DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on July 10, 2023 Claims 1-12 havebeen examined in this application.
Response to Amendments
Amendment filed 7/10/2023 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are amended.
Claims 1-12 are pending this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 9, “variations that may be necessary”, line 10, “gameplays may be activated”, and line 22, “contents may be unknown”, “may be” implies optionality or lack of definitive structure thereby making the claim limitation optional.
In claim 2, line 3 “content may be represented”, “may be” implies optionality or lack of definitive structure thereby making the claim limitation optional.
In claim 3, line 8, “variations that may be necessary”, line 10, “gameplays may be activated”, and line 28, “contents may be unknown”, “may be” implies optionality or lack of definitive structure thereby making the claim limitation optional.
In claim 4, line 3 “content may be represented”, “may be” implies optionality or lack of definitive structure thereby making the claim limitation optional.
In claim 5, line 9, “variations that may be necessary” line 10, “gameplays may be activated”, and line 25 “contents may be unknown”, “may be” implies optionality or lack of definitive structure thereby making the claim limitation optional.
In claim 6, line 3 “contents may be represented”, “may be” implies optionality or lack of definitive structure thereby making the claim limitation optional.
In claim 7, line 8, “variations that may be necessary”, line 10, “gameplays may be activated”, and line 32 “contents may be unknown”, “may be” implies optionality or lack of definitive structure thereby making the claim limitation optional.
In claim 8, line 3 “content may be represented”, “may be” implies optionality or lack of definitive structure thereby making the claim limitation optional.
In claim 9, line 10, “variations that may be necessary”, line 12, “gameplays may be activated”, and line 24 “contents may be unknown”, “may be” implies optionality or lack of definitive structure thereby making the claim limitation optional.
In claim 10, line 3 “content may be represented”, “may be” implies optionality or lack of definitive structure thereby making the claim limitation optional.
In claim 11, line 9, “variations that may be necessary”, line 11, “gameplays may be activated”, and line 23 “contents may be unknown”, “may be” implies optionality or lack of definitive structure thereby making the claim limitation optional.
In claim 12, line 3 “content may be represented”, “may be” implies optionality or lack of definitive structure thereby making the claim limitation optional.
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 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 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 2 recites the limitation "the method of claim 1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the “method” is not defined in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear which method is being referred to, and the scope of the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted “the method of claim 1” as “the computer implemented video game of claim 1”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the method of claim 3" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the “method” is not defined in claim 3. Therefore, it is unclear which method is being referred to, and the scope of the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted “the method of claim 3” as “the computer implemented video game of claim 3”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the method of claim 5" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the “method” is not defined in claim 5. Therefore, it is unclear which method is being referred to, and the scope of the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted “the method of claim 5” as “the computer implemented video game of claim 5”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the method of claim 7" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the “method” is not defined in claim 7. Therefore, it is unclear which method is being referred to, and the scope of the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted “the method of claim 7” as “the computer implemented video game of claim 7”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the method of claim 9" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the “method” is not defined in claim 9. Therefore, it is unclear which method is being referred to, and the scope of the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted “the method of claim 9” as “the computer implemented video game of claim 9”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the method of claim 11" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the “method” is not defined in claim 11. Therefore, it is unclear which method is being referred to, and the scope of the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted “the method of claim 11” as “the computer implemented video game of claim 11”.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are drawn to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, because under their broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1-10 recite a computer program product without any structural recitations. As such, the computer program product could include transitory media including forms of signal transmission, such as propagating electrical signals or carrier waves which is enumerated by the courts as non-statutory subject matter (see in re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Further, without any structural recitation, a computer program does not fall within the groupings of a machine, a manufacture, a process, or a composition of matter. The applicant is required to provide structural recitations to amount to eligible subject matter (a manufacture) such as the program being stored on a computer-readable medium and limiting the computer readable medium to only non-transitory embodiments. For this reason, the applicant is suggested to amend the claims to recite the computer program stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium for execution by the computer. (Step 1: NO).
Claims 11-12 are drawn to a device (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 11-12 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Claims 11, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 recite a machine, a process, and a computer program product for implementing a video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as preferred embodiment, depicted with fluid lifelike animation comprising: an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays depicting the sport of American Football whereby its animated characters are rendered utilizing rendering techniques not subject to real-time rendering constraints effecting representation of fluid lifelike motions in said gameplays, whereby said gameplays represent varieties and variations that may be necessary to depict said video game as a simulation of the sport of American Football, and whereby said gameplays may be activated and run without predictability of control; a control implement utilizing an objective assessment method; a process that displays objective assessment content; a process that enables respective users to submit responses by wireless means via, by way of example and not limitation, client-server architecture; a process that analyzes objective assessment responses to trigger activation or playback of commensurate gameplay with respect to said responses by said respective users; a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays; a process that enables multi-user functionality; a process that displays said gameplays whose contents may be unknown to respective users of said video game, whereby the contents of said gameplays are influenced by said users. If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 recite abstract ideas.
Representative Claim 1: a computer implemented video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as preferred embodiment, depicted with fluid lifelike animation comprising: an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays depicting the sport of American Football whereby its animated characters are rendered utilizing rendering techniques not subject to real-time rendering constraints effecting representation of fluid lifelike motions in said gameplays, whereby said gameplays represent varieties and variations that may be necessary to depict said video game as a simulation of the sport of American Football, and whereby said gameplays may be activated and run without predictability of control; a control implement utilizing an objective assessment method; a process that displays objective assessment content; a process that enables respective users to submit responses by wireless means via, by way of example and not limitation, client-server architecture; a process that analyzes objective assessment responses to trigger activation or playback of commensurate gameplay with respect to said responses by said respective users; a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays; a process that enables multi-user functionality; a process that displays said gameplays whose contents may be unknown to respective users of said video game, whereby the contents of said gameplays are influenced by said users.
Representative Claim 3: Discloses all limitations of Claim 1 in addition to:
a connection and configuration involving online gaming whereby a multi-user setting may be involved, and whereby said video game is executed by a computing machine operated by one of said user or users over a peer-to-peer network connection whereby said peer-to-peer connection may be configured, by way of example and not limitation, via Network address translation protocol (NAT) and NAT variations;
Representative Claim 5: Discloses all limitations of Claim 1 in addition to:
a connection and configuration involving a remote server whereby said video game is run on a dedicated server that provides all necessary computing resources required by said video game.
Representative Claim 7: Discloses all limitations of Claim 1 in addition to:
a process that enables participation of, a single to multiple users to represent a team per game session, whereby said participating user or users may be individually and respectively equipped with compatible controlling device involving said video game, whereby said user or users per team engages or engage in a competition, either against the computing machine executing said video game, or against another competing team, whereby said controlling devices in multi-user per team configuration are synchronously functional per team, whereby respective inputs are aggregated and consentaneously computed in accordance to game rules involving said video game.
Representative Claim 9: Discloses all limitations of Claim 1.
Representative Claim 11: Discloses all limitations of Claim 1 in addition to:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions for executing said video game depicting the sport of American Football, as preferred embodiment, the plurality of instructions.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
The additional elements are instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements of processors, non-transitory machine-readable storage device/memory device having instructions stored thereon, and an inertial measurement unit are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited steps of the computer implemented American Football video game simulating a football game: stopping a program or game to display an objective assessment, displaying objective assessment content, enabling users to submit responses, analyzing responses that impact gameplay, customizing text-to speech content, narrating gameplay, enabling multi-user functionality, and displaying content that may be unknown to users (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The recited steps are a simulation that applies an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (evaluation (analyzing responses that impact gameplay), observation (customizing text-to-speech content)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of playing a game (stopping a game to display on objective assessment method; displaying objective assessment content; enabling users to submit responses; narrating gameplay; enabling multi-user functionality; displaying content that may be unknown to users). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (CMOHA), the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 recite abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 further narrow the abstract ideas of stopping a game, displaying content, analyzing responses, enabling multiple users to participate in a game, customizing text, and narrating gameplay (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea and then it also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and then also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “stopping a game”, “displaying content”, “analyzing responses”, “customizing text”, “enabling multiple users to participate in a game”, and “narrating gameplay,” etc. (Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11) are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of applying “stopping a game”, “displaying content”, “analyzing responses”, “customizing text”, “enabling multiple users to participate in a game”, and “narrating gameplay,” etc. (Independent Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11, and dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a vehicle. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., stopping a game, displaying content, analyzing responses, customizing text, enabling multiple users to participate in a game, and narrating gameplay, etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of receiving input, verifying input, and displaying an image, (Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11, and dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of stopping a game, displaying content, analyzing responses, customizing text, enabling multiple users to participate in a game, and narrating gameplay (Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. selecting users (i.e. using a user interface) is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at paragraph [0019] acknowledges that “Game applications' inherent feature of player real-time interaction requires a real-time frame-by-frame rendering process for instantaneously interpreting player input that is intended to correlate or simulate human motion, especially sports simulation games” (i.e. conventional nature of using a computer and/or computer program). This additional element therefore does not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 are dependent from claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 and include all the limitations of the independent claims, but fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claim 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 recite clarifications of the database (expandable digital library) categorizing content by educational levels (observation mental process). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional elements of the dependent claims are further insignificant extra-solution activities including displaying an image on a user interface. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-12 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colar (US 2012/0172100 A1) in view of Pillay (US 2021/0142626 A1), in view of Tischer (US 7,483,832 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Colar discloses a computer implemented video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as preferred embodiment, depicted with fluid lifelike animation comprising ([0047] This point can happen because a simulated football has come to rest, in, for example, a football video game):
animated gameplays depicting the sport of American Football whereby its animated characters are rendered utilizing rendering techniques not subject to real-time rendering constraints effecting representation of fluid lifelike motions in said gameplays, whereby said gameplays represent varieties and variations that may be necessary to depict said video game as a simulation of the sport of American Football, and whereby said gameplays may be activated and run without predictability of control ([0004] Typically, the video game is generated by software executing on a computer and is animated (animated gameplay), [0059] The EBP condition can be associated with a point in a video game where a natural break might be taken. There are several examples of EBP conditions. First, in a football game simulation, an EBP condition can be a determination of whether a football play has concluded, for example, by the ball carrier being ruled as down, or the football being thrown out of bands (gameplay depicting the sport of American Football));
a control implement utilizing an objective assessment method ([0051] By way of using the embodiment of FIG. 6, below, in the process of executing the client program on the student PC, the student PC obtains the educational questions (objective assessment method), as well as answers and educational goals, from the educational server and presents the educational questions at the break points (break points are a control implement));
a process that displays objective assessment content ([0051] By way of using the embodiment of FIG. 6, below, in the process of executing the client program on the student PC, the student PC obtains the educational questions (objective assessment method), as well as answers and educational goals, from the educational server and presents (displays) the educational questions at the break points);
a process that enables respective users to submit responses by wireless means via, by way of example and not limitation, client-server architecture (Fig. 3 Element 307 (used for wireless communication(s) between the Teacher’s PC (305), the Video Game Manufacturer Server (340), the Server (308), and the Student’s PC (350)), [0042] FIG.2. Coordinated operations of the client and the server (client-server architecture) work to provide the student a list of games, and receive the student's selection of educational break point (EBP) video game);
a process that analyzes objective assessment responses to trigger activation or playback of commensurate gameplay with respect to said responses by said respective users ([0053] Preferably, the success or failure of the student in answering the questions yields a respective reward or penalty in the student's play of the video game. The reward can be some type of advantage in the play and conversely, the penalty can be some type of disadvantage in the play);
a process that enables multi-user functionality ([0073] It is appreciated that a video game can be associated to two or more sets of educational questions, and thus can be played by two students where each student has a distinct lesson plan from the other. Accordingly, in multiplayer games, such as where two students can take turns in using the video game, distinctive questions can be asked to each student during, for example, competitive game play);
a process that displays said gameplays whose contents may be unknown to respective users of said video game, whereby the contents of said gameplays are influenced by said users ([0053] Preferably, the success or failure of the student in answering the questions (influenced by said users) yields a respective reward or penalty (unknown which reward or penalty will be applied) in the student's play of the video game. The reward can be some type of advantage in the play and conversely, the penalty can be some type of disadvantage in the play).
However, Colar fails to disclose a computer implemented video game comprising: an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays; and a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays.
Pillay teaches an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays ([0087] The server 102 has an event library associated therewith (digital library), which is stored on a database 304 (expandable digital library). The event library may contain various events in the form of video clips. The video clips may all be of specific occurrences in similar episodes, for example a sports game of the same type. Presently, the events are shots taken during football, or soccer, matches).
Colar and Pillay are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of enabling users to make selections based on predetermined options. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of information processing by converting content (text, numbers, symbols) into one or more vibration codes, as disclosed by Colar, further including the expandable digital library of pre-rendered animated gameplays as taught by Pillay for the purpose of allowing them to be available for viewing and use by the server when parameters applicable to them are searched (Pillay, [0049]).
However, Pillay is not relied upon teaching a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays.
Tischer teaches a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays (Col. 2 Lines 54-58 The present invention provides a method and system of customizing voice translation of a text to speech, including digitally recording speech samples of a specific known speaker and correlating each of the speech samples with a standardized audio representation, Col. 12 Lines 21-28 involving automated voice interfaces, devices, and systems. Such customized text to-speech translations are particularly useful in radio and television advertising, in automobile computer systems pro viding driving directions, in educational programs such as teaching children to read and teaching people new languages, for books on tape, for speech service providers, in location based services, and with video games (voice over narration featured on gameplays)).
Colar and Tischer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of communicating between devices and/or systems within a computer network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a computer implemented video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as disclosed by Colar, further including enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays as taught by Tischer for the purpose of providing translation of machine-read text based on voices of specific, actual, known speakers, which allows people to listen to more natural and intelligible translations without becoming fatigued or annoyed (Tischer, Col. 3 Lines 34-57).
Regarding Claim 2, Colar discloses an expandable digital library of educational content represented in objective assessment structure whereby said educational content may be represented accordingly in respective categories of varying educational levels for fostering learning ([0006] After each student has entered his game strategy, the first student is asked what difficulty level (educational level) he wishes to select for his first question. The teaching program randomly selects an appropriate question of the selected difficulty in the selected tutorial module).
Regarding Claim 5, Colar discloses a computer implemented video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as preferred embodiment, depicted with fluid lifelike animation comprising ([0047] This point can happen because a simulated football has come to rest, in, for example, a football video game):
animated gameplays depicting the sport of American Football whereby its animated characters are rendered utilizing rendering techniques not subject to real-time rendering constraints effecting representation of fluid lifelike motions in said gameplays, whereby said gameplays represent varieties and variations that may be necessary to depict said video game as a simulation of the sport of American Football, and whereby said gameplays may be activated and run without predictability of control ([0004] Typically, the video game is generated by software executing on a computer and is animated (animated gameplay), [0059] The EBP condition can be associated with a point in a video game where a natural break might be taken. There are several examples of EBP conditions. First, in a football game simulation, an EBP condition can be a determination of whether a football play has concluded, for example, by the ball carrier being ruled as down, or the football being thrown out of bands (gameplay depicting the sport of American Football));
a connection and configuration involving a remote server whereby said video game is run on a dedicated server that provides all necessary computing resources required by said video game;
a control implement utilizing an objective assessment method ([0051] By way of using the embodiment of FIG. 6, below, in the process of executing the client program on the student PC, the student PC obtains the educational questions (objective assessment method), as well as answers and educational goals, from the educational server and presents the educational questions at the break points (break points are a control implement));
a process that displays objective assessment content ([0051] By way of using the embodiment of FIG. 6, below, in the process of executing the client program on the student PC, the student PC obtains the educational questions (objective assessment method), as well as answers and educational goals, from the educational server and presents (displays) the educational questions at the break points);
a process that enables respective users to submit responses by wireless means via, by way of example and not limitation, client-server architecture (Fig. 3 Element 307 (used for wireless communication(s) between the Teacher’s PC (305), the Video Game Manufacturer Server (340), the Server (308), and the Student’s PC (350)), [0042] FIG.2. Coordinated operations of the client and the server (client-server architecture) work to provide the student a list of games, and receive the student's selection of educational break point (EBP) video game);
a process that analyzes objective assessment responses to trigger activation or playback of commensurate gameplay with respect to said responses by said respective users ([0053] Preferably, the success or failure of the student in answering the questions yields a respective reward or penalty in the student's play of the video game. The reward can be some type of advantage in the play and conversely, the penalty can be some type of disadvantage in the play);
a process that enables multi-user functionality ([0073] It is appreciated that a video game can be associated to two or more sets of educational questions, and thus can be played by two students where each student has a distinct lesson plan from the other. Accordingly, in multiplayer games, such as where two students can take turns in using the video game, distinctive questions can be asked to each student during, for example, competitive game play);
a process that displays said gameplays whose contents may be unknown to respective users of said video game, whereby the contents of said gameplays are influenced by said users ([0053] Preferably, the success or failure of the student in answering the questions (influenced by said users) yields a respective reward or penalty (unknown which reward or penalty will be applied) in the student's play of the video game. The reward can be some type of advantage in the play and conversely, the penalty can be some type of disadvantage in the play).
