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 .
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.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
19/349,040
19/348,975
1
1
A computer-implemented method comprising:
A method comprising:
configuring an existing game progress monitoring mechanism to record when predefined game events occur;
configuring an existing game progress monitoring mechanism to record when predefined game events occurred;
receiving an indication that a tutorial is required for a particular state of the game;
receiving an indication that recap content is required for a particular state of the game;
determining a purpose of the tutorial based at least in part upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism;
compiling a list of recorded game events preceding the particular state of the game;
selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, based at least in part upon the determined purpose of the tutorial;
accessing existing help videos associated through the game progress monitoring mechanism with listed game events;
generating the tutorial based upon the one or more selected existing content elements; and
generating a recap video comprising at least part of one or more existing help videos; and
providing the tutorial to the user.
outputting the recap video for viewing by a user.
2
2
The method of claim 1wherein the particular state of the game relates to when a save game to be loaded was created.
The method of claim 1, wherein the particular state of the game relates to when a save game to be loaded was created.
3
3
The method of claim 1, wherein selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, for use in generating the tutorial, comprises:
The method of claim 1, wherein compiling a list of recorded game events comprises:
selecting elements related to one or more of: i. the last activity of the user; ii. the last activity completed by the user; iii. the most popular activity within the N last activities played by the user, as indicated by data from a cohort of other users; iv. a key skill related to the game; or v. a key skill related to part of the game as yet not played by the user.
selecting game events responsive to an indication of event importance.
4
4
The method of claim 1, wherein selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, for use in generating the tutorial, comprises:
The method of claim 3, wherein an indication of importance is obtained from metadata associated with the event report to the existing game progress monitoring mechanism.
selecting elements related to one or more of: i. the most popular activity within the N last activities played by the user, as indicated by data from a cohort of other users; ii. an incomplete activity within the last N activities played by the user, modified to assist completion by the user; or iii. a key skill related to an incomplete activity within the last N activities played by the user.
5
5
The method of claim 1, wherein determining a purpose of the tutorial comprises:
The method of claim 3, wherein an indication of importance is obtained from an analysis of the game state and event report, including one or more of:
one or more of: i. estimating what the user was last doing in the game, based at least in part upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism; or ii. estimating what the user needs to do for a last activity, based at least in part upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism.
i. whether the event relates to the start or end of a predefined activity; ii. whether the event is associated with the award of a trophy; iii. whether the event substantially coincides with the use of pre-recorded content within the game; iv. whether the event substantially coincides with the use of scripted in-game animation or camera control; v. whether the event is associated with a particular point in a dialog tree; vi. whether the event substantially coincides with user activity indicative of difficulty progressing in the game; or vii. whether the event substantially coincides with user success relative to a wider corpus of players.
6
6
The method of claim 1, wherein determining a purpose of the tutorial comprises:
The method of claim 1, wherein compiling a list of recorded game events comprises:
estimating a reason why the user stopped playing the game, based at least in upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism.
selecting game events responsive to a minimum event separation criterion, wherein the minimum increases the further back in time the event is from the particular state of the game.
7
7
The method of claim 6, further comprising:
The method of claim 1, wherein events are recorded in response to notifications using an existing universal data system service.
if the estimated reason why the user stopped playing the game is not indicative of a threshold level of dissatisfaction, selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, for use in generating the tutorial.
8
8
The method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the selected existing content elements are playable in-game activities defined as such for the game progress monitoring mechanism.
The method of claim 7, wherein events are also recorded in response to one or more of: i. notifications using an existing trophy service; or ii. notifications based on an analysis of user interactions with the game.
9
9
The method of claim 8, wherein the one or more playable in-game activities are started in a sandbox mode that prevents the activity changing the state of the game in a manner that persists after the activity is stopped.
The method of claim 1, wherein generating a recap video comprises: including one or more of: i. an existing pre-recorded cut-scene of the game; ii. supplementary text associated with a listed event; iii. supplementary imagery associated with a listed event; iv. information about the controls associated with the game; v. information about other players or player groups the user has previously interacted with; or vi. information about game preferences the user has previously shown.
10
10
The method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the selected existing content elements are help videos associated with activities defined as such for the game progress monitoring mechanism.
The method of claim 1, wherein generating a recap video comprises: calculating a target length of the recap video responsive to one or more of: i. how many events have been recorded by the existing game progress monitoring mechanism; ii. how long it has been since the user last played the game; or iii. a duration selection by the user.
11
11
The method of claim 1, wherein selecting one or more existing content elements is responsive to one or more of: i. how much time has passed since the user last played the game; ii. what other game(s) the user has played since the user last played the game; iii. an indication of a preferred tutorial duration; iv. proficiency with a content element earlier in the tutorial; or v. how often other users have requested help relating to an existing content element.
The method of claim 1, wherein generating a recap video comprises: where the duration of a recap video will exceed a target duration, adjusting the recap video by one or more selected from the group consisting of: i. reducing the number of events in the list, subject to any minimum number; ii. truncating one or more helper videos to retain only a shorter, latter part thereof; or iii. using a static image associated with a helper video instead of the helper video.
12
12
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving an indication that recap content is required for a particular state of the game;
receiving an indication that a tutorial is required for a particular state of the game;
compiling a list of recorded game events preceding the particular state of the game;
determining a purpose of the tutorial based at least in part upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism;
accessing existing help videos associated through the game progress monitoring mechanism with listed game events;
selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, based at least in part upon the determined purpose of the tutorial;
generating a recap video comprising at least part of one or more existing help videos; and
generating the tutorial based upon the one or more selected existing content elements; and
outputting the recap video for viewing by a user.
providing the tutorial to the user
13
13
The method of claim 12, wherein:
The method of claim 12, wherein:
the step of outputting the recap video for viewing by the user and the step of providing the tutorial to the user are combined.
providing the tutorial to the user and outputting the recap video for viewing by the user are combined.
14
20
A system comprising:
A system comprising:
one or more processors, and
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
configuring an existing game progress monitoring mechanism to record when predefined game events occur;
configuring an existing game progress monitoring mechanism to record when predefined game events occurred;
receiving an indication that a tutorial is required for a particular state of the game;
receiving an indication that recap content is required for a particular state of the game;
determining a purpose of the tutorial based at least in part upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism;
compiling a list of recorded game events preceding the particular state of the game;
selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, based at least in part upon the determined purpose of the tutorial;
accessing existing help videos associated through the game progress monitoring mechanism with listed game events;
generating the tutorial based upon the one or more selected existing content elements; and
generating a recap video comprising at least part of one or more existing help videos; and
providing the tutorial to the user.
outputting the recap video for viewing by a user.
15
15
The system of claim 14, wherein the particular state of the game relates to when a save game to be loaded was created.
The system of claim 20, wherein the particular state of the game relates to when a save game to be loaded was created.
16
16
The system of claim 14, wherein selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, for use in generating the tutorial, comprises:
The system of claim 20, wherein compiling a list of recorded game events comprises:
selecting elements related to one or more selected from the list consisting of: i. the last activity of the user; ii. the last activity completed by the user; iii. the most popular activity within the N last activities played by the user, as indicated by data from a cohort of other users; iv. a key skill related to the game; or v. a key skill related to part of the game as yet not played by the user.
selecting game events responsive to an indication of event importance.
21
The system of claim 16, wherein an indication of importance is obtained from metadata associated with the event report to the existing game progress monitoring mechanism.
17
17
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media that store instructions that, when executed one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media that store instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
configuring an existing game progress monitoring mechanism to record when predefined game events occur;
configuring an existing game progress monitoring mechanism to record when predefined game events occurred;
receiving an indication that a tutorial is required for a particular state of the game;
receiving an indication that recap content is required for a particular state of the game;
determining a purpose of the tutorial based at least in part upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism;
compiling a list of recorded game events preceding the particular state of the game;
selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, based at least in part upon the determined purpose of the tutorial;
accessing existing help videos associated through the game progress monitoring mechanism with listed game events;
generating the tutorial based upon the one or more selected existing content elements; and
generating a recap video comprising at least part of one or more existing help videos; and
providing the tutorial to the user.
outputting the recap video for viewing by a user.
18
18
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 17, wherein the particular state of the game relates to when a save game to be loaded was created.
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 17, wherein the particular state of the game relates to when a save game to be loaded was created.
19
19
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 17, wherein selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, for use in generating the tutorial, comprises:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 17, wherein compiling a list of recorded game events comprises:
selecting elements related to one or more of: i. the last activity of the user; ii. the last activity completed by the user; iii. the most popular activity within the N last activities played by the user, as indicated by data from a cohort of other users; iv. a key skill related to the game; or v. a key skill related to part of the game as yet not played by the user.
selecting game events responsive to an indication of event importance.
20
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 17, wherein determining a purpose of the tutorial comprises:
estimating a reason why the user stopped playing the game, based at least in upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 15-21 of copending Application No. 19/348,975 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantively the same invention. This is at least evidenced by the disclosure of each application and claims 12 and 13 of each application wherein they switch “tutorial” and “recap content/video”.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Specification
A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the specification is improperly formatted including at least missing paragraph numbers.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must
be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites multiple abbreviations, acronyms, and/or initialisms. The first instance of an abbreviation, acronym, or initialism should be accompanied by the fully written term. Non-exhaustive examples of where this does not occur include at least terms such as RAM, A/V, TV, and UI.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
A space and comma are missing between “1” and “wherein” in claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“configuring an existing game progress monitoring mechanism to record when predefined game events occur” in claims 1, 14, and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “configuring an existing game progress monitoring mechanism to record when predefined game events occur” in each of claims 1, 14, and 17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 102, 210, . Additionally, the para. 232 recite that the game progress monitoring mechanism is exampled as a “UDS of the OS, running for example on CPU 20”, wherein “UDS” stands for “universal data system service” but does not provide any further description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 17, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “configuring an existing game progress monitoring mechanism to record when predefined game events occur” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 20, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “estimating a reason why the user stopped playing the game, based at least in upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism” in claims 6 and 20 and “if the estimated reason why the user stopped playing the game is not indicative of a threshold level of dissatisfaction, selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, for use in generating the tutorial” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The specification merely recites similar language as the claim without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary for a computer to perform the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 149-157 of the published specification for the section labeled “Why Stopped” yet is silent regarding any meaningful description for a computerized element performing the function of estimating a reason why the user stopped playing the game, let alone associating an estimated reason with an indication of a threshold of dissatisfaction. In short, the disclosure is silent regarding any substantive description. Dependent claim 7 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
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 including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and products which fall under the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
configuring an existing game progress monitoring mechanism to record when predefined game events occur;
receiving an indication that a tutorial is required for a particular state of the game;
determining a purpose of the tutorial based at least in part upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism;
selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, based at least in part upon the determined purpose of the tutorial;
generating the tutorial based upon the one or more selected existing content elements; and
providing the tutorial to the user.
Independent claim 14 recites:
A system comprising:
one or more processors, and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
configuring an existing game progress monitoring mechanism to record when predefined game events occur;
receiving an indication that a tutorial is required for a particular state of the game;
determining a purpose of the tutorial based at least in part upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism;
selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, based at least in part upon the determined purpose of the tutorial;
generating the tutorial based upon the one or more selected existing content elements; and
providing the tutorial to the user.
Independent claim 17 recites:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media that store instructions that, when executed one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
configuring an existing game progress monitoring mechanism to record when predefined game events occur;
receiving an indication that a tutorial is required for a particular state of the game;
determining a purpose of the tutorial based at least in part upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism;
selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, based at least in part upon the determined purpose of the tutorial;
generating the tutorial based upon the one or more selected existing content elements; and
providing the tutorial to the user.
