Detailed Action
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.
Claims 27, 33 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 27 and 33 recite the limitation “a non-player character.” It is unclear if this corresponds to the “non-player character” as recited in their respective parent claims or to a different non-player character.
Regarding claim 35, the phrase “access the during play of the game” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to what feature “the” is referencing.
Further regarding claim 35, the recited “image data and audio data” lack antecedent basis.
The remaining claims are rejected for incorporating this error from claim 35 through dependency.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is summarized as follows:
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 obviousness-type 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), and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 16 of US 12,186,667 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
19010788 (This application)
US 12186667 B2
28. One or more media comprising computer-executable that, when executed by one or more processors of a plurality of electronic devices, cause the one or more processors to perform operations of: comprising: analyzing behavior of a group of players during gameplay, wherein the behavior of the group of players is indicative of a sentiment of the group of players during the play of the game; gameplay; accessing a non-player character (NPC) during the play of the game, wherein the NPC having a characteristic that is configured to influence a change in the sentiment
13. A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing program instructions for modifying user sentiment, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors of a computer system causes the one or more processors to carry out operations of: analyzing behavior of a group of players during a play of a game, the behavior of the group of players is indicative of a sentiment of the group of players during the play of the game; accessing a non-player character (NPC) during the play of the game, the NPC having a characteristic that is configured to influence a change in the sentiment of the group of players, wherein the characteristic includes a movement of the NPC to influence the sentiment; and placing the NPC into one or more scenes of the game during the play of the game for a period of time until the change in the sentiment of the group of players is determined, the change in the sentiment of the group of players is determined by the operation of analyzing of the behavior of the group of players during said play of the game.
removing the NPC upon determining that the change in the game sentiment is achieved.
16. … removing the NPC upon determining that the change in the sentiment of the group is achieved
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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 21-23, 26, 28-30 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watkins, Jr. et al (US 2014/0004948 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Watkins discloses method comprising receiving, from a plurality of digital cameras (704), image data indicating facial expressions and body expressions of a group of players during a gameplay (¶ [0022]: matching a player's facial or body expression), receiving, from a plurality of microphones (¶ [0073]: smartphones like iPhone include built in … microphones), audio data including sound expressions of the group of players (¶ [0022]: detecting step may include matching a player sound or vocalization), analyzing behavior of the group of players during the gameplay based at least in part on the image data and the audio data (¶ [0022]), wherein the behavior of the group of players indicates a sentiment of the group of players during the gameplay (¶ [0112]), accessing a non-player character (NPC) during the play of the game, wherein the NPC having a characteristic that is configured to influence a change in the sentiment and placing the NPC into one or more scenes of the game during the play of the game for a period of time until the change in the sentiment is determined (¶¶ [0091] and [0097]: different player moods may mean different storylines, different storylines may contain different encounters, different encounters may entail different NPCs), wherein the change in the sentiment is determined by further analyzing of the behavior of the group of players during the gameplay (602 – 603).
Regarding claim 22, Watkins discloses removing the NPC upon determining that the change in the sentiment is achieved (602 – 603).
Regarding claim 23, Watkins discloses continuing to periodically place the NPC into one or more additional scenes of the gameplay after the change in the sentiment is achieved (Abstract: system can open and close new storylines as needed throughout the game).
Regarding claims 26, and 30, Watkins discloses wherein the image data indicates a location of each object of a plurality of objects (¶ [0022]: player's facial or body expression).
Claim 28 subsumes the limitations of claim 21 above and is rejected for the same reasons given supra. Further regarding claim 28, Watkins discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a plurality of electronic devices, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 29, Watkins discloses receiving, from a plurality of digital cameras (704), image data including facial expressions and body expressions of the group of players (¶ [0022]: matching a player's facial or body expression), and receiving, from a plurality of microphones, audio data including sound expressions of the players (¶ [0022]: detecting step may include matching a player sound or vocalization), wherein analyzing the behavior is based at least in part on the image data and the audio data (¶ [0022]).
Regarding claim 34, Watkins discloses wherein the NPC is one of a plurality of NPC, and placing the NPC includes placing the plurality of NPCs into the one or more scenes (¶¶ [0091] and [0097]: different player moods may mean different storylines, different storylines may contain different encounters, different encounters may entail different NPCs).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 24, 27, 31, 33, 35-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins in view of Van Luchene (US 2011/0230258 A1).
Regarding claims24, 27, 31 and 33, Van Luchene suggests—where Watkins does not specifically disclose—identifying an NPC from a plurality of NPCs (¶¶ [0250] – [0253]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Watkins and Van Luchene in order to be able to select an NPC appropriate for a given storyline.
Regarding claim 35, Watkins discloses system comprising a memory comprising computer-executable instructions (¶ [0044]) and a processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions (¶ [0044]) to at least analyze behavior of the group of players during the gameplay based at least in part on the image data and the audio data (¶ [0022]), wherein the behavior of the group of players indicates a sentiment of the group of players during the gameplay (¶ [0112]), access the during the play of the game, the NPC having a characteristic that is configured to influence a change in the sentiment (404 – 405), place the NPC into one or more scenes of the game during the play of the game for a period of time until the change in the sentiment is determined sentiment (¶¶ [0091] and [0097]: different player moods may mean different storylines, different storylines may contain different encounters, different encounters may entail different NPCs), the change in the sentiment is determined by further analyzing of the behavior of the group of players during the gameplay (¶ [0101]). Van Luchene suggests—where Watkins does not specifically disclose—identifying an NPC from a plurality of NPCs (¶¶ [0250] – [0253]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Watkins and Van Luchene in order to be able to select an NPC appropriate for a given storyline.
Regarding claim 36, Watkins discloses receiving, from a plurality of digital cameras (704), image data including facial expressions and body expressions of the group of players (¶ [0022]: matching a player's facial or body expression), and receiving, from a plurality of microphones, audio data including sound expressions of the players (¶ [0022]: detecting step may include matching a player sound or vocalization), wherein analyzing the behavior is based at least in part on the image data and the audio data (¶ [0022]).
Regarding claim 37, Watkins discloses wherein the image data indicates a location of each object of a plurality of objects (¶ [0022]: player's facial or body expression).
Regarding claim 38, Watkins discloses continuing to periodically place the NPC into one or more additional scenes of the gameplay after the change in the sentiment is achieved (Abstract: system can open and close new storylines as needed throughout the game).
Regarding claim 40, Van Luchene suggests—where Watkins does not specifically disclose—wherein the NPC is one of a plurality of NPC, and placing the NPC includes placing the plurality of NPCs into the one or more scenes (¶¶ [0250] – [0253]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Watkins and Van Luchene in order to be able to select a number and type of NPC appropriate for a given storyline.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 32 would be allowable if appropriate action is taken to overcome the rejection of claim 28 under the nonstatutory double-patenting doctrine set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Thomas et al (US 20060246972 A1) discloses methods for simulating a particular user.
Mooney et al (US 20120015746 A1) discloses player proxy generation.
Chowdhury et al (US 20140342808 A1) discloses using PCs as NPCs.
Aguilar et al (US 20070298886 A1) discloses configuring offline player behavior.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. 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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights