DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 54-57 and 59-74 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.
The claims recite,
“identifying a plurality of users from the participant list;
generating a plurality of proxy users based on associated profile data for each user, wherein the associated profile data comprises historic gaming data;”
It is not clear if the “associated profile data for each user” is all users or just from the set of “a plurality of users from the participant list”.
Claim 59 recites,
“the associated profile data further comprises social media profile data, the method further comprising: prompting the first user to request to replay the past gaming session via a post on a social media platform.”
It is not clear if “the associated profile data” is for the users from the participant list, users on the gaming platform or users of the social media platform.
It is not clear from the claim language the relationship between the social media platform and the gaming platform.
Claims 66-69 recite, “receiving the feedback on the performance of the proxy user from the second user”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it furthers the lack of clarity of the sets of users discussed above.
Claim 72 also recites the second user with a lack of antecedent basis.
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 54, 56, 57, 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fear et al. (US PG pub 2020/0306638, from IDS 1/8/25).
Fear et al. shows,
In regards to claims 54 and 74,
method for replaying past gaming sessions on a gaming platform, the method comprising:
receiving a request to replay a past gaming session from a first user; (Paragraph [0065], “FIG. 2A is an example screenshot from a graphical user interface (GUI) 202 for replaying a game session” The user of the GUI is considered to be the first user, not player 1 in figure 2A)
retrieving a participant list related to the past gaming session; and identifying a plurality of users from the participant list; (Paragraph [0066], “The players region 206 of the GUI 202 may enable a user to select which players and/or bots that the user wants to replay the game session against. The user may select the control elements associated with players, or bots representing players, that the user may have previously participated in a game session”)
generating a plurality of proxy users based on associated profile data for each user, wherein the associated profile data comprises historic gaming data; (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 “bots” above are considered to be proxy users.”)
and
establishing the proxy gaming session with the first user and the plurality of proxy users on the gaming platform. (Figure 3 shows a flow chart introducing bots associated with other users. Step B310 provides, “cause a bot to be controlled using the playstyle patterns of the user in a game session” This game session is considered to be a proxy gaming session.)
In regards to claim 56,
the proxy users are generated using a reinforcement learning algorithm based on the historic gaming data. (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 “observations of the user through a number of game sessions of a game over time” above are considered to be historic gaming data.” The “machine learning model(s)” are considered to be a reinforcement learning algorithm)
In regards to claim 57,
comprising generating a proxy gaming profile for the proxy user. (Figure 3)
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.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fear et al. (US PG pub 2020/0306638, from IDS 1/8/25) in view of Hunter (US PG pub 2018/0361235, from 1/8/25 IDS).
Fear et al. shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying inviting the plurality of users from the participant list to the proxy gaming session; and wherein the plurality of proxy users are generated in response to an invited user not accepting the invite to the proxy gaming session before the start of the proxy gaming session.
Hunter teaches, paragraph [0054], “It should be noted that a user, as used in this application, is a person (i.e., first player) that initiates a game play request for a game at a scheduled time and the players are people (social contacts, game play contacts, etc.) that the user has invited to join game play.”
Based on the teaching of Hunter, 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 Fear et al. to incorporate the invitation scheme of Hunter, including the plurality of proxy users are generated in response to an invited user not accepting the invite to the proxy gaming session before the start of the proxy gaming session in order to provide a more courteous social/gaming environment.
Claims 59-61 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fear et al. (US PG pub 2020/0306638, from IDS 1/8/25) in view of George (US PG pub 2015/0375101).
Fear et al. shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying
the associated profile data further comprises social media profile data,
the method further comprising: prompting the first user to request to replay the past gaming session via a post on a social media platform.
advertising on the social media platform via the first user's social media profile the gaming session for a plurality of users of the social media platform to join the proxy gaming session.
the advertisement on the social media platform via the first user's social media profile comprises metadata required to participate in the proxy gaming session,
the metadata comprising one or more of: the game title, save game data, purchased game data, game platform hardware required, or the gaming engine.
establishing a second proxy gaming session, in parallel to the first proxy gaming session
George teaches,
Paragraph [0029], “various actions of a player when controlling the player's character in game sessions may be monitored and used to create (and update over time) a profile for the player's character that reflects or models the actual game play of the player when participating in the game as the character. In at least some embodiments, the game may include logic (e.g., an artificial intelligence (AI) engine) that can simulate game play of a given player by controlling the actions of the player's character according to the player's profile.”
Paragraph [0030], “when a player replays a previously recorded game session or when a player steps into a previously recorded game session that is being replayed, one or more other players that were involved in the original game session may be notified that the game session involving their characters is being replayed, and may be invited to participate in the session. An invitation to participate may, for example, be initiated by the player who initiated the replay using one or more communications channels such as social media, text messaging, email, telephone, etc.”
Paragraph [0090], “a game record 1100 may include game session metadata 1130, for example game session metadata as illustrated in FIGS. 7A and 7B. In at least some embodiments, the game session metadata 1130 may include an initial game state from which the game universe is initialized and from which the game timeline is launched, and entries each indicating a current game state at a specified time as the game session progresses that may be used to regenerate the game session universe for display to the players via their respective game clients.”
Figure 6B teaches establishing a second gaming session, in parallel to the first gaming session.
