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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/6/25 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application no 17/875340, filed 7/27/22, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes a continuation.
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 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).
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12194387. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21-40 of the present application are merely broader in scope than that of U.S. Patent No. 12194387. Therefore, U.S. Patent No. 12194387 “invention” meets the limitations of the instant application.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12194387
21. A method comprising: collecting a plurality of gazes of a player while playing a plurality of video games; and providing the plurality of gazes for processing by an artificial intelligence model configured to predict a plurality of user sentiments of the player; executing game logic of a video game to generate a display of a game play of the video game by the player; determining a current context in the game play of the video game; determining, by using the artificial intelligence model, that a user sentiment of the player is inconsistent with an expected user sentiment for the current context; generating an in-game effect for the current context; and causing a presentation of the in-game effect simultaneous with the display of the game play of the video game.
1. A method, comprising: executing game logic of a video game to generate a plurality of video frames for a game play of the video game by a player, wherein game state data is generated during the executing the game logic; determining a current context for a current point in the game play of the video game based on the game state data; determining a user sentiment of the player towards the current context in the game play of the video game; determining that the user sentiment of the player is inconsistent with an expected user sentiment for the current context; automatically generating an in-game effect for the current context; presenting the in-game effect simultaneous with one or more video frames associated with the current context in the game play of the video game; collecting a plurality of gazes of the player while playing a plurality of video games; and processing the plurality of gazes to identify facial features that are labeled and classified for propagation through a deep learning engine to build an Al model of the user configured to predict a plurality of user sentiments of the user.
30. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: collecting a plurality of gazes of a player while playing a plurality of video games; and providing the plurality of gazes for processing by an artificial intelligence model configured to predict a plurality of user sentiments of the player; executing game logic of a video game to generate a display of a game play of the video game by the player; determining a current context in the game play of the video game; determining, by using the artificial intelligence model, that a user sentiment of the player is inconsistent with an expected user sentiment for the current context; generating an in-game effect for the current context; and causing a presentation of the in-game effect simultaneous with the display of the game play of the video game.
10. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program for performing a method, the computer-readable medium comprising: program instructions for executing game logic of a video game to generate a plurality of video frames for a game play of the video game by a player, wherein game state data is generated during the executing the game logic; program instructions for determining a current context for a current point in the game play of the video game based on the game state data; program instructions for determining a user sentiment of the player towards the current context in the game play of the video game; program instructions for determining that the user sentiment of the player is inconsistent with an expected user sentiment for the current context; program instructions for automatically generating an in-game effect for the current context; program instructions for presenting the in-game effect simultaneous with one or more video frames associated with the current context in the game play of the video game; program instructions for collecting a plurality of gazes of the player while playing a plurality of video games; and program instructions for processing the plurality of gazes to identify facial features that are labeled and classified for propagation through a deep learning engine to build an Al model of the user configured to predict a plurality of user sentiments of the user.
36. A system comprising: a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and a processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer- executable instructions to at least: collect a plurality of gazes of a player while playing a plurality of video games; and provide the plurality of gazes for processing by an artificial intelligence model configured to predict a plurality of user sentiments of the player; execute game logic of a video game to generate a display of a game play of the video game by the player; determine a current context in the game play of the video game; determine, by using the artificial intelligence model, that a user sentiment of the player is inconsistent with an expected user sentiment for the current context; generate an in-game effect for the current context; and Page 5 of 7cause a presentation of the in-game effect simultaneous with the display of the game play of the video game.
16. A computer system comprising: a processor; memory coupled to the processor and having stored therein instructions that, if executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to execute a method, comprising: executing game logic of a video game to generate a plurality of video frames for a game play of the video game by a player, wherein game state data is generated during the executing the game logic; determining a current context for a current point in the game play of the video game based on the game state data; determining a user sentiment of the player towards the current context in the game play of the video game; determining that the user sentiment of the player is inconsistent with an expected user sentiment for the current context; automatically generating an in-game effect for the current context; [[d]] presenting the in-game effect simultaneous with one or more video frames associated with the current context in the game play of the video game; collecting a plurality of gazes of the player while playing a plurality of video games; and processing the plurality of gazes to identify facial features that are labeled and classified for propagation through a deep learning engine to build an Al model of the user configured to predict a plurality of user sentiments of the user.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 21, 30, 36,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “predict a plurality of user sentiments of the player; determining a current context in the game play of the video game; determining that a user sentiment of the player is inconsistent with an expected user sentiment for the current context; generating an in-game effect for the current context”, are considered to fall within the mental processes grouping. The recited limitations, as drafted, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Furthermore, dependent claims 22-29, 31-35, 37-40 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “collecting a plurality of gazes of a player while playing a plurality of video games; and providing the plurality of gazes for processing by an artificial intelligence model; executing game logic of a video game to generate a display of a game play of the video game by the player; and causing a presentation of the in-game effect simultaneous with the display of the game play of the video game”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Arroyo Palacios (2021/0322888) and Sumant (2020/0206631) teach the additional elements (Arroyo, ¶¶0076, 0082, 0103, Sumant, ¶¶0030, 0050-0051, 0069-0070, 0074).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 21-40, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, claim(s) 21-40 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 26-27, 30-32, 34-38, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumant et al. (2020/0206631) in view of Zakariaie et al. (2017/0100032).
Re Claim 21,
Sumant discloses a method comprising: collecting data of a player while playing video game (¶¶0026, 0035; the system collects a player’s biometric data via sensors or image capturing systems); and
predict a plurality of user sentiments of the player (Fig 1B, 3-4, ¶¶0034, 0070, 0085-0087, 0096-0098; the emotional state of a user is compared to a threshold value to determine the user’s current sentiment);
executing game logic of a video game to generate a display of a game play of the video game by the player (Fig 1A-1B, ¶¶0025, 0031, 0034, 0037, 0039-0040, 0060, 0122, 0124-0125, 0142; the system continuously generates video game data and communicates with the user device);
determining a current context in the game play of the video game (¶¶0034-0038, 0070; the interactive computing system can determine a current point of a video game and modify the game based on a user’s emotional state);
determining, by using the artificial intelligence model, that a user sentiment of the player is inconsistent with an expected user sentiment for the current context (Fig 1B, 3-4, ¶¶0034, 0070, 0085-0087, 0096-0100; the system determines a desired emotional state for the user playing the video game);
generating an in-game effect for the current context; and causing a presentation of the in-game effect simultaneous with the display of the game play of the video game (¶¶0033-0034, 0070, 0085-0087, 0096-0098; the system modifies the video game based on the user’s emotional state and implements the modified game on the user’s device).
Sumant does not explicitly disclose collecting gazes of a player while playing a plurality of video games and providing the plurality of gazes for processing by an artificial intelligence model.
However, Zakariaie teaches collecting gazes of a player while playing a plurality of video games and providing the plurality of gazes for processing by an artificial intelligence model (¶¶0003, 0020, 0065-0066, 0070; the system collects users’ gaze data from different games and provides it to the machine learning model). Zakariaie further teaches such a configuration can adaptively make real-time accurate inferences about the user’s cognitive and emotional states (¶0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Zakariaie into the game system of Sumant in order to adaptively make real-time accurate inferences about the user’s cognitive and emotional states.
Re Claims 22, 31, 37,
Sumant discloses the display includes a plurality of video frames; and displaying the in-game effect includes displaying the in-game effect simultaneous with one or more video frames of the plurality of video frames (¶¶0033-0034, 0070, 0085-0087, 0096-0098).
Re Claims 23, 32, 38,
Sumant discloses generating a game state data; and determining the current context includes determining the current context based at least in part on the game state data (¶¶0033-0034, 0070, 0085-0087, 0096-0098).
Re Claim 24,
Sumant discloses analyzing a plurality of game metrics for the game play based on the game state data; determining a progress in the game play of the video game; and determining that the progress is poor (¶¶0033-0034, 0070, 0085-0087, 0096-0098).
Re Claims 26, 34,
Sumant discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose determining the user sentiment includes detecting a gaze of the player; and executing the artificial intelligence model to identify the user sentiment of the player. However, Zakariaie teaches determining the user sentiment includes detecting a gaze of the player; and executing the artificial intelligence model to identify the user sentiment of the player (¶¶0003, 0020, 0065-0066, 0070). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 30, 36,
Claims are substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection.
Re Claims 27, 35, 40,
Sumant discloses generating the in-game effect is based at least in part on the determination that the user sentiment of the player is inconsistent with the expected user sentiment for the current context (¶¶0033-0034, 0070, 0085-0087, 0096-0098).
Claim(s) 25, 33, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumant et al. (2020/0206631) in view of Zakariaie et al. (2017/0100032), further in view of Aghdaie et al. (2017/0259177).
Re Claims 25, 33, 39,
Sumant as modified by Zakariaie discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on identifying one or more actions of a character controlled by the player in the game play of the video game; and determining that the one or more actions are inconsistent with the current context. However, Aghdaie teaches adjusting a video game’s difficulty by identifying one or more actions of a character controlled by the player in the game play of the video game and determining that the one or more actions are inconsistent with the current context (¶¶0035, 0072-0073, 0077, 0081). Aghdaie further teaches such a configuration is most likely to keep a user engaged for a longer period (¶0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Aghdaie into the game system of Sumant in order to keep a user engaged for a longer period of time.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumant et al. (2020/0206631) in view of Zakariaie et al. (2017/0100032), further in view of Singh et al. (2020/0135052).
Re Claim 28,
Sumant as modified by Zakariaie discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the in-game effect includes text. However, Singh teaches the generating the in-game effect includes at least one of the following: modifying a color of text of a sub-title; and modifying a format of the text of the sub-title; and highlighting the sub-title; and moving the sub-title within a scene displayed in the one or more video frames (¶¶0023, 0036-0037, 0075). Singh further teaches such a configuration improves accessibility for impaired persons (¶¶0001-0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Singh into the game system of Sumant in order to improve accessibility for impaired persons who wish to the video game.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights