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 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 non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 - 10 are directed towards a method, (process), and claims 11 - 20 are directed towards a system, (machine), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A computer-implemented method for dynamically placing at least one digital object within a game space of a multi-player video game, wherein the method is implemented in a computer having a processor and a non-transient memory, the method comprising: determining a traffic pattern of an area within the game space, wherein said determining is based on a plurality of factors; generating a score based on said determined traffic pattern; during an execution of said multi-player video game, updating the determined traffic pattern, wherein said updating is based, at least in part, on new game data; during an execution of said multi-player video game, updating the score based on the updated traffic pattern; determining the at least one digital object to be visually integrated into the area of the game space; and while causing the game space to be rendered, visually integrating the at least one digital object in or on at least one location in the area of the game space.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claim 11. Dependent claims 2 – 10 and 12 - 20 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that presents and executes a multiplayer video game, wherein a digital object is placed within a game space of the video game, wherein the gaming system determines a traffic pattern of an area within the game space and generates a score based on said traffic pattern, wherein after updating the traffic pattern and the score, the digital object is then integrated into the game space, which causes the game space to be rendered. Here, a human can observe a traffic pattern within a game space, and the placement of a digital object in the game space. A human can then determine a score of the traffic pattern and that the digital object will be placed in the game space based on the scores and updates of the traffic pattern, wherein a human can then make a determination of a next step during play of the multiplayer video game. For example, a marketer who is watching gameplay of a multi-player video in a virtual world, can recognize or observe an area in the virtual world where there are a large amount of players present, (traffic pattern), wherein the marketer can then determine that said area is good location to place an advertisement, (digital object), in order to maximize brand visibility and capture player attention, which is a strategic mental step that leverages attention capture in order to which is a known marketing method that is also known outside of electronic gaming.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor and memory along with instructions that presents and executes a multiplayer game to a player, determine a state of a traffic pattern and place a digital object in a game space location, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations, including the adding a digital object into a game space, does not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a processor, memory, and a digital object associated with a player, (see claim 8), however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Desjardins 2018/0005426 regarding processing components placing character animations in a gaming environment location as being known in the art). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,179,113
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are drawn towards the system and method claim versions of the parent 12,179,113, except the current claims place a digital object in a game space and generates a score based on a traffic pattern in an area of the game space, while the parent places a digital message in a game space and generates a score based on an evaluation of a scene in game space. Therefore the current claims are a broader version of the parent claims regarding this feature, as shown in table below. Independent claim 11 includes similar language to that of independent claim 1, wherein dependent claims 2 – 10 and 12 - 20 include similar language as the dependent claims in the parent 12,179,113. Therefore the claims are not patentably distinct.
Pending Claim 1:
Patented Claim 1:
1. A computer-implemented method for dynamically placing at least one digital object within a game space of a multi-player video game, wherein the method is implemented in a computer having a processor and a non-transient memory, the method comprising: determining a traffic pattern of an area within the game space, wherein said determining is based on a plurality of factors; generating a score based on said determined traffic pattern; during an execution of said multi-player video game, updating the determined traffic pattern, wherein said updating is based, at least in part, on new game data; during an execution of said multi-player video game, updating the score based on the updated traffic pattern; determining the at least one digital object to be visually integrated into the area of the game space; and while causing the game space to be rendered, visually integrating the at least one digital object in or on at least one location in the area of the game space.
