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 .
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 device, (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 method for generative content crafting for an electronic game, the method comprising: receiving, by a device, at least one seed element and a user instruction for generation of a game element, wherein the seed element includes a user description of a game element to be generated; controlling, by the device, a machine model for game element generation using the at least one seed element, wherein the machine model is controlled to generate a crafted game element; and outputting, by the device, the crafted game element for the electronic game.
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:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of managing personal behavior which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites an electronic game that receives a user instruction comprising at least one seed element to generate a crafted game element. The electronic game further discloses a machine model that uses the seed element to generate and output the crafted game element. Providing an electronic game that generates a crafted game element based on a user’s instruction by invoking a machine model, represents managing personal behavior. (Use of machine learning machine in a given environment, see Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed Cir. 2025).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention is drawn towards an electronic game that receives a user instruction to generate a crafted game element. The claims recite instructions for controlling a game with these features. Here, a human can observe and determine the generation of a crafted game element. For example, in the event that a user is playing a shooter video game and has the option to modify a virtual gun, (game element), a human can send an instruction to the gaming system to modify a virtual gun, by adding a scope, (seed element), and observe that the virtual gun has been modified, (crafted game element), wherein a human can then make the determination that the virtual gun has been modified based on the user’s instruction. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
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 device along with instructions that generate and present a video game to a user, wherein a user sends instructions to craft a game element, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do 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)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). 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 device, an interface, memory, processor, (claim 11), and game elements associated with a user, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. The claims further recite the use of a machine model, (AI), arranged in conventional ways. Nothing in the claims provide details about specific or improved learning models, rather they apply particular game information to existing machine learning models to process game information. In light of Recentive, the courts determined that claims are not made patent-eligible merely because they execute tasks with greater speed or efficiency. 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.
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 – 9 and 11 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the video game Ghost of Tsushima in view of Estanislao (U.S. 2020/0406144).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Ghost of Tsushima, hereinafter Ghost, discloses a method and device for generative content crafting for an electronic game, (5:02 – 5:04 of Ghost), shown in fig. 1 below.
Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
757
1334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the Examiner views a player upgrading the katana sword using supplies and iron as being equivalent to content crafting. Ghost further discloses receiving, by the device, a user instruction for generation of a game element, (5:02 – 5:04 of Ghost, wherein the Examiner views the supplies and iron shown in fig. 1 above being used to upgrade the katana sword, as being equivalent to a user instruction for generation of a game element). Ghost further discloses outputting, by the device, the crafted game element for the electronic game, shown in fig. 2 below.
Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
761
1336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ghost, however, is silent on disclosing a seed element wherein a machine model uses the seed element to generate a crafted game element. In a related art, Estanislao discloses generative content crafting for an electronic game, (“the present specification is related to systems and methods that dynamically generate and modulate music based on a player profile, a gaming event and/or a player reaction during the gaming events”, par. 0002, wherein the Examiner views generating music based on a gaming event or a player reaction as being equivalent to generative content crafting for an electronic game), wherein Estanislao further discloses at least one seed element, (“music may be generated by modulating a pre-stored music clip that acts as a ‘seed’ to the generation of music”, par. 0062), and controlling a machine model for game element generation, (“the plurality of programmatic instructions, when executed, generate additional music clips by implementing at least one machine learning model using at least one of the plurality of players' responses during engagement with said one or more virtual elements”, par. 0021), using the at least one seed element to generate a crafted game element, (“the module 140 may determine that the ‘seed’ music needs to be calm. Consequently, the module 140 selects a modulation data structure (from the second plurality of modulation data structures) associated with a music clip from the ninth dataset and feeds the modulation data structure as the second input to the at least one trained ML model. This results in the at least one trained ML model modulating the ‘seed’ music clip of the first input to generate or output a perceptibly calmer version of the ‘seed’ music”, par. 0112, wherein the Examiner views the machine model modulating the seed music clip to generate a calmer version seed music as being equivalent to controlling a machine, using at least one seed element to generate a crafted game element), wherein the Examiner views this in combination with Ghost as meeting the claim limitation of receiving at least one seed element, a user instruction, and controlling a machine model to generate a game element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the machine model and seed element of Estanislao into the art disclosed by Ghost in order to keep players engaged and make gameplay of the video game unique by providing dynamic sound which changes instantly based player choices, health, or location.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Ghost discloses generating a game element comprising at least one of text, audio, graphical, video and in game input, and wherein the seed element is received by the device, (5:02 – 5:04 of Ghost, wherein the Examiner views the supplies and iron shown in fig. 1 above, as being equivalent to including a text), however, Ghost is silent on disclosing a seed element. As stated above, Estanislao discloses at least one seed element, (“music may be generated by modulating a pre-stored music clip that acts as a ‘seed’ to the generation of music”, par. 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the seed element of Estanislao into the art disclosed by Ghost in order to ensure a matching audio atmosphere for player specific playthroughs by providing fresh non-repetitive audio and dynamic adaptability that react to player health, environment changes, or combat intensity.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Ghost discloses wherein receiving at least one game element includes receiving a plurality of game elements, (5:02 – 5:04 of Ghost, wherein the Examiner views the supplies and iron shown in fig. 1 above, as being equivalent to a plurality of game elements), but Ghost, as stated above, is silent on disclosing a seed element and controlling a machine model to generate a game element, however, as cited above, Estanislao discloses at least one seed element, (“music may be generated by modulating a pre-stored music clip that acts as a ‘seed’ to the generation of music”, par. 0062), and controlling a machine model for game element generation, (“the plurality of programmatic instructions, when executed, generate additional music clips by implementing at least one machine learning model using at least one of the plurality of players' responses during engagement with said one or more virtual elements”, par. 0021), using the at least one seed element to generate a crafted game element, (“the module 140 may determine that the ‘seed’ music needs to be calm. Consequently, the module 140 selects a modulation data structure (from the second plurality of modulation data structures) associated with a music clip from the ninth dataset and feeds the modulation data structure as the second input to the at least one trained ML model. This results in the at least one trained ML model modulating the ‘seed’ music clip of the first input to generate or output a perceptibly calmer version of the ‘seed’ music”, par. 0112, wherein the Examiner views the machine model modulating the seed music clip to generate a calmer version seed music as being equivalent to controlling a machine, using at least one seed element to generate a crafted game element), wherein the Examiner views this in combination with Ghost as meeting the claim limitation of receiving at least one seed element, a user instruction, and controlling a machine model to generate a game element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the machine model and seed element of Estanislao into the art disclosed by Ghost in order to keep players engaged and make gameplay of the video game unique by providing dynamic sound which changes instantly based player choices, health, or location.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Ghost discloses wherein the user instruction identifies a game feature of the electronic game to be modified, (5:02 – 5:04 of Ghost, wherein the Examiner views the upgraded katana sword shown in fig. 2 above as being equivalent to a user instruction of a game feature of the electronic game to be modified).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Ghost discloses generating at least one craft element using the seed element based on at least one of a color temperature, color pallet, time period, drawing style and game function, (5:02 – 5:04 of Ghost, wherein the Examiner views the user upgrading the katana sword to kill enemies faster shown in fig. 2 above, as being equivalent to generating a craft element using a seed element based on a game function), however, as stated above, Ghost is silent on disclosing a seed element and a machine model. As cited above, Estanislao further discloses at least one seed element, (“music may be generated by modulating a pre-stored music clip that acts as a ‘seed’ to the generation of music”, par. 0062), and controlling a machine model for game element generation, (“the plurality of programmatic instructions, when executed, generate additional music clips by implementing at least one machine learning model using at least one of the plurality of players' responses during engagement with said one or more virtual elements”, par. 0021), using the at least one seed element to generate a crafted game element, (“the module 140 may determine that the ‘seed’ music needs to be calm. Consequently, the module 140 selects a modulation data structure (from the second plurality of modulation data structures) associated with a music clip from the ninth dataset and feeds the modulation data structure as the second input to the at least one trained ML model. This results in the at least one trained ML model modulating the ‘seed’ music clip of the first input to generate or output a perceptibly calmer version of the ‘seed’ music”, par. 0112, wherein the Examiner views the machine model modulating the seed music clip to generate a calmer version seed music as being equivalent to controlling a machine, using at least one seed element to generate a crafted game element), wherein the Examiner views this in combination with Ghost as meeting the claim limitation of receiving at least one seed element, a user instruction, and controlling a machine model to generate a game element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the machine model and seed element of Estanislao into the art disclosed by Ghost in order to keep players engaged and make gameplay of the video game unique by providing dynamic sound which changes instantly based player choices, health, or location.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Ghost discloses generating a visual component of the generated craft element and a functional component of the generated craft element, and wherein the generated craft element is generated for use by the electronic game for presentation during game play, (5:02 – 5:04 of Ghost, wherein the Examiner views the user the katana sword shown in fig. 2 above, as being equivalent to a visual component and functional component of the generated craft element, and wherein the generated craft element is generated for use by the electronic game for presentation during game play), however, Ghost is silent on disclosing a machine model. As stated above, Estanislao controlling a machine model for game element generation, (“the plurality of programmatic instructions, when executed, generate additional music clips by implementing at least one machine learning model using at least one of the plurality of players' responses during engagement with said one or more virtual elements”, par. 0021),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the machine model and seed element of Estanislao into the art disclosed by Ghost in order to keep players engaged and make gameplay of the video game unique by providing dynamic sound which changes instantly based player choices, health, or location.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Ghost discloses using to least one game element template, the game element template selected based on the seed element and the game element template including at least one field description, wherein each field description of the template providing a characteristics for generating the crafted element, (5:02 – 5:04 of Ghost, wherein the Examiner views the supplies and iron shown in fig. 1 above, as being equivalent to at least one game element template, the game element template selected based on the seed element and the game element template including at least one field description, wherein each field description of the template providing a characteristics for generating the crafted element), however, as stated above, Ghost is silent on disclosing a seed element and a machine model. As cited above, Estanislao further discloses at least one seed element, (“music may be generated by modulating a pre-stored music clip that acts as a ‘seed’ to the generation of music”, par. 0062), and controlling a machine model for game element generation, (“the plurality of programmatic instructions, when executed, generate additional music clips by implementing at least one machine learning model using at least one of the plurality of players' responses during engagement with said one or more virtual elements”, par. 0021), using the at least one seed element to generate a crafted game element, (“the module 140 may determine that the ‘seed’ music needs to be calm. Consequently, the module 140 selects a modulation data structure (from the second plurality of modulation data structures) associated with a music clip from the ninth dataset and feeds the modulation data structure as the second input to the at least one trained ML model. This results in the at least one trained ML model modulating the ‘seed’ music clip of the first input to generate or output a perceptibly calmer version of the ‘seed’ music”, par. 0112, wherein the Examiner views the machine model modulating the seed music clip to generate a calmer version seed music as being equivalent to controlling a machine, using at least one seed element to generate a crafted game element), wherein the Examiner views this in combination with Ghost as meeting the claim limitation of receiving at least one seed element, a user instruction, and controlling a machine model to generate a game element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the machine model and seed element of Estanislao into the art disclosed by Ghost in order to keep players engaged and make gameplay of the video game unique by providing dynamic sound which changes instantly based player choices, health, or location.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Ghost discloses generating at least one craft element using the seed element including detecting visual elements of the electronic game determining a visual style of the visual elements, generating a visual parameter for the craft element using the visual style determined by the machine model and applying at least one constraint to the crafted element, (5:02 – 5:04 of Ghost, wherein the Examiner views the katana sword to shown in fig. 2 above, as being equivalent to generating a craft element including detecting visual elements of the electronic game determining a visual style of the visual elements, generating a visual parameter for the craft element using the visual style determined by the machine model and applying at least one constraint to the crafted element), however, as stated above, Ghost is silent on disclosing a seed element and a machine model. As cited above, Estanislao further discloses at least one seed element, (“music may be generated by modulating a pre-stored music clip that acts as a ‘seed’ to the generation of music”, par. 0062), and controlling a machine model for game element generation, (“the plurality of programmatic instructions, when executed, generate additional music clips by implementing at least one machine learning model using at least one of the plurality of players' responses during engagement with said one or more virtual elements”, par. 0021), using the at least one seed element to generate a crafted game element, (“the module 140 may determine that the ‘seed’ music needs to be calm. Consequently, the module 140 selects a modulation data structure (from the second plurality of modulation data structures) associated with a music clip from the ninth dataset and feeds the modulation data structure as the second input to the at least one trained ML model. This results in the at least one trained ML model modulating the ‘seed’ music clip of the first input to generate or output a perceptibly calmer version of the ‘seed’ music”, par. 0112, wherein the Examiner views the machine model modulating the seed music clip to generate a calmer version seed music as being equivalent to controlling a machine, using at least one seed element to generate a crafted game element), wherein the Examiner views this in combination with Ghost as meeting the claim limitation of receiving at least one seed element, a user instruction, and controlling a machine model to generate a game element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the machine model and seed element of Estanislao into the art disclosed by Ghost in order to keep players engaged and make gameplay of the video game unique by providing dynamic sound which changes instantly based player choices, health, or location.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Ghost wherein outputting the crafted game element includes presentation of the crafted game element during a session of the electronic game, and wherein presentation includes use of the crafted game element with the electronic game, (5:17 – 5:22 of Ghost), shown in fig. 3 below.
Fig. 3
PNG
media_image3.png
755
1335
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghost of Tsushima as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Marr et al. (U.S. 2016/0005270).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, as cited above, Ghost discloses crafting a game element, however, Ghost is silent on disclosing clustering players based on the crafted element. In a related art, Marr discloses a multiplayer video game, (“The invention addressing these and other drawbacks relates to a matchmaking system and method that facilitates optimization of player matches for multiplayer video games”, par. 0008), that comprises a game element, (“the player purchased a particular weapon”, par. 0035, wherein the Examiner views the weapon as a game element), wherein Marr further discloses clustering players based on the game element, (“if the player purchased a particular weapon, the microtransaction engine may match the player in a gameplay session in which the particular weapon is highly effective”, par. 0035, wherein the Examiner views matching a player in a gameplay session based on a particular weapon as being equivalent to clustering players based on a game element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the clustering of players disclosed by Marr into the art the disclosed by Ghost in order to group users by skill and improve retention by personalizing game experiences, reducing guesswork, and creating balanced creative matches.
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