All of the foregoing underlined elements amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as it is merely following rules or instructions by collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis to generate a tutorial. This also amounts to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes as the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind with the aid of pen and paper (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claim above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional element, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: reciting the method is computer-implemented (claim 1), a game progress monitoring mechanism (claims 1, 14, and 17), a system (claim 14), one or more processors (claim 14 and 17), one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (claim 14), and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media (claim 17). This is evidenced by the manner in which the elements are disclosed. See, for example, at least Fig. 1 and 2 which illustrate the components as either non-descript black boxes or stock images in a conventional arrangement, and at least para. 15-31, 121-130, 132, and 229-237 of the published specification which identify that none of the elements are particular or necessary to implement the claimed process. For instance, at least para. 121-130 identify that the electronic components may be implemented using any computing device and identify that the functions may be implemented in any combination of hardware, software, and/or firmware. The claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functionality of the computer system because the claimed steps are merely performing the steps of processing data but are not tied to improving any functionality of the computer system. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that the mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the computing device and associated hardware does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 224-26 (2014). Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. The system is merely recited to be used, not improved. This is evidenced by the insufficient manner in which this is disclosed as identified by the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) above. Thus, the components, identified above, are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: YES).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed process does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. Although the claims recite components (identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above) for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and are not tied to performing any of the steps of the claimed method. This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that the additional element(s) are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Furthermore, this also evidences that the component(s) are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed, which the courts have held does not amount to significantly more. The lack of improvement to the computer or other technology is evidenced by the lack of incorporation of specific rules which enable the automation of a computer-implemented task that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans. None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, this is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed as identified above. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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)(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.
(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 1-5 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dutilly et al. (US 2010/0190555, hereinafter referred to as Dutilly).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 17, Dutilly teaches a computer-implemented method (claim 1), a system comprising: one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions (claim 14), and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media that store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (claim 17) comprising:
configuring an existing game progress monitoring mechanism to record when predefined game events occur (Dutilly, para. 17, “The events are recorded in player event data 130a to 130g, which is associated with the player. Each event within the player event data is assigned a relevancy ranking, which is created and modified by rank modifier 120a to 120g. The relevancy ranking is an abstraction that represents how relevant the event is for the purposes of presenting a recap sequence to refresh the player's memory if the player decides to take a break from playing the video game.”);
receiving an indication that a tutorial is required for a particular state of the game (Dutilly, para. 17, “The relevancy ranking is an abstraction that represents how relevant the event is for the purposes of presenting a recap sequence to refresh the player's memory if the player decides to take a break from playing the video game.”);
determining a purpose of the tutorial based at least in part upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism (Dutilly, para. 18, “if a very long time has elapsed since the last game play, the recap events might be extended or increased in number to present a more comprehensive overview to the player, who has likely forgotten many details due to the long absence from the game. Conversely, a very short absence, such as a few hours, might trigger very brief recap events, whereas a minor break, such as under an hour, might skip a recap presentation entirely.”);
selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, based at least in part upon the determined purpose of the tutorial (Dutilly, para. 18, “if a very long time has elapsed since the last game play, the recap events might be extended or increased in number to present a more comprehensive overview to the player, who has likely forgotten many details due to the long absence from the game. Conversely, a very short absence, such as a few hours, might trigger very brief recap events, whereas a minor break, such as under an hour, might skip a recap presentation entirely.”);
generating the tutorial based upon the one or more selected existing content elements (Dutilly, Fig. 4, Generate a recap sequence based on the prioritized event list 480); and
providing the tutorial to the user (Dutilly, Fig. 4, Present the recap sequence to the player prior to the second game play 490).
Regarding claims 2, 15, and 18, Dutilly teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 14, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 17, wherein the particular state of the game relates to when a save game to be loaded was created (Dutilly, para. 30, “This saved state information can be used to prepare game application 250 to resume a game state prior to suspending the game, but before that, event data prioritizer 251 may process the saved state information.”).