However, Colar fails to disclose a computer implemented video game comprising: an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays; and a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays.
Pillay teaches an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays ([0087] The server 102 has an event library associated therewith (digital library), which is stored on a database 304 (expandable digital library). The event library may contain various events in the form of video clips. The video clips may all be of specific occurrences in similar episodes, for example a sports game of the same type. Presently, the events are shots taken during football, or soccer, matches).
Colar and Pillay are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of enabling users to make selections based on predetermined options. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of information processing by converting content (text, numbers, symbols) into one or more vibration codes, as disclosed by Colar, further including the expandable digital library of pre-rendered animated gameplays as taught by Pillay for the purpose of allowing them to be available for viewing and use by the server when parameters applicable to them are searched (Pillay, [0049]).
However, Pillay is not relied upon teaching a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays.
Tischer teaches a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays (Col. 2 Lines 54-58 The present invention provides a method and system of customizing voice translation of a text to speech, including digitally recording speech samples of a specific known speaker and correlating each of the speech samples with a standardized audio representation, Col. 12 Lines 21-28 involving automated voice interfaces, devices, and systems. Such customized text to-speech translations are particularly useful in radio and television advertising, in automobile computer systems pro viding driving directions, in educational programs such as teaching children to read and teaching people new languages, for books on tape, for speech service providers, in location based services, and with video games (voice over narration featured on gameplays)).
Colar and Tischer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of communicating between devices and/or systems within a computer network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a computer implemented video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as disclosed by Colar, further including enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays as taught by Tischer for the purpose of providing translation of machine-read text based on voices of specific, actual, known speakers, which allows people to listen to more natural and intelligible translations without becoming fatigued or annoyed (Tischer, Col. 3 Lines 34-57).
Regarding Claim 6, Colar discloses an expandable digital library of educational content represented in objective assessment structure whereby said educational content may be represented accordingly in respective categories of varying educational levels for fostering learning ([0006] After each student has entered his game strategy, the first student is asked what difficulty level (educational level) he wishes to select for his first question. The teaching program randomly selects an appropriate question of the selected difficulty in the selected tutorial module).
Regarding Claim 7, Colar discloses a computer implemented video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as preferred embodiment, depicted with fluid lifelike animation comprising ([0047] This point can happen because a simulated football has come to rest, in, for example, a football video game):
animated gameplays depicting the sport of American Football whereby its animated characters are rendered utilizing rendering techniques not subject to real-time rendering constraints effecting representation of fluid lifelike motions in said gameplays, whereby said gameplays represent varieties and variations that may be necessary to depict said video game as a simulation of the sport of American Football, and whereby said gameplays may be activated and run without predictability of control ([0004] Typically, the video game is generated by software executing on a computer and is animated (animated gameplay), [0059] The EBP condition can be associated with a point in a video game where a natural break might be taken. There are several examples of EBP conditions. First, in a football game simulation, an EBP condition can be a determination of whether a football play has concluded, for example, by the ball carrier being ruled as down, or the football being thrown out of bands (gameplay depicting the sport of American Football));
a control implement utilizing an objective assessment method ([0051] By way of using the embodiment of FIG. 6, below, in the process of executing the client program on the student PC, the student PC obtains the educational questions (objective assessment method), as well as answers and educational goals, from the educational server and presents the educational questions at the break points (break points are a control implement));
a process that displays objective assessment content ([0051] By way of using the embodiment of FIG. 6, below, in the process of executing the client program on the student PC, the student PC obtains the educational questions (objective assessment method), as well as answers and educational goals, from the educational server and presents (displays) the educational questions at the break points);
a process that enables respective users to submit responses by wireless means via, by way of example and not limitation, client-server architecture (Fig. 3 Element 307 (used for wireless communication(s) between the Teacher’s PC (305), the Video Game Manufacturer Server (340), the Server (308), and the Student’s PC (350)), [0042] FIG.2. Coordinated operations of the client and the server (client-server architecture) work to provide the student a list of games, and receive the student's selection of educational break point (EBP) video game);
a process that analyzes objective assessment responses to trigger activation or playback of commensurate gameplay with respect to said responses by said respective users ([0053] Preferably, the success or failure of the student in answering the questions yields a respective reward or penalty in the student's play of the video game. The reward can be some type of advantage in the play and conversely, the penalty can be some type of disadvantage in the play);
a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays;
a process that enables participation of, a single to multiple users to represent a team per game session ([0065] Such an opportunity can be helpful if the player operates a video game team that threw an interception in the video game), whereby said participating user or users may be individually and respectively equipped with compatible controlling device involving said video game ([0062] Next, the client program may receive an answer (step 619). The answer may be given by a student using a game controller, keyboard, or the like), whereby said user or users per team engages or engage in a competition, either against the computing machine executing said video game, or against another competing team ([0066] For example, a penalty for a low academic score or incorrect question can be following a play in which a fumble was recovered by the player's team, the fumble is recovered by the opposing team. In other words, as a consequence, the alternate history of the game can change possession of the ball to the opponent (competing against an opponent)), whereby said controlling devices in multi-user per team configuration are synchronously functional per team, whereby respective inputs are aggregated and consentaneously computed in accordance to game rules involving said video game ([0065] Such an opportunity can be helpful if the player operates a video game team that threw an interception in the video game (player is operating a video game));
a process that displays said gameplays whose contents may be unknown to respective users of said video game, whereby the contents of said gameplays are influenced by said users ([0053] Preferably, the success or failure of the student in answering the questions (influenced by said users) yields a respective reward or penalty (unknown which reward or penalty will be applied) in the student's play of the video game. The reward can be some type of advantage in the play and conversely, the penalty can be some type of disadvantage in the play).
However, Colar fails to disclose a computer implemented video game comprising: an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays; and a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays.
Pillay teaches an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays ([0087] The server 102 has an event library associated therewith (digital library), which is stored on a database 304 (expandable digital library). The event library may contain various events in the form of video clips. The video clips may all be of specific occurrences in similar episodes, for example a sports game of the same type. Presently, the events are shots taken during football, or soccer, matches).
Colar and Pillay are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of enabling users to make selections based on predetermined options. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of information processing by converting content (text, numbers, symbols) into one or more vibration codes, as disclosed by Colar, further including the expandable digital library of pre-rendered animated gameplays as taught by Pillay for the purpose of allowing them to be available for viewing and use by the server when parameters applicable to them are searched (Pillay, [0049]).
However, Pillay is not relied upon teaching a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays.
Tischer teaches a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays (Col. 2 Lines 54-58 The present invention provides a method and system of customizing voice translation of a text to speech, including digitally recording speech samples of a specific known speaker and correlating each of the speech samples with a standardized audio representation, Col. 12 Lines 21-28 involving automated voice interfaces, devices, and systems. Such customized text to-speech translations are particularly useful in radio and television advertising, in automobile computer systems pro viding driving directions, in educational programs such as teaching children to read and teaching people new languages, for books on tape, for speech service providers, in location based services, and with video games (voice over narration featured on gameplays)).
Colar and Tischer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of communicating between devices and/or systems within a computer network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a computer implemented video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as disclosed by Colar, further including enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays as taught by Tischer for the purpose of providing translation of machine-read text based on voices of specific, actual, known speakers, which allows people to listen to more natural and intelligible translations without becoming fatigued or annoyed (Tischer, Col. 3 Lines 34-57).
Regarding Claim 8, Colar discloses an expandable digital library of educational content represented in objective assessment structure whereby said educational content may be represented accordingly in respective categories of varying educational levels for fostering learning ([0006] After each student has entered his game strategy, the first student is asked what difficulty level (educational level) he wishes to select for his first question. The teaching program randomly selects an appropriate question of the selected difficulty in the selected tutorial module).
Regarding Claim 9, Colar discloses a computer implemented video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as preferred embodiment, depicted with fluid lifelike animation comprising ([0047] This point can happen because a simulated football has come to rest, in, for example, a football video game):
a computer processor, a routing engine executing on the computer processor and configured to:
animated gameplays depicting the sport of American Football whereby its animated characters are rendered utilizing rendering techniques not subject to real-time rendering constraints effecting representation of fluid lifelike motions in said gameplays, whereby said gameplays represent varieties and variations that may be necessary to depict said video game as a simulation of the sport of American Football, and whereby said gameplays may be activated and run without predictability of control ([0004] Typically, the video game is generated by software executing on a computer and is animated (animated gameplay), [0059] The EBP condition can be associated with a point in a video game where a natural break might be taken. There are several examples of EBP conditions. First, in a football game simulation, an EBP condition can be a determination of whether a football play has concluded, for example, by the ball carrier being ruled as down, or the football being thrown out of bands (gameplay depicting the sport of American Football));
a control implement utilizing an objective assessment method ([0051] By way of using the embodiment of FIG. 6, below, in the process of executing the client program on the student PC, the student PC obtains the educational questions (objective assessment method), as well as answers and educational goals, from the educational server and presents the educational questions at the break points (break points are a control implement));
a process that displays objective assessment content ([0051] By way of using the embodiment of FIG. 6, below, in the process of executing the client program on the student PC, the student PC obtains the educational questions (objective assessment method), as well as answers and educational goals, from the educational server and presents (displays) the educational questions at the break points);
a process that enables respective users to submit responses by wireless means via, by way of example and not limitation, client-server architecture (Fig. 3 Element 307 (used for wireless communication(s) between the Teacher’s PC (305), the Video Game Manufacturer Server (340), the Server (308), and the Student’s PC (350)), [0042] FIG.2. Coordinated operations of the client and the server (client-server architecture) work to provide the student a list of games, and receive the student's selection of educational break point (EBP) video game);
a process that analyzes object objective assessment responses to trigger activation or playback of commensurate gameplay with respect to said responses by said respective users ([0053] Preferably, the success or failure of the student in answering the questions yields a respective reward or penalty in the student's play of the video game. The reward can be some type of advantage in the play and conversely, the penalty can be some type of disadvantage in the play);
a process that enables multi-user functionality ([0073] It is appreciated that a video game can be associated to two or more sets of educational questions, and thus can be played by two students where each student has a distinct lesson plan from the other. Accordingly, in multiplayer games, such as where two students can take turns in using the video game, distinctive questions can be asked to each student during, for example, competitive game play);
a process that displays said gameplays whose contents may be unknown to respective users of said video game, whereby the contents of said gameplays are influenced by said users ([0053] Preferably, the success or failure of the student in answering the questions (influenced by said users) yields a respective reward or penalty (unknown which reward or penalty will be applied) in the student's play of the video game. The reward can be some type of advantage in the play and conversely, the penalty can be some type of disadvantage in the play).
However, Colar fails to disclose a computer implemented video game comprising: an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays; and a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays.
Pillay teaches an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays ([0087] The server 102 has an event library associated therewith (digital library), which is stored on a database 304 (expandable digital library). The event library may contain various events in the form of video clips. The video clips may all be of specific occurrences in similar episodes, for example a sports game of the same type. Presently, the events are shots taken during football, or soccer, matches).
Colar and Pillay are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of enabling users to make selections based on predetermined options. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of information processing by converting content (text, numbers, symbols) into one or more vibration codes, as disclosed by Colar, further including the expandable digital library of pre-rendered animated gameplays as taught by Pillay for the purpose of allowing them to be available for viewing and use by the server when parameters applicable to them are searched (Pillay, [0049]).
However, Pillay is not relied upon teaching a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays.
Tischer teaches a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays (Col. 2 Lines 54-58 The present invention provides a method and system of customizing voice translation of a text to speech, including digitally recording speech samples of a specific known speaker and correlating each of the speech samples with a standardized audio representation, Col. 12 Lines 21-28 involving automated voice interfaces, devices, and systems. Such customized text to-speech translations are particularly useful in radio and television advertising, in automobile computer systems pro viding driving directions, in educational programs such as teaching children to read and teaching people new languages, for books on tape, for speech service providers, in location based services, and with video games (voice over narration featured on gameplays)).
Colar and Tischer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of communicating between devices and/or systems within a computer network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a computer implemented video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as disclosed by Colar, further including enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays as taught by Tischer for the purpose of providing translation of machine-read text based on voices of specific, actual, known speakers, which allows people to listen to more natural and intelligible translations without becoming fatigued or annoyed (Tischer, Col. 3 Lines 34-57).
Regarding Claim 10, Colar discloses an expandable digital library of educational content represented in objective assessment structure whereby said educational content may be represented accordingly in respective categories of varying educational levels for fostering learning ([0006] After each student has entered his game strategy, the first student is asked what difficulty level (educational level) he wishes to select for his first question. The teaching program randomly selects an appropriate question of the selected difficulty in the selected tutorial module).
Regarding Claim 11, Colar discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions for executing said video game depicting the sport of American Football, as preferred embodiment, the plurality of instructions comprising functionality to ([0047] This point can happen because a simulated football has come to rest, in, for example, a football video game):
animated gameplays depicting the sport of American Football whereby its animated characters are rendered utilizing rendering techniques not subject to real-time rendering constraints effecting representation of fluid lifelike motions in said gameplays, whereby said gameplays represent varieties and variations that may be necessary to depict said video game as a simulation of the sport of American Football, and whereby said gameplays may be activated and run without predictability of control ([0004] Typically, the video game is generated by software executing on a computer and is animated (animated gameplay), [0059] The EBP condition can be associated with a point in a video game where a natural break might be taken. There are several examples of EBP conditions. First, in a football game simulation, an EBP condition can be a determination of whether a football play has concluded, for example, by the ball carrier being ruled as down, or the football being thrown out of bands (gameplay depicting the sport of American Football));
a control implement utilizing an objective assessment method ([0051] By way of using the embodiment of FIG. 6, below, in the process of executing the client program on the student PC, the student PC obtains the educational questions (objective assessment method), as well as answers and educational goals, from the educational server and presents the educational questions at the break points (break points are a control implement));
a process that displays objective assessment content ([0051] By way of using the embodiment of FIG. 6, below, in the process of executing the client program on the student PC, the student PC obtains the educational questions (objective assessment method), as well as answers and educational goals, from the educational server and presents (displays) the educational questions at the break points);
a process that enables respective users to submit responses by wireless means via, by way of example and not limitation, client-server architecture (Fig. 3 Element 307 (used for wireless communication(s) between the Teacher’s PC (305), the Video Game Manufacturer Server (340), the Server (308), and the Student’s PC (350)), [0042] FIG.2. Coordinated operations of the client and the server (client-server architecture) work to provide the student a list of games, and receive the student's selection of educational break point (EBP) video game);
a process that analyzes objective assessment responses to trigger activation or playback of commensurate gameplay with respect to said responses by said respective users ([0053] Preferably, the success or failure of the student in answering the questions yields a respective reward or penalty in the student's play of the video game. The reward can be some type of advantage in the play and conversely, the penalty can be some type of disadvantage in the play);
a process that enables multi-user functionality ([0073] It is appreciated that a video game can be associated to two or more sets of educational questions, and thus can be played by two students where each student has a distinct lesson plan from the other. Accordingly, in multiplayer games, such as where two students can take turns in using the video game, distinctive questions can be asked to each student during, for example, competitive game play);
a process that displays said gameplays whose contents may be unknown to respective users of said video game, whereby the contents of said gameplays are influenced by said users ([0053] Preferably, the success or failure of the student in answering the questions (influenced by said users) yields a respective reward or penalty (unknown which reward or penalty will be applied) in the student's play of the video game. The reward can be some type of advantage in the play and conversely, the penalty can be some type of disadvantage in the play).
However, Colar fails to disclose a computer implemented video game comprising: an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays; and a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays.
Pillay teaches an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays ([0087] The server 102 has an event library associated therewith (digital library), which is stored on a database 304 (expandable digital library). The event library may contain various events in the form of video clips. The video clips may all be of specific occurrences in similar episodes, for example a sports game of the same type. Presently, the events are shots taken during football, or soccer, matches).
Colar and Pillay are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of enabling users to make selections based on predetermined options. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of information processing by converting content (text, numbers, symbols) into one or more vibration codes, as disclosed by Colar, further including the expandable digital library of pre-rendered animated gameplays as taught by Pillay for the purpose of allowing them to be available for viewing and use by the server when parameters applicable to them are searched (Pillay, [0049]).
However, Pillay is not relied upon teaching a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays.
Tischer teaches a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays (Col. 2 Lines 54-58 The present invention provides a method and system of customizing voice translation of a text to speech, including digitally recording speech samples of a specific known speaker and correlating each of the speech samples with a standardized audio representation, Col. 12 Lines 21-28 involving automated voice interfaces, devices, and systems. Such customized text to-speech translations are particularly useful in radio and television advertising, in automobile computer systems pro viding driving directions, in educational programs such as teaching children to read and teaching people new languages, for books on tape, for speech service providers, in location based services, and with video games (voice over narration featured on gameplays)).
Colar and Tischer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of communicating between devices and/or systems within a computer network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a computer implemented video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as disclosed by Colar, further including enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays as taught by Tischer for the purpose of providing translation of machine-read text based on voices of specific, actual, known speakers, which allows people to listen to more natural and intelligible translations without becoming fatigued or annoyed (Tischer, Col. 3 Lines 34-57).
Regarding Claim 12, Colar discloses an expandable digital library of educational content represented in objective assessment structure whereby said educational content may be represented accordingly in respective categories of varying educational levels for fostering learning ([0006] After each student has entered his game strategy, the first student is asked what difficulty level (educational level) he wishes to select for his first question. The teaching program randomly selects an appropriate question of the selected difficulty in the selected tutorial module).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colar (US 2012/0172100 A1) in view of Pillay (US 2021/0142626 A1), in view of Marr (US 10,315,113 B2), in view of Tischer (US 7,483,832 B2).
Regarding Claim 3, (Currently amended) A computer implemented video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as preferred embodiment, depicted with fluid lifelike animation comprising ([0047] This point can happen because a simulated football has come to rest, in, for example, a football video game):
animated gameplays depicting the sport of American Football whereby its animated characters are rendered utilizing rendering techniques not subject to real-time rendering constraints effecting representation of fluid lifelike motions in said gameplays, whereby said gameplays represent varieties and variations that may be necessary to depict said video game as a simulation of the sport of American Football, and whereby said gameplays may be activated and run without predictability of control ([0004] Typically, the video game is generated by software executing on a computer and is animated (animated gameplay), [0059] The EBP condition can be associated with a point in a video game where a natural break might be taken. There are several examples of EBP conditions. First, in a football game simulation, an EBP condition can be a determination of whether a football play has concluded, for example, by the ball carrier being ruled as down, or the football being thrown out of bands (gameplay depicting the sport of American Football));
a connection and configuration involving online gaming whereby a multi-user setting may be involved ([0073] Accordingly, in multiplayer games, such as where two students can take turns in using the Video game, distinctive questions can be asked to each student during, for example, competitive game play (multi-user setting));
a control implement utilizing an objective assessment method ([0051] By way of using the embodiment of FIG. 6, below, in the process of executing the client program on the student PC, the student PC obtains the educational questions (objective assessment method), as well as answers and educational goals, from the educational server and presents the educational questions at the break points (break points are a control implement));
a process that displays objective assessment content ([0051] By way of using the embodiment of FIG. 6, below, in the process of executing the client program on the student PC, the student PC obtains the educational questions (objective assessment method), as well as answers and educational goals, from the educational server and presents (displays) the educational questions at the break points);
a process that enables respective users to submit responses by wireless means via, by way of example and not limitation, client-server architecture (Fig. 3 Element 307 (used for wireless communication(s) between the Teacher’s PC (305), the Video Game Manufacturer Server (340), the Server (308), and the Student’s PC (350)), [0042] FIG.2. Coordinated operations of the client and the server (client-server architecture) work to provide the student a list of games, and receive the student's selection of educational break point (EBP) video game);
a process that analyzes objective assessment responses to trigger activation or playback of commensurate gameplay with respect to said responses by said respective users ([0053] Preferably, the success or failure of the student in answering the questions yields a respective reward or penalty in the student's play of the video game. The reward can be some type of advantage in the play and conversely, the penalty can be some type of disadvantage in the play);
a process that enables multi-user functionality ([0073] It is appreciated that a video game can be associated to two or more sets of educational questions, and thus can be played by two students where each student has a distinct lesson plan from the other. Accordingly, in multiplayer games, such as where two students can take turns in using the video game, distinctive questions can be asked to each student during, for example, competitive game play);
a process that displays said gameplays whose contents may be unknown to respective users of said video game, whereby the contents displays of said gameplays are influenced by said users ([0053] Preferably, the success or failure of the student in answering the questions (influenced by said users) yields a respective reward or penalty (unknown which reward or penalty will be applied) in the student's play of the video game. The reward can be some type of advantage in the play and conversely, the penalty can be some type of disadvantage in the play).
However, Colar fails to disclose an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays; whereby said video game is executed by a computing machine operated by one of said user or users over a peer-to-peer network connection whereby said peer-to-peer connection may be configured, by way of example and not limitation, via Network address translation protocol (NAT) and NAT variations; and a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays.
Pillay teaches an expandable digital library of scripted pre-rendered animated gameplays ([0087] The server 102 has an event library associated therewith (digital library), which is stored on a database 304 (expandable digital library). The event library may contain various events in the form of video clips. The video clips may all be of specific occurrences in similar episodes, for example a sports game of the same type. Presently, the events are shots taken during football, or soccer, matches).
Colar and Pillay are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of enabling users to make selections based on predetermined options. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of information processing by converting content (text, numbers, symbols) into one or more vibration codes, as disclosed by Colar, further including the expandable digital library of pre-rendered animated gameplays as taught by Pillay for the purpose of allowing them to be available for viewing and use by the server when parameters applicable to them are searched (Pillay, [0049]).
However, Pillay is not relied upon teaching whereby said video game is executed by a computing machine operated by one of said user or users over a peer-to-peer network connection whereby said peer-to-peer connection may be configured, by way of example and not limitation, via Network address translation protocol (NAT) and NAT variations; and a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays.
Marr discloses whereby said video game is executed by a computing machine operated by one of said user or users over a peer-to-peer network connection whereby said peer-to-peer connection may be configured, by way of example and not limitation, via Network address translation protocol (NAT) and NAT variations (Col. 2 Lines 38-46 a peer-to-peer (“P2P”) function provided by a P2P communication engine, and/or other functions (peer-to-peer network), Col. 6 Lines 16-39 whether a wireless or wired connection is used, an identification of a game hosting service, end user device version, or type of Network Address Translation (NAT) connection), one or more servers that should be used to host a simulation).
Colar and Marr are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of simulating gameplay. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a computer implemented video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as disclosed by Colar, further including an online gaming connection and configuration whereby a peer-to-peer network connection may be configured via network address translation (NAT) protocol and NAT variations as taught by Marr for the purpose of creating comprehensive network quality maps of end user devices, so that the gameplay simulator can avoid using end user devices with known, poor quality network connections (Marr, Col. 12 Lines 23-67 – Col. 13 Lines 1-6).
However, Marr is not relied upon teaching whereby said video game is executed by a computing machine operated by one of said user or users over a peer-to-peer network connection whereby said peer-to-peer connection may be configured, by way of example and not limitation, via Network address translation protocol (NAT) and NAT variations; and a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays.
Tischer teaches a process of enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays (Col. 2 Lines 54-58 The present invention provides a method and system of customizing voice translation of a text to speech, including digitally recording speech samples of a specific known speaker and correlating each of the speech samples with a standardized audio representation, Col. 12 Lines 21-28 involving automated voice interfaces, devices, and systems. Such customized text to-speech translations are particularly useful in radio and television advertising, in automobile computer systems pro viding driving directions, in educational programs such as teaching children to read and teaching people new languages, for books on tape, for speech service providers, in location based services, and with video games (voice over narration featured on gameplays)).
Colar and Tischer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of communicating between devices and/or systems within a computer network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a computer implemented video game for simulating the sport of American Football, as disclosed by Colar, further including enabling respective users to customize text-to-speech content for voice over narration featured on said gameplays as taught by Tischer for the purpose of providing translation of machine-read text based on voices of specific, actual, known speakers, which allows people to listen to more natural and intelligible translations without becoming fatigued or annoyed (Tischer, Col. 3 Lines 34-57).
Regarding Claim 4, (Original) The method of claim 3 comprising: an expandable digital library of educational content represented in objective assessment structure whereby said educational content may be represented accordingly in respective categories of varying educational levels for fostering learning ([0006] After each student has entered his game strategy, the first student is asked what difficulty level (educational level) he wishes to select for his first question. The teaching program randomly selects an appropriate question of the selected difficulty in the selected tutorial module).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lowe et al. (US 5,462,275) teaches a player interactive live action football game.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4629. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Examiner notes that claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for failing Step 1 as discussed above for being directed to non-statutory subject matter. This rejection under steps 2A and 2B for being directed to ineligible subject matter is included herein for the sake of compact prosecution, assuming Applicant amends the claims to overcome Step 1.