Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-11, 15, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20170001111 to Willette et al (Willette) in view of JP Pub. 2020044086 to Ishiwatari via Google Patents English Translation -https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2020044086A/en?oq=JP2020044086 (herein referred to as Ishiwatari).
Claims 1, 9, and 10. Willette discloses a control system comprising:
at least one memory that stores a program; and
at least one processor that implements the program to:
execute a first contest in which a plurality of participants play a competitive video game over a network (¶84, “live or recorded broadcasts of streams from sports games, competitions, concerts, and other events including but not limited to live streams from electronic spectator sports (eSports) competitions. eSports (also referred to as competitive gaming) generally refers to organized multiplayer video game competitions”, also see ¶¶54 and 56);
in real time during the competitive video game, receive, over the network from a terminal apparatus of each of a plurality of spectators (¶79, “spectator devices”) who are viewing the competitive video game in real time, a registration request to play in the competitive video game (Fig. 15B, and ¶70, “allow spectators to join or “step into” games being broadcast via the spectating system”, and “the spectators may join live game sessions of online games”);
and
in response to receiving the registration requests, determine a pair of:
one participant of the plurality of participants who have played in the competitive video game; and
one spectator of the plurality of spectators from whom the registration requests are received (¶¶57 and 190, “affiliations (e.g., team)”);
execute the competitive video game in which the pair play the competitive video game (¶54).
Willette fails to explicitly disclose:
a registration request to play in a second contest of the competitive video game;
in response to receiving the registration requests, determine a pair of:
one participant of the plurality of participants who have played in the competitive video game; and
one spectator of the plurality of spectators from whom the registration requests are received; and
execute the second contest of the competitive video game in which the pair play the competitive video game, after or in the middle of the first contest of the competitive video game (emphasis added).
Ishiwatari teaches in real time during the competitive video game, receive, over the network from a terminal apparatus of each of a plurality of spectators who are viewing the competitive video game in real time, a registration request to play in a second contest (“This network match has three modes, a rank match, a casual match, and a battle lounge”) of the competitive video game;
in response to receiving the registration requests, determine a pair of:
one participant of the plurality of participants who have played in the competitive video game; and
one spectator of the plurality of spectators from whom the registration requests are received (“as a result of viewing a play video that is a game live video, the viewer can apply for a battle request to a distributor (a live broadcaster) of the play video that he / she is interested in”); and
execute the second contest of the competitive video game in which the pair play the competitive video game, after or in the middle of the first contest of the competitive video game (“a viewer can select the live broadcaster who becomes interested in a live broadcaster easily and wants to play from the display of the play animation which the live broadcaster is playing the game. Thereafter, a match between the live broadcaster and the viewer is realized through matching between the selected live broadcaster and the selected viewer”; and ““as a result of viewing a play video that is a game live video, the viewer can apply for a battle request to a distributor (a live broadcaster) of the play video that he / she is interested in.”). The gaming system of Willette would have motivation to use the teachings of Ishiwatari in order to allow spectators to set up future matches and compete with desired players which would make it easier for a spectator to actively participate in future battle play with the desired players whom have experience playing a video game.
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Willette with the teachings of Ishiwatari in order to allow spectators to set up future matches and compete with desired players which would make it easier for a spectator to actively participate in future battle play with the desired players whom have experience playing a video game.
Claims 2, 11, and 15. Willette discloses
wherein the at least one processor further implements the program to:
in real time during the competitive video game, distribute, over the network to the plurality of terminal apparatuses of the plurality of spectators (¶79, “spectator devices”), video data that is used to display a video related to the first contest on the plurality of terminal apparatuses in conjunction with progress of the first contest, and
in response to the distribution of the video data, receive the registration request from the plurality of terminal apparatuses (Figs. 6A and 15B, and ¶257).
Claim 7. Willette in view of Ishiwatari teaches wherein the at least one processor further implements the program to:
control the second contest of the competitive video game (see Ishiwatari); and
provide a reward for the one spectator when the spectator defeats the one participant (see Willette Figs. 16 and 17A, and ¶264; and see Ishiwatari “league point is a parameter in the game that increases or decreases according to the win or loss between the characters”).
Claims 19, 20, and 21. Willette in view of Ishiwatari teaches wherein the first contest is a match contest, and the second contest is a special contest, and
wherein the at least one processor further implements the program to, after the special contest played by the pair ends, execute a new special contest in which a new pair plays in the competitive video game (see Ishiwatari “fighting game can be played in a tournament in which a computer game is held as a competition, a so-called Electronic Sports tournament”, tournament play includes a sequence of contest among different people).
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20170001111 to Willette et al (Willette) in view of JP Pub. 2020044086 to Ishiwatari via Google Patents English Translation -https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2020044086A/en?oq=JP2020044086 (herein referred to as Ishiwatari) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20050192097 to Farnham et al (Farnham).
Claims 4, 12, and 16. Willette in view of Ishiwatari teaches
wherein the at least one processor further implements the program to:
manage a grade of each of the plurality of participants in the competitive video game (see Willette ¶190, “the player's skills or powers, the player's skill or experience levels, the player's ratings, accomplishments, and other statistics”); and
determine the pair of the one participant and the one spectator (see Willette ¶¶57 and 190, and see Ishiwatari “a match between the live broadcaster and the viewer is realized through matching between the selected live broadcaster and the selected viewer”).
However, Willette in view of Ishiwatari fails to explicitly teach determine, depending on the grade of each of the plurality of participants.
Farnham teaches depending on the grade of each of the plurality of participants (¶¶27 and 44 “levels”). The gaming system of Willette in view of Ishiwatari would have motivation to use the teachings of Farnham in order to matchmake people with those whom has the same or close experience levels in hopes to make contest more evenly competitive such that novice players are compete against other novice players.
It would have been further obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Willette in view of Ishiwatari with the teachings of Farnham in order to matchmake people with those whom has the same or close experience levels in hopes to make contest more evenly competitive.
Claims 5, 13, and 17 Willette in view of Ishiwatari and Farnham teaches
wherein the at least one processor further implements the program to:
link each of a plurality pieces of configuration information (see Farnham ¶¶43-44) with:
any spectator of the plurality of spectators; and
any participant who is one of the plurality of participants (see Willette ¶¶57 and 190, and see Ishiwatari) and is determined depending on the grades (see Farnham ¶¶27 and 44 “levels”); and
determine, as the players of the competitive video game, a pair of a spectator and a participant who are linked with each of the plurality pieces of configuration information (see Farnham ¶24 “matchmaking” and “parameters”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20170001111 to Willette et al (Willette) in view of JP Pub. 2020044086 to Ishiwatari via Google Patents English Translation -https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2020044086A/en?oq=JP2020044086 (herein referred to as Ishiwatari) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20210023453 to DeVico.
Claim 8. Willette discloses wherein the at least one processor further implements the program to:
manage a grade of each of the plurality of participants in the contest (¶190, “the player's skills or powers, the player's skill or experience levels, the player's ratings, accomplishments, and other statistics”);
provide a reward for the one spectator who defeats the one participant in the second contest (see Ishiwatari “league points” and “rank match”).
However, Willette fails to explicitly disclose provide a reward depending on the grade of the participant for the spectator who defeats the participant.
DeVico teaches provide a reward depending on the grade of the participant (¶79). The gaming system of Willette in view of Ishiwatari would have motivation to use the teachings of DeVico in order to award players in proportion to difficulty of opponent which would making defeating harder opponents more rewarding.
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Willette in view of Ishiwatari with the teachings of DeVico in order to award players in proportion to difficulty of opponent which would making defeating harder opponents more rewarding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 14, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715