Regarding claims 3, 16, and 19, Dutilly teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 14, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 17, wherein selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, for use in generating the tutorial, comprises:
selecting elements related to one or more of:
i. the last activity of the user (Dutilly, Fig. 4, Retrieve, from the memory, the event data 460);
ii. the last activity completed by the user (Dutilly, Fig. 4, Retrieve, from the memory, the event data 460);
iii. the most popular activity within the N last activities played by the user, as indicated by data from a cohort of other users (Dutilly, para. 17, “Thus, the video game might keep track of which characters the player tends to couple with, and the relevancy rank system might be replaced with a character affinity system, where recap events are skewed towards characters the player spends the most time with. More generally, time spent pursing particular events, whether currently active or already in the past, may also affect the choice of events to use for a recap.”);
iv. a key skill related to the game (Dutilly, para. 21, “If, for example, the player was in the middle of a lengthy active quest, key event portions of the quest might be recapped for the player. Rather than digging deep in a convoluted quest log or consulting lengthy notes, the player can be automatically provided with a highly customized and relevant recap specific to the player's past actions or currently active events, allowing the player to jump right back into the pace of the game even if a significant amount of time has passed since the last game play.”); or
v. a key skill related to part of the game as yet not played by the user (Dutilly, para. 21, “If, for example, the player was in the middle of a lengthy active quest, key event portions of the quest might be recapped for the player. Rather than digging deep in a convoluted quest log or consulting lengthy notes, the player can be automatically provided with a highly customized and relevant recap specific to the player's past actions or currently active events, allowing the player to jump right back into the pace of the game even if a significant amount of time has passed since the last game play.”).
Regarding claim 4, Dutilly teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, for use in generating the tutorial, comprises:
selecting elements related to one or more of:
i. the most popular activity within the N last activities played by the user, as indicated by data from a cohort of other users (Dutilly, para. 17, “Thus, the video game might keep track of which characters the player tends to couple with, and the relevancy rank system might be replaced with a character affinity system, where recap events are skewed towards characters the player spends the most time with. More generally, time spent pursing particular events, whether currently active or already in the past, may also affect the choice of events to use for a recap.”);
ii. an incomplete activity within the last N activities played by the user, modified to assist completion by the user (Dutilly, para. 21, “the player can be automatically provided with a highly customized and relevant recap specific to the player's past actions or currently active events”); or
iii. a key skill related to an incomplete activity within the last N activities played by the user (Dutilly, para. 21, “If, for example, the player was in the middle of a lengthy active quest, key event portions of the quest might be recapped for the player. Rather than digging deep in a convoluted quest log or consulting lengthy notes, the player can be automatically provided with a highly customized and relevant recap specific to the player's past actions or currently active events, allowing the player to jump right back into the pace of the game even if a significant amount of time has passed since the last game play.”).
Regarding claim 5, Dutilly teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining a purpose of the tutorial comprises:
one or more of:
i. estimating what the user was last doing in the game, based at least in part upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism (Dutilly, para. 21, “If, for example, the player was in the middle of a lengthy active quest, key event portions of the quest might be recapped for the player. Rather than digging deep in a convoluted quest log or consulting lengthy notes, the player can be automatically provided with a highly customized and relevant recap specific to the player's past actions or currently active events, allowing the player to jump right back into the pace of the game even if a significant amount of time has passed since the last game play.”); or
ii. estimating what the user needs to do for a last activity, based at least in part upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism (Dutilly, para. 21, “If, for example, the player was in the middle of a lengthy active quest, key event portions of the quest might be recapped for the player. Rather than digging deep in a convoluted quest log or consulting lengthy notes, the player can be automatically provided with a highly customized and relevant recap specific to the player's past actions or currently active events, allowing the player to jump right back into the pace of the game even if a significant amount of time has passed since the last game play.”).
Regarding claim 8, Dutilly teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the selected existing content elements are playable in-game activities defined as such for the game progress monitoring mechanism (Dutilly, para. 21, “currently active events”).
Regarding claim 9, Dutilly teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more playable in-game activities are started in a sandbox mode that prevents the activity changing the state of the game in a manner that persists after the activity is stopped (Dutilly, para. 20, “For example, if fellow guild members conducted a successful raid against their rival guild, data from that raid might be captured on the online servers and played back for the player to view, keeping the player up to date and reoriented with the online world and the actions of fellow teammates or rivals.”).
Regarding claim 10, Dutilly teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the selected existing content elements are help videos associated with activities defined as such for the game progress monitoring mechanism (Dutilly, para. 20, “For example, if fellow guild members conducted a successful raid against their rival guild, data from that raid might be captured on the online servers and played back for the player to view, keeping the player up to date and reoriented with the online world and the actions of fellow teammates or rivals.” Keeping the player up to date and reoriented is a manner of helping.).
Regarding claim 11, Dutilly teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selecting one or more existing content elements is responsive to one or more of:
i. how much time has passed since the user last played the game (Dutilly, para. 18, “time elapsed between the last game session.”);
ii. what other game(s) the user has played since the user last played the game;
iii. an indication of a preferred tutorial duration;
iv. proficiency with a content element earlier in the tutorial; or
v. how often other users have requested help relating to an existing content element.
Regarding claim 12, Dutilly teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving an indication that recap content is required for a particular state of the game (Dutilly, para. 17, “The relevancy ranking is an abstraction that represents how relevant the event is for the purposes of presenting a recap sequence to refresh the player's memory if the player decides to take a break from playing the video game.”);
compiling a list of recorded game events preceding the particular state of the game (Dutilly, Fig. 4, Create a prioritized event list including a number of events from the event data 470);
accessing existing help videos associated through the game progress monitoring mechanism with listed game events (Dutilly, Fig. 4, Create a prioritized event list including a number of events from the event data 470);
generating a recap video comprising at least part of one or more existing help videos (Dutilly, Fig. 4, Generate a recap sequence based on the prioritized event list 480); and
outputting the recap video for viewing by a user (Dutilly, Fig. 4, Present the recap sequence to the player prior to the second game play 490).
Regarding claim 13, Dutilly teaches the method of claim 12, wherein:
the step of outputting the recap video for viewing by the user and the step of providing the tutorial to the user are combined (Dutilly, Fig. 4, Present the recap sequence to the player prior to the second game play 490).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. 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. 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 6, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dutilly et al. (US 2010/0190555, hereinafter referred to as Dutilly) as applied to claims 1 and 17, further in view of Yao et al. (US 2025/0010207, hereinafter referred to as Yao).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 20, Dutilly teaches the method of claim 1 and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 17.
Dutilly does not explicitly teach wherein determining a purpose of the tutorial comprises:
estimating a reason why the user stopped playing the game, based at least in upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism.
However, in a related art, Yao teaches estimating a reason why the user stopped playing the game, based at least in upon records from the game progress monitoring mechanism (Yao, para. 18, “one or more artificial intelligence (AI) agents can analyze gameplay data to surface the relevant reasons that players leave a game or stop using an application to address churn in video games and other applications.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate estimating a reason why the user stopped playing the game as taught by Yao into Dutilly determining a purpose of the tutorial because it will help to “address churn in video games”. See Yao at para. 18.
Regarding claim 7, Dutilly teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
if the estimated reason why the user stopped playing the game is not indicative of a threshold level of dissatisfaction, selecting one or more existing content elements related to the game, for use in generating the tutorial (Yao, Fig. 6A, Train third neural network with third machine learning algorithm to generate a modified gameplay experience from reason(s) for player(s) stopping playing 618).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marr et al. (US 2017/0113143, US 2017/0113135, and US 2017/0113136) disclose generating and providing video game replays and tutorials.
Kennett (US 2022/0395752) discloses generating and providing video game replays.
Bae et al. (US 2025/0339774) discloses retraining players to resume gameplay using key event replay.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights