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 Status
After the amendments filed 09/05/2025, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which, 19-10 were newly added and 1, 3-7 and 9-18 were amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 12-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto (U.S. 2019/0105573) in view of Gray et al (U.S. 2023/0381644).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13 and 19-20, Benedetto discloses:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having an executable program stored thereon, the program causing one or more processors to execute a first application including at least a first game and a second game based on communication between/among a plurality of users (¶14-15, ¶44, a cloud game system which allows a plurality of users to navigate through a gaming world including a game server configured to manage a plurality of game engines which execute a plurality of instances of a video game), and the program causing the processors to provide execution comprising:
executing the first game (¶11-13, executing a first instance of a video game on the cloud game system and capturing a plurality of snapshots showing past progress of gameplay);
determining whether an execution condition is satisfied (¶63-66, if a player owns a particular game and a snapshot exists (i.e., the game is owned by the player, has been played and snapshots captured and thus an execution condition is satisfied) the system displays for selection a timeline of the snapshots for selection to allow a player to jump to that point in the game);
executing the second game when the execution condition is satisfied (¶14-15, ¶62, selection of a snapshot enables execution of another instance of the video game beginning from the corresponding snapshot, the examiner interprets the instantiation of another instance as being a second different from a first game);
wherein determining whether the execution condition is satisfied comprises:
accessing application data stored in a memory and using the application data to determine whether a record exists indicating at least possession or execution by a user of a second application, wherein the second application is different from the first application, and the second application beings to a same series as the first application (¶63-66, ¶75, the game system stores data related to game titles owned by players and accesses said stored ownership data to determine which games to make available to players).
However, Benedetto does not specifically disclose that:
executing the first game at least increases a first parameter relating to user play; or
updating a flag in the memory, indicating the execution condition is satisfied at least (i) when the first parameter is in a prescribed state and (ii) when the record is determined as present.
Gray teaches:
a gaming system which tracks the state of a running game application (¶5), wherein when a first game is executed various parameters which increase are tracked by the game system (¶25, game system 200 tracks the game state which includes entity status information, entity status information includes, for example, a resource counter, a health counter or an energy counter (i.e., increasable parameters which relate to user play)), and updating a flag in the memory, indicating an execution condition is satisfied at least (i) when the first parameter is in a prescribed state and (ii) when the record is determined as present (¶25, ¶33-34, changes are pushed to a game-state subsystem and portion of the state are stored in memory as representation of gaming progress (i.e., storing indicators that reflect parameter threshold)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the state based storage, as taught by Gray, with the snapshot metadata and instantiation logic, as taught by Benedetto, in order to yield the predictable result of permitting updating an enablement flag and launching the second instance when either condition is met.
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 18, Benedetto discloses that which is discussed above. However, Benedetto does not specifically disclose:
determining that the execution condition is satisfied when it is determined that the record is present.
Gray teaches:
a gaming system which tracks the state of a running game application (¶5), wherein when a first game is executed various parameters which increase are tracked by the game system (¶25, game system 200 tracks the game state which includes entity status information, entity status information includes, for example, a resource counter, a health counter or an energy counter (i.e., increasable parameters which relate to user play)), and updating a flag in the memory, indicating an execution condition is satisfied at least (i) when the first parameter is in a prescribed state and (ii) when the record is determined as present (¶25, ¶33-34, changes are pushed to a game-state subsystem and portion of the state are stored in memory as representation of gaming progress (i.e., storing indicators that reflect parameter threshold)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the state based storage, as taught by Gray, with the snapshot metadata and instantiation logic, as taught by Benedetto, in order to yield the predictable result of permitting updating an enablement flag and launching the second instance when either condition is met.
Claim(s) 2-3, 8-9 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto (U.S. 2019/0105573) in view of Gray et al (U.S. 2023/0381644) and further in view of Horie (U.S. 2023/0264110).
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 14, Benedetto and Gray disclose that which is discussed above. However, Benedetto does not specifically disclose that:
the second application comprises a third game and a fourth game based on communication between/among the plurality of users;
the third game increases a second parameter relating to user play; or
the fourth game is executable when the second parameter is in a prescribed state.
Gray teaches:
a gaming system which tracks the state of a running game application (¶5), wherein when a first game is executed various parameters which increase are tracked by the game system (¶25, game system 200 tracks the game state which includes entity status information, entity status information includes, for example, a resource counter, a health counter or an energy counter (i.e., increasable parameters which relate to user play)), and wherein a game is executable when a second parameter is in a prescribed state (¶25-26, ¶31-32, the stored game state information is accessed when launching a game, the examiner interprets for example the health counter as being necessarily in a prescribed state (i.e., greater than zero) for the game to be executed).
Horie teaches:
a gaming system which tracks the state of a running game application (¶12, ¶21-22), wherein a second game is executed when an execution condition is satisfied (¶21-22, ¶42-44, ¶55-56, a player plays a first game and stores data related to progress in the game, the player may later retrieve the saved data to play a second game using a completely different gaming platform (i.e., a different related game)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the game parameters, as taught by Gray, and the game transfer system, as taught by Horie, with the snapshot game jumping, as taught by Benedetto, in order to yield the predictable result of providing users with a more practical, and thus more enjoyable, game scenario to play.
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 15, Benedetto discloses that which is discussed above. Benedetto further discloses that:
the program causes the one or more processors to perform determining that the execution condition is satisfied regardless of whether the record indicates that the fourth game has been executable by the user (¶14-15, selection of a snapshot enables execution of an instance of the video game beginning from the corresponding snapshot (i.e., the fourth game does not need to be executed because the system performs the determination for the games which are available)).
Claim(s) 4, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto (U.S. 2019/0105573) in view of Gray et al (U.S. 2023/0381644) and Horie (U.S. 2023/0264110) and further in view of Kislyi et al (U.S. 8,425,330).
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 16, Benedetto, Horie and Gray disclose that which is discussed above. However, Benedetto does not specifically disclose:
matching of users in an identical class of the first level parameter,
matching of users in an identical class of the second level parameter,
the record includes information on the second level parameter, and
the program causes the one or more processors to determining a class in the first level parameter of a user based on the information on the second level parameter.
Gray teaches:
a gaming system which tracks the state of a running game application (¶5), wherein when a first game is executed various parameters which increase are tracked by the game system (¶25, game system 200 tracks the game state which includes entity status information, entity status information includes, for example, a resource counter, a health counter or an energy counter (i.e., increasable parameters which relate to user play)), and updating a flag in the memory, indicating an execution condition is satisfied at least (i) when the first parameter is in a prescribed state and (ii) when the record is determined as present (¶25, ¶33-34, changes are pushed to a game-state subsystem and portion of the state are stored in memory as representation of gaming progress (i.e., storing indicators that reflect parameter threshold)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the state based storage, as taught by Gray, with the snapshot metadata and instantiation logic, as taught by Benedetto, in order to yield the predictable result of permitting updating an enablement flag and launching the second instance when either condition is met.
Kislyi teaches:
a system for smart matchmaking in a multiplayer gaming environment (abstract), wherein skill parameters, which progress through gameplay, are used to place players into different classes (2:15-26, range of battle tiers which are determined based on a number of battle sessions previously played), wherein players are matched for gameplay based on having the same classes (2:15-26, 10:17-37, players are matched for gameplay based on the tier of their vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the tiered parameter and matchmaking system as taught by Kislyi to the parameters taught by Benedetto and Gray in order to ensure a more fair and balanced matchmaking system, thereby, ensuring fairer and more engaging gameplay.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715