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for dynamically placing at least one digital message within a game space of a multi-player video game, wherein the method is implemented in a computer having a processor and a non-transient memory, the method comprising: evaluating a scene of the game space to generate a score for the scene, wherein the score is based on at least one of historic data associated with the multi-player video game, real time data associated with the multi-player video game, or data related only to the scene and wherein said scene is defined by objects other than virtual characters; generating a graphical user interface to be displayed to a digital asset owner, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to visually provide, on the display, at least one of the scene or the score and to enable the at least one digital asset owner to associate the at least one digital message asset with the score; determining suitability of the at least one digital message to the scene; modifying the at least one digital message based on the determined suitability; and placing the modified at least one digital message asset for display in or on at least one of the objects.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5 – 12, and 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno (U.S. 2008/0293485) in view of Datta et al. (U.S. 2007/0079326).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Moreno discloses a computer-implemented method and system for dynamically placing at least one digital object within a game space, (“insert advertisements displayable on the screens presented to players”, par. 0119, wherein the Examiner views the advertisements as digital objects), within a game space of multi-player video game, (“the site comprising a question engine coupled with a plurality of terminals controlled by respective players, for sending questions to the players and for receiving answers from the players”, par. 0014), wherein the method is implemented in a computer having a processor and a non-transient memory, (“The computer terminals 10 or telephones 14 are connected via respective appropriate interfaces 12, 16 to a game site 18 suitable of exchanging digital data with the terminals”, wherein the Examiner views the computer terminals being connected and exchanging data with a game site as being equivalent a gaming method having a processor and memory). Moreno further discloses determining a traffic pattern of an area within the game space, (“The activity of the site is measured by a traffic index”, par. 0014, wherein the Examiner views the activity of the site being measured by a traffic index as being equivalent to determining a traffic pattern), wherein said determining is based on a plurality of factors, (“The activity of the site is measured by a traffic index representative of the number of players who have played the game over a given time interval”, par. 0014, wherein the Examiner views the number of players who have played the game over a given time interval as being equivalent to a plurality of factors). Moreno further discloses generating a score based on said traffic pattern, (“detecting an increase in the traffic-index above a given threshold”, par. 0023, wherein the Examiner views the traffic going above a threshold as being equivalent to determining a score). Moreno further discloses during execution of the multi-player video game, updating the determined traffic pattern based on new game data, (“an increase in the traffic index is detected above a given initial threshold”, par. 0022), updating the score based on the updated traffic pattern, (“detecting an increase in the traffic-index above a given threshold”, par. 0023), determining the at least one digital object to be visually integrated into the area of the game space, (“on detecting an increase in the traffic-index above a given threshold, increasing at least one of the rate for insertions and the advertising space allocated to said insertions”, par. 0023, and “This threshold is sufficient to be of interest to advertisers (or indeed to make the traditional advertisers of the game accept an increase in rates for the space rented), who will then apply to the operator of the site to insert advertisements displayable on the screens presented to players”, par. 0119, wherein the Examiner views the traffic going above a threshold allowing for the insertions of advertisements to be displayable on the screens presented to players as being equivalent to determining at least one digital object to visually integrated into an area of a game space).
As cited above, Moreno discloses visually integrated at least one digital object into a game space, however, Moreno is silent upon disclosing rendering the game space. In a related art, Datta discloses placing at least one digital object within a game space of a video game, (“this invention relates to placing advertisements for products, services and/or advertisers that may be of interest to a particular consumer in a digital medium, such as an interactive video game”, par. 0004), wherein Datta further discloses visually integrating the at least one digital object in a location of a game space while causing the game space to be rendered, (“FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary method 500 for displaying a selected advertisement in response to a user request in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. In step 510, an object is displayed in a digital environment, for example, on a billboard (100) like that described in FIG. 1A” and “It should be noted that this method may be executing simultaneously with respect to a number of objects capable of being rendered in a digital environment”, par. 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the rendering teachings of Datta into the art disclosed by Morena in order to create a smooth and responsive experience wherein integrating advertisements into a video game during a player’s gameplay, wherein in the event that a player interacts or observes said advertisement, provides an enhanced visual immersion and real-time player interactivity.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Moreno, as cited above, discloses a plurality of factors, however, Moreno is silent on disclosing wherein at least one of the factors comprises a layout of a game space. As cited above, Datta discloses placing at least one digital object within a game space of a video game, wherein Datta further discloses a layout of a game space, (fig. 2), wherein the Examiner views this in combination with Moreno as meeting the claim limitation of disclosing a plurality of factors comprising at least a layout of a game space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Datta into the art disclosed by Morena in order to create a smooth and responsive experience by providing enhanced visual immersion and real-time player interactivity.