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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s arguments regarding restriction are moot in light of the amendments. Claims 1-15, 24 and 26-39 are pending.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 14-15, 24, 26, 29-30, 31-34, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paradise et al. (US PG pub 2016/0110960)
Paradise et al. shows,
regarding claims 1, 24, 31-33 and 38,
A system comprising:
a processor; a network interface coupled to the processor and a computer network; and computer-readable storage media storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform a method, the computer-readable instructions comprising: (see figure 1)
instructions that cause the system to produce a real-time user rating by ranking a prior game outcome for a match previously played by a real-time user of a computer- implemented game relative to game outcomes for previous matches of the computer- implemented game previously played by other players under similar or identical game initiation conditions; (Paragraph [0008] recites, “Historical skills-based gaming metrics can include game-related attributes from a user's past game plays. Historical skills-based gaming metrics can include game-related attributes from a user's in-progress game or most recent game played. Historical skills-based gaming metrics can include one or more of: game outcome, game score, game level completed, game difficulty, player ratings, average game scores, statistical measure of game outcome, game achievements, top scores across a set of other user's results, completion of in-game objectives, user ranking, in-game character level, in-game character possession of game item, in-game character attribute.” The disclosure specifically shows ratings and rankings. Having “game level completed, game difficulty” shows play under similar or identical game initiation conditions.)
instructions that cause the system to pair at least one other user with the real-time user based on the real-time user rating and game actions or game outcomes produced by the at least one other user; (from the abstract, “The targeted advertisement specifies at least one skills-based game and a characterization of the at least one second user's historical skills-based gaming metrics.” The second user is the at least one other user.) and
instructions that cause the system to initiate a match with the real-time user and the paired at least one other user. (“The targeted advertisement” is an invitation to play or an initiation of a match.)
regarding claim 2,
the at least one other user is a historical playthrough user; and the computer-readable instructions further comprise instructions to that cause the system to provide game content to the real-time user during the match based on game actions or game outcomes that were generated by the paired at least one other user prior to the system initiating the match. (figure 7 and paragraphs [0053] to [0057])
regarding claim 3,
the at least one other user is a live user; and the computer-readable instructions further comprise instructions that cause the system to provide game content to the real-time user based on game actions or game outcomes concurrently generated by the at least one other user during the match. (Paragraph [0055], “Whether synchronous or asynchronous, an entire level of a can game constitute a turn, and the players can take turns independently.”)
regarding claim 4,
instructions that cause the system to produce a rating for at least one other user by ranking a prior game outcome for a match previously played by the at least one other user relative to game outcomes for matches previously played by other players under similar or identical game conditions, thereby producing a rating for the other user, (See paragraph [0008] as shown above.) and
instructions that cause the system to select the at least one other user comprise instructions to compare the real-time user rating and the rating for the at least one other user. (See rank comparison in figure 6.)
regarding claim 5,
the computer-implemented game is a competitive online game, and wherein the instructions that cause the system to select the paired users further comprise:
instructions that cause the system to produce a player base rating representing a base skill level of a player of a competitive online game; (See paragraph [0008] as shown above.)
instructions that cause the system to produce a player high rating representing a high skill level of the player; (See rank comparison in figure 6.) and
instructions that cause the system to, based on the player base rating and the player high rating, select the paired users for the competitive online game. (Paragraph [0071], “At 650 the player 110.sub.i can launch the game again and re-enter a new tournament with the same settings (e.g., same wager amount, win metric, invite list, etc.). At 660, the player 110.sub.i can go to a tournament selection screen.” The invite list is considered to be the “select the paired users”.)
regarding claim 6,
a player’s rating before a current match of the competitive online game, (Paragraph [0074], “All active gaming statistics including rank of each player is communicated and coordinated between the game instance 130.sub.i and the gaming server 150.”)
an actual result of a match of the competitive online game,
an expected result of a match of the competitive online game,
a predetermined factor, or
a skill rating of an opponent.
regarding claim 7,
a player’s rating before a current match of the competitive online game,
an actual result of a match of the competitive online game,
an expected result of a match of the competitive online game,
a predetermined factor, (Paragraph [0074], “All active gaming statistics including rank of each player is communicated and coordinated between the game instance 130.sub.i and the gaming server 150.” Rank is considered to be a predetermined factor) or
a skill rating of an opponent.
regarding claim 8,
using a percentile rank of historical records for prior matches of the competitive online game. (Paragraph [0039], “An advertisement could be presented when a player is among a certain percentile of players”)
regarding claim 9,
the real time user and the paired at least one other user each play in the same match using at least some of the same game content, the game content being generated using at least one random seed or starting conditions for a designed level. (Claim 28, “a beginning of gameplay experience is common between the game instance and a second game instance executing on a second client enrolled in the online digital gaming competition”)
regarding claim 14,
instructions that cause the processor
to identify a user record stored in a cache, the cache storing game outcome records for the at least one other user, the user record being identified in a leaderboard cache according to a key index and a range of player ratings; (figure 6) and
to select at least one of the paired users as a user associated with the identified user record. (Paragraph [0071], “At 650 the player 110.sub.i can launch the game again and re-enter a new tournament with the same settings (e.g., same wager amount, win metric, invite list, etc.). At 660, the player 110.sub.i can go to a tournament selection screen.” The invite list is considered to be the “select at least one of the paired users”.)
regarding claim 15,
the key index is based on a seed used to generate content for application, wherein the same content is generated for the application when the same seed is used to generate content, and different content is generated for the application when a different seed is used to generate content. (Claim 28, “a beginning of gameplay experience is common between the game instance and a second game instance executing on a second client enrolled in the online digital gaming competition” The game instance is considered to be the key index, which is based on a seed to generate the game content.)
regarding claims 26 and 29,
instructions that cause the processor to use a dictionary to identify a group of historical records comprising a record for the historical player, the historical records comprising at least one of the following: a game content seed used to generate a game played by the historical player, a rating for the historical player, or gameplay, moves or actions taken by the historical player.
include instructions that derive a unique key from at least one of the following: a game identifier, seed, rating bucket identifier, record ID, gameplay history, and a unique key derived from these elements
(Paragraph [0038] shows historical records for gameplay. The “dictionary” is just the data labels for the historical records. See applicant’s table 6 for similarities.)
Regarding claim 30,
the game content is provided to a computing device operated by the real-time user via the computer network to be displayed with game content concurrently generated based on real-time input from the real-time user. (See paragraph [0054], Synchronous play)
Regarding claims 34 and 36,
producing a player base rating representing a base skill level of a player of a competitive online game; and
producing a player high rating representing a high skill level of the player, wherein the pairing is further based on the player base rating and the player high rating.
(See paragraph [0042], the player satisfied a message rule (e.g., had a high score) before the player was invited to play.)
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.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradise et al. (US PG pub 2016/0110960) in view of Trombetta et al. (US PG pub 2019/0266845)
Paradise et al., as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying that ratings using a segmented assessment or nonlinear weighting and
generate the high-ability rating by assessing whether a game outcome for the respective assessed user exceeds a pre-determined threshold.
Trombetta et al. teaches,
Paragraph [0088], “the parameters may be weighted differently based on preferences specified by the tournament organizer as well. In this way, each participant can be characterized regarding they skill level, for example, for the purpose of match making.”
Paragraph [0037], “Exemplary characteristics may include related gameplay data that characterizes the user's skill level above a pre-set threshold and that the user has the associated video game installed and running on the computing device. In this way, the gameplay server 140 can ensure that the remote user has the game, has experience with the game, and is capable of using the video game to participate in the e-sport event if chosen.”
Based on the teaching of Trombetta et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Paradise et al. invention to incorporate ratings using a segmented assessment or nonlinear weighting and generate the high-ability rating by assessing whether a game outcome for the respective assessed user exceeds a pre-determined threshold in order to improve the method of ranking players.
Claims 28, 35-37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradise et al. (US PG pub 2016/0110960) in view of Fear et al. (US PG pub 2020/0306638)
Paradise et al., as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying
identify a historical player are executed in response to adding the real-time user to a match having seats that are not fully occupied with a designated time window.
a historical player include instructions that select at least one history record from a database based on a game seed and a rating bucket for the real-time user.
one other user each play in the same match using at least some of the same game content, the game content being generated using at least one random seed or starting conditions for a designed level
identifying a user record stored in a cache, the cache storing game outcome records for the at least one other user, and
selecting at least one of the paired users as a user associated with the identified user record, wherein the key index is based on a seed used to generate content for application, and wherein the same content is generated for the application when the same seed is used to generate content, and different content is generated for the application when a different seed is used to generate content.
Fear et al. teaches,
Paragraph [0019], “For individual users, a user profile may be created based on observations of the user through a number of game sessions of a game over time. For example, game session data from games participated in by the user may be applied to a machine learning model(s) trained to learn playstyle patterns of the user. In one or more examples, a model of a user's behavior (e.g., a bot) may be trained from as little as a single game session data.” The “bot” above is considered to be a historical playthrough user based on a historical player.
Figures 2A and 2B disclose the GUIs for a replay game session and a new game session. The replay game session is considered to have the same game seed to generate content and the new game session is considered to have a different seed.
Paragraph [0132], “The user may request to play against bots controlled according to the playstyle patterns of the players (e.g., to practice, because the players are not currently available, etc.)”. The “not currently available” is considered to contain a designated time window.
Based on the teaching of Fear et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Paradise et al. invention to incorporate the bot system of Fear et al. in order to make asynchronous play easier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the cited portions of Paradise have nothing to do with using these so-called "gaming metrics" to select users for a tournament, let alone to pair a first user with a second user.” The examiner does not concur. The examiner pointed out that the “The targeted advertisement” is an invitation to play or an initiation of a match. See paragraph [0037], “FIG. 11 is a process flow diagram 1100 illustrating a method of advertising to (e.g., inviting) a player (e.g., user) to enroll and participate in an online skills based gaming tournament.”
Applicant asserts that Paradise does not disclose "instructions that cause the system to pair at least one other user with the real-time user based on the real-time user rating and game actions or game outcomes produced by the at least one other user," The examiner does not concur. As shown in the rejection, paragraph [0008] shows gaming metrics of user rating and game actions or game outcomes. The targeted advertisement or invitation is based on the metrics.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571 272-7147. 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.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715