Communications via social media includes a profile and request. Applicant’s use of “advertising” the gaming session is merely broadcasting the request, which is the same as requesting via social media. The metadata with a current game state is considered to be saved game data.
Based on the teaching of George, 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 Fear et al. to incorporate the social media tools of George, including,
the associated profile data further comprises social media profile data,
the method further comprising: prompting the first user to request to replay the past gaming session via a post on a social media platform.
advertising on the social media platform via the first user's social media profile the gaming session for a plurality of users of the social media platform to join the proxy gaming session.
the advertisement on the social media platform via the first user's social media profile comprises metadata required to participate in the proxy gaming session,
the metadata comprising one or more of: the game title, save game data, purchased game data, game platform hardware required, or the gaming engine,
establishing a second proxy gaming session, in parallel to the first proxy gaming session,
in order to provide more communication tools and new game timelines.
Claims 62-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fear et al. (US PG pub 2020/0306638, from IDS 1/8/25) and George (US PG pub 2015/0375101) in further view of Fish et al. (US patent 7,828,661)
The combination of Fear et al. and George, as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying receiving a request to join the proxy gaming session from a second user, the second user from the social media platform and substituting the second user for a proxy user in the proxy gaming session.
Fear et al. already shows game data (paragraphs [0086] and [0109])
George already taught shared metadata as part of social media (see above)
Fish et al. (US patent 7,828,661) teaches,
Column 10, lines 14-20, “In some implementations, the "Any Buddy" game parameter 432A may still require an invitee to appear on a buddy list of one of the other invited potential participants. An invitation in such a case may be referred to as "a friend of a friend" invitation. This enables, for example, an invitee to the game to invite the invitee's own buddy (who is not a buddy of the game originator) to participate in the game.”
Column 8, lines 13-15, “A selection option 236 enables the owner of the buddy list 110 to join a particular game in progress.”
Based on the teaching of Fish 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 combination of Fear et al. and George to incorporate the “any buddy” system of Fish et al., including receiving a request to join the proxy gaming session from a second user, the second user from the social media platform and substituting the second user for a proxy user in the proxy gaming session, in order to provide wider network of players.
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fear et al. (US PG pub 2020/0306638, from IDS 1/8/25) in view of Shiba et al. (US PG pub 2021/0370163).
Fear et al. shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying rewarding the first user for participation, wherein the reward is one or more of: badges, health, skins, game items, game currency, or XP boosts.
Shiba et al. teaches,
Paragraph [0173], “the server 10Z may be configured so that the reward is given to the character or the user of the character in accordance with participation of the character in the battle event (regardless of the operation of the user).”
Paragraph [0119], “As examples of the reward, there are an in-game element, occurrence of a temporary process in the video game (for example, occurrence of a so-called buff, or occurrence of an effect of an item), equipment, items, in-game currency, an experience point associated with the user or an object, and the like.”
Based on the teaching of Shiba 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 Fear et al. to incorporate the reward scheme of Shiba et al., including rewarding the first user for participation, wherein the reward is one or more of: badges, health, skins, game items, game currency, or XP boosts in order to promote more participation.
Claims 71-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fear et al. (US PG pub 2020/0306638, from IDS 1/8/25) in view of Ceresoli (US Patent 12,483,761).
Fear et al. shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying generating, with a natural language model, real-time gameplay commentary during the proxy gaming session; generating, with a custom voice model, a sound clip based on the gameplay commentary; and broadcasting, from the proxy user, the sound clip during the proxy gaming session, wherein the commentary discusses at least one or more of: play styles of the first user, skill level of players, game statistics of the proxy gaming session, kill/death ratio of the second user, kill/death ratio of the proxy user, character choice of the proxy user profile, insults, compliments, jokes, and strategies for playing with the proxy user.
Ceresoli teaches, column 3, lines 19-36, “To address latency challenges, the present disclosure introduces techniques that can revolutionize the way sporting events are experienced. In certain embodiments, the system can leverage AI chatbots and sophisticated algorithms to generate real-time commentary. By integrating selected broadcast content with these additional real-time inputs, such as AI-powered real-time stats systems, the system can produce insightful AI-driven commentary, augmented reality features, and AI-enhanced audio. Through the analysis of real-time data, the AI algorithms can generate personalized and dynamic commentary, enhancing the value and engagement of the user experience. For example, the system can integrate AI algorithms that analyze player performance metrics, game strategies, or historical data to provide real-time insights and commentary. Additionally, it can incorporate AI-driven computer vision technologies to identify key moments, such as goals, fouls, or impressive plays, and generate corresponding highlights in real-time.”
The AI chatbot is considered to be a natural language model. Performance metrics are considered to be game statistics
Based on the teaching of Ceresoli, 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 Fear et al. to incorporate the chatbot scheme of Ceresoli, including generating, with a natural language model, real-time gameplay commentary during the proxy gaming session; generating, with a custom voice model, a sound clip based on the gameplay commentary; and broadcasting, from the proxy user, the sound clip during the proxy gaming session, wherein the commentary discusses at least one or more of: play styles of the first user, skill level of players, game statistics of the proxy gaming session, kill/death ratio of the second user, kill/death ratio of the proxy user, character choice of the proxy user profile, insults, compliments, jokes, and strategies for playing with the proxy user in order to address latency challenges (quoted from above teaching).
Conclusion
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