent an explicit definition in the claims that would bound acceptable deviations from real time, would require a subjective interpretation by a reader of the claim. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claim phrase "unobtrusive manner" indefinite because the specification did not "provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language without an objective boundary").
For example, in Datamize, the invention was directed to a computer interface screen with an "aesthetically pleasing look and feel." Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1344-45, 75 USPQ2d at 1802-03. The meaning of the term "aesthetically pleasing" depended solely on the subjective opinion of the person selecting features to be included on the interface screen. Nothing in the intrinsic evidence (e.g., the specification) provided any guidance as to what design choices would result in an "aesthetically pleasing" look and feel. 417 F.3d at 1352, 75 USPQ2d at 1808. The claims were held indefinite because the interface screen may be "aesthetically pleasing" to one user but not to another. 417 F.3d at 1350, 75 USPQ2d at 1806. See also Ex parte Anderson, 21 USPQ2d 1241 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991) (the terms "comparable" and "superior" were held to be indefinite in the context of a limitation relating the characteristics of the claimed material to other materials).
Similarly, there is no clear or exclusive definition or evidence of what deviation from real time would be “substantially real time” in claim 20.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0269136 A1 to Gurumurthy et al.
Re claim 1, Gurumurthy teaches a method to allow a player to practice providing inputs to a video game,
The preamble statement of “…to allow a player to practice” is seen as a statement of a field of use or intended use that, when read in combination with all other limitations, does not breathe life into the claim. Allowing a player to practice, absent any limitations reciting particular method steps that specify how some computer hardware or software are configured to enable such activity, is an intended use of the method. And although the body of the claim subsequently recites “generating a practice game…that the player can practice,” this, too, is a statement of intended use; there is no method step(s) recited that provides particular support for this activity or any limitations describing hardware/software particularly configured or adapted to support certain practice actions in any particular manner.
Any game play that a person can perceive of as being conducted for the purpose of learning or improvement teaches game play for practicing, and any gaming hardware/software, especially Gurumurthy which generates scenario-specific assistive content usable in real-time during game play or replay sessions, is capable of allowing a player to practice.
[0018] describes that a game used with the invention of the disclosure is a "three-dimensional (3D) first-person shooter-type game" that is played wherein "The player can thus provide input, such as by tapping keys of a keyboard or pressing buttons of a joypad controller [...] to move through the world [...] to switch or fire weapons, run, crouch, jump, etc. [...] This can make it difficult for many novice players to quickly get up to speed with the game, as the players must not only learn the strategy of the game and figure out what to do, but must also attempt to learn the specific inputs and combinations that can trigger the desired actions [...] the amount that the player has to learn and remember can become overwhelming"
comprising: analyzing gameplay of the player from one or more prior gameplay sessions of the video game to identify a portion of the gameplay where the player needs the practice to provide the inputs for a key event contained within;
[0018] of Gurumurthy explains that, in video games comprising a variety of input key or button press combinations mapped to commands, it can be “difficult for many novice players to get up to speed with the game, as the players must … attempt to learn the specific inputs and combinations that can trigger the desired actions.”
[0020] describing Fig. 1 indicates that, “the state of the game is analyzed [...] a series of actions can be determined, and these can be conveyed in a reasonable sequence of actions to be taken [...]”
[0022] describes that advice may be given regarding a suggested path to take in a game world based on detecting that “the player may have tried that route previously and died … the recommendation may also be based on the play style of the player”
[0023], describing Fig. 2C, describes an illustrative scenario wherein “a player has failed to complete a task for a number of times or has been attempting a specific task for at least a minimum period of time”
[0031] describes that virtual coaching/advice can be given through graphical, audio or text means and may accompany “viewing such a display of gameplay for the previous session” as a teaching session comprising a “replay”.
[0032] describes that the invention, "can capture player data as discussed herein, then apply deep learning to determine effective actions and strategies for a particular game or type of game. This can include obtaining data exposed by the game API or obtaining image or video data for a game session and using computer vision to analyze the individual images for video frames to determine actions being taken.
Regarding the limitation “where the player needs practice to provide the inputs…”, this is a subjective expression of some undefined characteristics or attributes of a human being that lacks any description of what method steps or computer software programming are required to make such a determination. As such this limitation is seen as intended use of the method.
generating a practice game scenario designed to replicate the key event that the player can practice to provide the inputs, the practice game scenario specifying a timing requirement for completing the key event; and providing the practice game scenario on a help interface returned to a client device of the player for rendering on a screen of the client device used to interact with the video game,
[0012] describes that "data can be obtained that demonstrates how [..] professional players play a specific game.” and wherein "The information can then be conveyed to the player in a way that best helps the player. This can include, for example, providing visual [...] guidance in near real time during gameplay. For example, advice can be provided as to the recommended next action for the player to take in the game. The advice can also be provided […] such as with video or rendered playback or replay of the game session."
[0020] describes that, “[...] a series of actions can be determined, and these can be conveyed in a reasonable sequence of actions to be taken [...] the game might coach the player to move the avatar 102 to that location 104, then ready a weapon, lean around the corner, and fire at the gameplay element 106. [...]
[0021], "FIGS. 2A through 2F illustrate examples of advice or guidance that a virtual coach might provide to a gamer in accordance with various embodiments. [...] In the example image 200 of FIG. 2A, a graphical overlay 202 is provided indicating that it has been determined to be advantageous for the user to consider switching to a different weapon, or equipping a different item. In this example, the advice is for the user to switch from a pistol to a grenade before progressing further along the current path. The overlay can take any of a number of different forms, including text, an image of the grenade, etc. [...] If it is urgent that the player switch to a different item then the item might glow red or flash quickly, etc. For novice players, the advice may include instructions on switching to the grenade, such as the next key or button to press to take that action"
[0022], "FIG. 2B illustrates another example image 210 of advice that can be provided in accordance with various embodiments. In this example, the advice indicates a path for the player to take to be more likely to obtain the determined goal. This may include providing indication of a preferred path 212 based on prior gameplay of other players."
Time-sensitive and “near real-time” graphical instructions to ready a weapon, switch weapons, fire a weapon, take a certain path, or to press certain next keys or buttons meet the claimed limitation of a help interface rendered on a screen of the client device that comprises practice game scenarios including specified timing requirements for completing key events. This sort of visual guidance being providing “with video or rendered playback or replay of the game session” as in [0012] meets the claimed requirement for a “practice game scenario designed to replicate the key event that the player can practice.” As noted prior, recitations describing that a player “can practice” does not positively require the player to practice or to practice in any specific manner – merely that hardware and a game platform enables a player to participate in game play the player, or another, perceives as being for the purpose of practice. Almost all conceivable video game play would meet this limitation, especially in the context of a system such as Gurumurthy that focuses on coaching a player to perform better by playing along with replay renderings of scenarios a player has failed in overlayed with instructions on what key or button presses would result in the best results.
the help interface used to render content of the practice game scenario, a visual representation of control inputs used to provide the inputs required to progress in the key event included within,
Refer again to Figs 2A-2F which illustrate examples of advice or guidance that a virtual coach graphical user interface may provide to a gamer such as to switch to a different weapon or the next key or button press to take such an action.
and a timer to track the inputs provided by the player meets the timing requirement specified for the key event within the practice game scenario, wherein operations of the method are performed by a muscle memory input training module executing on a server computing device.
As no description is provided in the claim for what hardware/software configuration or operational or programming instructions a “a muscle memory input training module” comprises, any hardware or software module in the prior art usable for training a player or for training a data model used to coach a player would meet this limitation. In Gurumurthy, consider [0029] which describes using machine learning to train an AI virtual coach which can assist a player in learning or improving their gameplay through personalized coaching.
And regarding the claimed timer to track the inputs meeting a timing requirement, because there is no description as to what hardware/software configuration or operational or programming instructions that would comprise this feature, any prior art function that tracks distinct occurrences of player inputs and judges whether they meet any certain temporal gaming criteria meets this limitation. Consider [0023], which describes tracking that a player “has been attempting a specific task for at least a minimum period of time”. And [0031] which describes outputting advice while reviewing historical game play on what could have been done better at specific times in the game. [0038] describes an illustrative scenario where a strategy for training the player is output of “where to shoot at the present time”.
Re claim 15, refer to the rejection of claim 1.
Re claim 2, timing requirements associated with game commands that may be replayed to a player or provided in a tutorial to teach a player how to properly invoke such commands are related to button or key press sequences and timing, see [0012], recommended next actions can be provided in near real-time, and [0021], next inputs to make can temporally change appearance indicating urgency, and instructions can indicate the next key press to take certain actions.
Re claims 8, 16, [0023] of Gurumurthy describes that a trigger for outputting virtual coaching can be a player failing to complete a task a certain number of times or attempting to complete a task for a threshold period of time. In both of these cases, the failed or unsuccessful task is the most recent task attempted when coaching is triggered. And as discussed prior, virtual coaching can involve tutorials for suggesting key presses during real-time play or replay of the video game for the purpose of improving a player’s performance in difficult game scenarios.
Re claim 9, [0012] describes “providing visual, audio, or haptic feedback or guidance in near real time” regarding next recommended actions. [0022] gives an example of providing audio or haptic feedback that a player’s current actions are likely to be problematic.
Re claim 10, [0012] describes that machine learning models can use a player’s skill level as input which can affect the types of advice or coaching to be skill-level appropriate.
Re claims 12, 19, [0017], [0020]. describes that as skill levels of players vary, the complexity of coaching prompts can be selected accordingly, wherein less skilled players receive less complex training and more skilled players receive more complex training.
Re claims 17-18, 20, these claims are directed to the content of data and intended uses of that data, and feedback informing a player of progress. There is no evidence of the data described in these claims affecting the operation of a computer; the data solely exists in storage (claims 17-18) or exists to inform a human reader (claim 20). Claims 17 and 18 are interpreted as being directed to data per se, which as indicated in MPEP § 2106.06 does not belong to a statutory category of invention. Additionally, practice scenarios (claims 17-18) and performance indicia (claim 20) claimed in isolation of any additional method steps being required to implement or use them can be interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive material. MPEP § 2111.05(III) indicates that data stored on a computer that is not claimed as establishing a functional relationship with the computer is not of patentable significance.
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 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurumurthy in view of WO 2022146719 A1 to Wiggeshoff.
Re claims 13, 16, although Gurumurthy teaches substantially the same inventive concept including graphically indicating next button presses to make in order to improve player performance, see [0021], “a graphical overlay 202” conveys “instructions … such as the next key or button press to take that action”, Gurumurthy is silent as to whether this graphical button-press instruction overlay is depicted on a visual representation of the controller.
Wiggeshoff is an analogous video game reference that, too, provides graphical help to players. Wiggeshoff teaches, see [0111], it was known to display “a series of button presses or joystick maneuvers as a demonstration for the player, and these will be visualized on the graphical display of the controller.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that Gurumurthy’s next key-press coaching instructions could have been conveyed in the graphical form taught by Wiggeshoff without causing any unexpected results. Showing illustrative key presses on a graphic resembling a controller would facilitate understanding of their meaning.
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 STEVEN J HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-530.
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.
/STEVEN J HYLINSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights