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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims are directed to multiplayer matchmaking process including monitoring and analyzing players’ gameplay in order to suggest others to play games with according to past performances (mathematical calculations and mental processes) involving:
at least one gaming platform (mental process, e.g., gaming environment)
receiving user data and gameplay data associated with at least one user (mental process of collecting data);
an analytics engine (mental process, e.g., think tank or a person evaluating data);
capture gameplay data corresponding to at least one user (mental process of collecting data)
analyze the user gameplay data and the user input data to determine a matchmaking score (use mathematical formulas to calculate a score);
based on the matchmaking score, the analytics engine is operable to suggest at least one matchmaking recommendation (mental process, provide suggestions to a person).
Claims 1 and 6 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of recommendations to users.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claim 1 recites “computer system comprising a memory and at least one processor”; Claim 6 recites “software platform”; Claims 1 and 6 recite “remote device”, “remote server”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (computer system, software, remote device, gaming platform, remote server) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (computer system, software, remote device, gaming platform, remote server, processor, memory) performing data communications are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic devices, servers, processors, memories, and data communication as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mathematical calculations and mental processes—and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of suggesting users to play with others according to past performances, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20160001186 to Marr et al (Marr) in view of US Pub. 20030045359 to Leen et al (Leen).
Claims 1 and 6. Marr discloses a multiplayer matchmaking system comprising:
at least one remote device including a user interface (Fig. 1B, 110, 130, ¶61);
at least one gaming platform (¶80 “gameplay network system”); and
at least one remote server including a software platform including an analytics engine and at least one database (Fig. 1A, 150, 154, ¶¶17, 69 “analytics and feedback engine”);
wherein the at least one remote device, the at least one gaming platform, and the at least one remote server are in network communication (Figs. 1A, 1B, ¶80);
wherein the at least one remote device is operable to receive user input (Fig. 1B, 140, ¶66);
capture gameplay data (¶¶8, 37, 135 “historical player data”, “matchmaking related information”) corresponding to at least one user, wherein the gameplay data is transmitted to the at least one remote device and the at least one remote server;
wherein, after receiving the user gameplay data, the analytics engine of the at least one remote server is designed to analyze the user gameplay data and the user input data (¶¶125, 132) to determine a matchmaking score (¶¶64, 86-115 “scoring engine 122”); and
wherein, based on the matchmaking score, the analytics engine (¶¶8, 17-21 “analytic”) is operable to suggest at least one matchmaking recommendation (¶31 “recommend a composition of groups of players”).
However, Marr fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one gaming platform is operable to capture gameplay data corresponding to at least one user.
Leen teaches wherein the at least one gaming platform (¶¶29, 35, 39) is operable to capture gameplay data (¶¶40, 44-46) corresponding to at least one user, wherein the gameplay data is transmitted to the at least one remote device and the at least one remote server (¶¶46, 52-53, 57-58). The gaming system of Marr would have motivation to use the teachings of Leen in order to collect and distribute additional game data at the gaming platform in doing so would allow the system to perform enhanced matchmaking services and further enrich the gaming experience of users.
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 Marr with the teachings of Leen in order to collect and distribute additional game data at the gaming platform in doing so would allow the system to perform enhanced matchmaking services and further enrich the gaming experience of users.
Claim 2. Marr discloses wherein the user data includes type of games played, amount of time played per game, a rank for each game, a rank for each game mode, and/or types of roles (¶¶125, 132).
Claims 3 and 17. Marr discloses wherein the gameplay data includes audiovisual data and metadata corresponding to the audiovisual data (¶¶18-20).
Claims 4 and 18. Marr discloses wherein the metadata corresponding to the audiovisual data includes gaming platform, gaming style, system requirements, controller settings, and/or difficulty level (¶¶18, 40, 70, 80, 132, “game level”, “level of difficulty”, “Depending on the system configuration”, “type of gameplay network system”, “maps”).
Claim 5. Marr discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate at least one gameplay recommendation based on the user data and the gameplay data, wherein the at least one gameplay recommendation includes a controller recommendation, a playstyle recommendation, and/or an equipment recommendation (¶20 “player style/role”).
Claim 7. Marr discloses wherein the at least one matchmaking recommendation includes profile information corresponding to at least one other user (¶¶22-24 “player profile”).
Claim 8. Marr discloses wherein the analytics engine is further operable to generate a gameplay recommendation (¶¶8, 19-21).
Claim 9. Marr discloses wherein the gameplay recommendation includes a playstyle recommendation, and/or a setting recommendation (¶¶18, 20).
Claim 10. Marr discloses wherein the at least one remote device and the at least one gaming platform are operable to receive the at least one matchmaking recommendation from the at least one remote server (¶¶63, 73), wherein the at least one remote device is further operable to identify another user corresponding to the at least one matchmaking recommendation (¶10), wherein the at least one remote device automatically creates a messaging request (¶26 “soft reservation has been made, a player may be invited to join an associated gameplay session”).
Claim 11. Marr discloses wherein the at least one remote server is operable to receive real-time gameplay data corresponding to the at least one user, wherein the analytics engine is operable to automatically update the matchmaking score based on the real-time gameplay data (¶¶13, 142).
Claim 12. Marr discloses wherein the analytics engine is further operable to generate a teammate recommendation based on the updated matchmaking score (¶¶10, 36).
Claim 14. Marr discloses wherein the analytics engine (Fig. 1A, 124, ¶17) generates the matchmaking score based on a user self-assessment, a game mode selection, a number of players, an in-game playstyle, and/or a playstyle preference (¶¶13, 132-142).
Claim 15. Marr discloses wherein the gameplay data includes movement data, positioning data, result data, and/or equipment data (¶¶16, 135 “player's performance”, “win/loss records”).
Claim 16. Marr discloses wherein the at least one matchmaking recommendation includes at least one teammate recommendation and/or at least one opponent recommendation (¶¶16, 36, 175-176).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20160001186 to Marr et al (Marr) in view of US Pub. 20030045359 to Leen et al (Leen) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20200289943 to Rico et al (Rico).
Claim 13. Marr fails to explicitly disclose claim 13 limitations.
Rico teaches an artificial intelligence engine, wherein the artificial intelligence engine is operable to generate at least one coaching recommendation based on user gameplay data (¶¶35, 65). The gaming system of Marr would have motivation to use the teachings of Rico in order to quickly and efficiently provide game players with optimal assistance which would provide game players with a better gaming experience.
It would have been further 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 Marr with the teachings of Rico in order to quickly and efficiently provide game players with optimal assistance which would provide game players with a better gaming experience.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20160001186 to Marr et al (Marr) in view of US Pub. 20030045359 to Leen et al (Leen) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20050192097 to Farnham et al (Farnham).
Claim 19. Marr fails to explicitly disclose automatically adds the identified user to a team corresponding to the at least one user.
Farnham teaches automatically adds the identified user to a team corresponding to the at least one user (¶66 “team”). The gaming system of Marr would have motivation to use the teachings of Farnham in order to further ensure players are most likely matched with others that they are to enjoy playing with.
It would have been further 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 Marr with the teachings of Farnham in order to further ensure players are most likely matched with others that they are to enjoy playing with.
Claim 20. Marr in view of Farnham teaches wherein the at least one remote server is further operable to identify a third user based on the at least one matchmaking recommendation, wherein the at least one gaming console automatically adds the third user to an opposing team of the at least one user (see Farnham ¶66).
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