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Moreno is silent on disclosing wherein at least one location comprises at least a landscape, building, vehicle, or billboard. In a related art, Datta discloses wherein the location comprises at a landscape, building, vehicle, or billboard, (fig. 2, parts 210a – 210g). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Datta into the art disclosed by Morena in order to create a smooth and responsive experience by providing enhanced visual immersion and real-time player interactivity.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Moreno discloses wherein the at least one digital object comprises an animated graphic, (“the various advertising blocks possibly including a clickable link enabling the web user to go to the site of the advertiser par. 0119, wherein the Examiner views the clickable link as being equivalent to an animated graphic).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Moreno is silent on disclosing storing the score, however, Datta discloses a memory where a user rating may be stored in, (“if a user rating is found (as may be stored in, for example, main memory 625 or memory accessible by control engine”, par. 0058), wherein Datta further discloses that advertisements may be sorted into different levels, (“advertising `tags` or other means for the display of advertising content. Items in the list (i.e., advertisement identifiers 410 reflecting different products/services or brand names) may be sorted into different groups, levels, or categories”, par. 0043), wherein the Examiner views this in combination with Moreno as meeting the limitations of storing a score that is associated with a plurality of tiers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the rendering teachings of Datta into the art disclosed by Morena in order to create a responsive experience by providing real-time player interactivity.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Moreno discloses causing a graphical user interface to be displayed to an owner of the at least one digital object, (“apply to the operator of the site to insert advertisements displayable on the screens presented to players”, par. 0119), wherein the graphical user interface is configured to visually provide, on the display, an input and wherein the input is configured to receive a designation that associates the at least one digital object, (“the various advertising blocks possibly including a clickable link enabling the web user to go to the site of the advertiser”, par. 0120), however, Moreno is silent on disclosing a plurality of tiers, however, as cited above, this is taught by Datta, (“advertising `tags` or other means for the display of advertising content. Items in the list (i.e., advertisement identifiers 410 reflecting different products/services or brand names) may be sorted into different groups, levels, or categories”, par. 0043), wherein the Examiner views this in combination with Moreno as meeting the limitations of storing a score that is associated with a plurality of tiers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the rendering teachings of Datta into the art disclosed by Morena in order to create a responsive experience by providing real-time player interactivity.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Moreno discloses modifying the at least one digital object to visually suit the at least one location, (“an advertisement is displayed in the commercial zone, e.g. for a well-known trademark seeking to sponsor the game. The screen may be presented in the form of a set of advertising blocks (commercial zone) surrounding the game zone”, par. 0120).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Moreno discloses comprises determining a suitability of the at least one digital object to the at least one location, and wherein said suitability is determined based on at least one of a size of the at least one digital object, a content of the at least one digital object, or a visual attribute of the at least one digital object, (“an advertisement is displayed in the commercial zone, e.g. for a well-known trademark seeking to sponsor the game. The screen may be presented in the form of a set of advertising blocks (commercial zone) surrounding the game zone”, par. 0120).
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno (U.S. 2008/0293485) in view of Datta et al. (U.S. 2007/0079326) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Korsunsky et al. (U.S. 2011/0238855).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 13, and 14, as cited above, Moreno and Datta together disclose placing at least one digital object within a game space and determining a traffic pattern of an area within a game space, and comprising a plurality of factors, however, both Moreno and Datta are silent on disclosing applying a machine learning process and assigning a weight to the plurality of factors. In a related art, Korsunsky discloses determining a traffic pattern, (“Provided are systems and methods relating to an architecture of a flow processing facility, including hardware configurations, process flows and data flows”, par. 0011, wherein the Examiner views data flows as being equivalent to a traffic pattern), wherein Korsunsky further discloses applying a machine learning process to update a plurality of factors with respect to the traffic pattern, (“The flow processing facility may include a machine-learning algorithm for characterizing the data flows”, par. 0011), wherein Korsunsky further discloses that the machine learning process processes game data, (“the machine learning logic may encompass one or more of the following machine-learning algorithms, techniques, and approaches” and “game playing”, par. 0479), wherein Korsunsky further discloses the machine learning process assigning and updating weights, (“In many implementations, and in the present example, the neurons may be assigned their weight vectors during a "learning" phase. In such process or processes neural networks 2224 "learn" (in one or more processes during which weights are adjusted) what may be considered "typical" (that is, non-anomalous) behaviors within data flows (as such behaviors may be characterized by the forgoing processes)”, par. 0432, wherein the Examiner views assigning weight vectors during the learning phase and adjusted the weights as being equivalent to applying a machine learning process to game and assigning and updated weights), wherein in combination with Morena and Datta as meeting the claim limitation of the plurality of factors being assigned a weight and applying a machine learning process to new game data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the machine learning assigning of weights taught Korsunsky into the art disclosed by Moreno and Datta in order tailor player experiences by automating routine tasks, providing more efficiency, and optimizing costs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/E.M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights