DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6, 11, 13-15, 18, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davison et al., US 2014/0038708 in view of Zink et al., US 2024/0196026.
Claim 1 and 13 and 25. Davison teaches a method for dynamically customizing streams of eSports events, the method comprising:
an event server for collecting information regarding an eSports event from an event server, wherein the collected information includes a plurality of views of the eSports event corresponding to view data and video gameplay information of the eSports event [e.g. servers 120 provide video game information, Figs. 1, 5, paras. 27, 28, 37, 38, 44, 67];
a game server [the functions of the game server can be implemented at server 120 or at computing devices 110; Figs. 1, paras. 27, 28, 37, 38, 44, 67, 70, 71] for distributing a stream for a spectator device based on the collected information from the eSports event wherein the distributed stream includes an event display [stream is distributed and displayed, Figs. 1, 3A-4D, 5, 6, 38, 63-65];
generating a new data stream that includes custom-generated view data associated with a second view selected from among a subset of views [additional viewpoints are generated, Figs. 3A-4D, paras. 46, 47, 63, 64, 77-79]
based upon a user’s reaction indicative of interest in a portion of a first view of the subset of views in the event display [triggering action indicates interest, e.g. detection of game activity, selection of a portion via a heat map, etc., Figs. 6, 7, paras. 43, 53-55, 77, 78],
wherein the portion of the first view is associated with video gameplay information occurring in at least a second portion of the view data associated with the eSports event first and second views cover the same area of gameplay, [Figs. 3A-4D], and
wherein the second view is a different perspective of the first view and focused on the portion of the first view [e.g. if there is interest in a certain game activity or element, a second view can be displayed, focused on the same activity area but without an obstructed view; or a top-down second view (Fig. 4D) may be shown based on the first view of the same area (Fig. 4C); paras. 56-58]; and
distributing the generated new data stream of the second view to the spectator device over a communication network [custom viewpoints are sent to user devices via network, Figs. 1, 2, 6, paras. 33, 45, 50, 53, 77, 78, 63-65].
Davison is silent on biometric readings. Zink teaches a content system that determines user’s affinities using data received via sensor s associated with the spectator device [biometric sensors gather data for use in content rendering/selection, paras. 64, 65, 68, 88, 90, 114, 178].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, by taking advantage of measurable biometric data as a proxy for attention or interest in the currently displayed content. A user’s instinctive physical responses may more accurately reflect their interests than self-reported indications.
2 and 14. Davison teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the collected view data includes data captured from a plurality of different angles and perspectives of the eSports event [Figs. 3A-4D, paras. 46, 47, 63, 64, 77-79].
3 and 15. Davison teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the gameplay information includes data captured from a player computing device used to play a game title associated with the eSports event [captured data includes player input via controller, activity in the game, etc., Figs. 1, 2, 7, paras. 38, 40, 53-55, 59].
6 and 18. Davison teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising changing the event display of the stream distributed to the spectator device in real-time [paras. 59, 65].
Zink teaches determining user affinity for certain content in real-time based on biometric readings [para. 68; also see paras. 64, 65, 88, 90, 114, 178].
11 and 23 (from 6 and 18). Davison teaches generating, in response to an indication of user interest, the new data stream based on the user interest [additional viewpoints are generated, Figs. 3A-4D, paras. 46, 47, 63, 64, 77-79; triggering action indicates interest, e.g. detection of game activity, selection of a portion via a heat map, etc., Figs. 6, 7, paras. 43, 53-55, 77, 78]; and
distributing the new data stream to the spectator device [custom viewpoints are sent to user devices via network, Figs. 1, 2, 6, paras. 33, 45, 50, 53, 77, 78, 63-65].
Zink teaches capturing biometric readings, wherein the biometric readings indicate a physiological state of the user and indicate interest [biometric sensors gather data for use in content rendering/selection, paras. 64, 65, 68, 88, 90, 114, 178]. The references are combined as explained in the rejection of claims 6 and 18 above.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davison and Zink as cited above in view of Depies et al., US 2017/0264936.
4 and 16. The above references are silent on tiered viewing rights. Depies teaches a method of providing multiple viewpoints of a (live) sporting event comprising storing a hierarchy of a plurality of viewing tiers associated with different sets of viewing rights governing which views are in the event display [paras. 96, 98].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, allowing programming to marketed to a variety of demographic (e.g. income) groups and in order to promote some content as premium to both increase revenue and promote the service provider generally.
5 and 17. Depies teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the sets of viewing rights correspond to different types of the views [paras. 96, 98].
7 and 19. Depies teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user of the spectator device is associated with a set of viewing rights corresponding to the subset of views [paras. 96, 98].
10 and 22. Depies teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a different subset of views is identified for a different user associated with a different set of viewing rights [paras. 96, 98].
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davison and Zink as cited above in view of McCoy et al., US 2021/0093968.
12 and 24. The above references are silent on predicating in game action. McCoy teaches a method wherein changing the event display is further based on predicting an in-game action likely to occur, the prediction based on at least one of the video gameplay information [gameplay data is used to predict gameplay and adjust viewpoints/perspectives accordingly, paras. 49, 55, 59, 81, 85, 99] or player profile data for a player participating in the eSports event.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, improving the quality of the broadcast by focusing on areas with very active gameplay, since those will likely appeal to the largest audience (or viewpoints can be customized for a particular viewer) [see McCoy, paras. 81, 85, 99].
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davison and Zink as cited above in view of Silver et al., US 2005/0273830.
26 (from 11). The above references are silent on a preference to view the perspective of a certain player. Silver teaches a sports viewing system wherein the visual preference indicates the user's preference to view the stream from a perspective of a player in the eSports event in a first-person view or a third person view [user can indicate preference for camera views of a certain player, para. 200; note that the alternative recitation of “third person view” broadens the limitation of “perspective of a player” to include a conventional view of that player’s plays. If third person were not recited, the claim would require a first-person perspective of a given player, which is not taught in the art of record].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Silver, in order to allow viewers to focus on a player of interest in an automated manner rather than attempt to follow them on the overall or wide-angle camera view.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davison and Zink as cited above in view of Shaw et al., US 2017/0111667.
27. The above references are silent on ticket tier. Shaw teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user of the spectator device is associated with a ticket tier that indicates access to particular data streams including audio and other digital or graphic displays and enables the user to generate a customized data stream by combining two or more data streams [subscription/ticket tiers include access to video streams, and user can access both live and replay streams based on a certain subscription level, para. 31; based on subscription (ticket) level, the user can view (and the server distributes) either live event content or replay content or both, para. 31].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate this feature of Shaw, thereby monetizing the replay stream and providing additional content to users who desire it without raising the cost of the basic stream.
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 Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights