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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figures 6, 7, 9A, 9B, 10A, and 10B are illegible. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 37-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20100056236 to Rhyne, IV et al (Rhyne) in view of US Pub. 20190303769 to Xie.
Claims 37, 44, and 51. Rhyne discloses a computer-implemented method for controlling a video game, the computer-implemented method comprising:
(as required by claim 44) at least one processor, a memory and a display device coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the memory holds instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform (Fig. 1, ¶24):
receiving, by at least one processor executing a computer game, input from a player to operate an avatar to interact with at least one non-player character, wherein the at least one non-player character is controlled by the at least one processor to respond to and automatically interact with the avatar (¶¶5, 24, 31-32);
determining, by the at least one processor, an outcome of the interaction between the avatar and the at least one non-player character (¶¶10-13, 31);
changing, by the at least one processor, a status of the at least one non-player character based on the outcome (¶¶45, 55-57)
However, Rhyne fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein changing the status affects one or more control parameters for at least one second non-player character; and
controlling, by the at least one processor, the at least one second non-player character based on the one or more control parameters after the changing.
Xie teaches wherein changing the status affects one or more control parameters for at least one second non-player character; and controlling, by the at least one processor, the at least one second non-player character based on the one or more control parameters after the changing (Fig. 7, ¶¶86-90, 100-101). The gaming system of Rhyne would have motivation to use the teachings of Xie in order to provide evolved NPCs during game play which would make the game more interesting and fun.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Rhyne with the teachings of Xie in order to create new NPCs with special abilities related to the predecessor NPCs in doing so would make the defeating the new NPCs more challenging for game player.
Claims 38, 45, and 52. Rhyne in view of Xie teaches wherein the changing the status further comprises:
determining, by the at least one processor, a change of a status of the at least one second non-player character based at least in part on the outcome (see Xie ¶¶86-90).
Claims 39, 46, and 53. Rhyne in view of Xie teaches wherein the changing the one or more control parameters comprises at least one of:
changing a parameter controlling a rendered appearance of the at least one second non-player character, changing a parameter controlling a behavioral personality trait of the at least one second non-player character, changing a parameter controlling a game-playing ability of the at least one second non-player character, changing a player interaction score that increases a probability that the at least one second non-player character will succeed in future interaction with the avatar, or changing a power center attribute (see Rhyne ¶24 “traits or characteristics”; see Xie ¶5 “behavior”).
Claims 40, 47, and 54. Rhyne in view of Xie teaches wherein the status includes one or more ranks in a hierarchy of a faction correlated with game playing power (see Xie ¶12 “military rank”).
Claims 41, 48, and 55. Rhyne in view of Xie teaches the computer- implemented method further comprising:
triggering, by the at least one processor, an initiation of the changing based on the outcome selected from at least one of an avatar death or an entry of the avatar into a new zone of play (see Rhyne ¶6; see Xie ¶47).
Claims 42, 49, and 56. Rhyne discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising:
detecting, by the at least one processor, an occurrence of a predefined game event involving the at least one non-player character (¶¶10-13, e.g., “goal”).
Claims 43 and 50. Rhyne discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising:
changing, by the at least one processor, a set of character parameters corresponding to the at least one non-player character (¶36, e.g., “values”).
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 37-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 11, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12201908. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases claim the same and/or similar key limitations related to changing the parameters and status of non-player characters based on game outcome.
Claims 37-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 11, 13-17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11660540. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases claim the same and/or similar key limitations related to changing the parameters and status of non-player characters based on game outcome.
Claims 37-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10926179. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases claim the same and/or similar key limitations related to changing the parameters and status of non-player characters based on game events.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights