DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-3, 5, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0030702 to Benedetto (hereinafter Benedetto) in view of US 2014/0179439 to Miura et al. (hereinafter Miura).
Regarding claim 1, Benedetto teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining one or more preferences of a user for a video gaming session (e.g., a query about how to defeat the boss in ¶ 34);
generating, using a trained machine learning model, a playable fragment of a video game based on a match with the one or more preferences and based on analyzed gameplay of the video game, wherein the analyzed gameplay comprises game feedback data (e.g., generating a game in which one or more resources are provided in accordance with statistical analysis using machine learning of resource effectiveness based on data from other players in ¶ 39); and
recommending the playable fragment to the user (e.g., the response generator 214 may generate a graphic that notifies the player 200 of an option to purchase resource X 201, for example, by clicking on the graphic displayed or voicing as much to the game system 202 in ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 16, Benedetto teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors (e.g., processor based system in ¶ 8); and
one or more memories including instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors (e.g., storage medium storing a computer program executed by a processor based system in ¶ 8) to perform operations comprising:
obtain one or more preferences of a user for a video gaming session (e.g., a query about how to defeat the boss in ¶ 34);
generate, using a trained machine learning model, a playable fragment of a video game based on a match with the one or more preferences and based on analyzed gameplay of the video game, wherein the analyzed gameplay comprises game feedback data (e.g., generating a game in which one or more resources are provided in accordance with statistical analysis using machine learning of resource effectiveness based on data from other players in ¶ 39); and
recommend the playable fragment to the user (e.g., the response generator 214 may generate a graphic that notifies the player 200 of an option to purchase resource X 201, for example, by clicking on the graphic displayed or voicing as much to the game system 202 in ¶ 39).
Further regarding claims 1 and 16, Benedetto teaches the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching that the playable fragment comprises game fragment code separate from main game code of the video game. In a commonly-owned disclosure, Miura teaches automatic generation of suggested mini-games for cloud-gaming based on recorded gameplay. The suggested mini-games may be created using a game slice generator (Fig. 6), wherein the game slice code 622 may be “fully self-contained, including all code portions which are required to execute the game slice,” or may incorporate references or pointers to “existing code portions in the main game code of the full video game” (¶ 105). Therefore, Miura demonstrates that it was known to create mini games that either use the same code as the full video game or use a different version of code that differs from the full video game. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of Benedetto to generate a playable fragment that comprises game fragment code separate from main game code of the video game, as taught by Miura, in order to provide a fully self-contained game that can be quickly distributed without the entire full version game, thus increasing efficiency by reducing necessary data transmission.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Benedetto teaches wherein obtaining the one or more preferences comprises receiving at least one explicit preference from the user (e.g., the user speaking the query in ¶ 34).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Benedetto teaches wherein obtaining the one or more preferences comprises determining at least one implicit preference of the user from one or more of user calendar data and user historical data (e.g., the surfacing platform 106 is contemplated to determine an intention of the player 200 using not only the language of the query 206, but also the contextual data from player data 218, game data 220, community data 226, and that from machine learning module 222 in ¶ 38).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Benedetto teaches wherein the one or more preferences include a purpose for the video gaming session, the purpose including at least one of consumption of available time, improvement of a skill, challenge, and advancement (e.g., defeating the boss in ¶ 34).
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto and Miura in view of US 2018/0357233 to Dazé et al. (hereinafter Dazé).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, the combination of Benedetto and Miura teaches the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching wherein the one or more preferences include a preferred amount of time for the video gaming session. It is noted that the exemplary embodiment of Benedetto described above helps the player achieve a particular objective (e.g., defeating a boss) faster than the player could do without the system suggesting a particular item. While this would shorten the amount of time spent by the player, it does not meet the claim limitation of “one or more preferences” being a “preferred amount of time.”
In a related disclosure, Dazé teaches a system for providing media content stored in a database and using vehicle navigation to provide the chosen subset of media (abstract). More particularly, Dazé teaches that the embodiments of the invention may be applied within a vehicle or outside of the vehicle context, and may be used with media including video games (e.g., ¶ 21). Finally, Dazé teaches that media content may be chosen according to the time remaining in a trip (e.g., ¶ 42), which is an example of a preferred amount of time for a video gaming session. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of Benedetto and Miura to include modifying a video game in accordance with one or more preferences including a preferred amount of time for the video gaming session, as taught or suggested by Dazé, in order to allow users greater control over their gaming experiences.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10, 12-15, and 21-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Note that claims 26-29 would similarly be allowable if amended to overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. A thorough search of the prior art fails to disclose any reference or references, which, taken alone or in combination, teach or suggest, in combination with the other limitations:
“receiving fragment feedback from the user while or after the user plays the playable fragment; and updating the trained machine learning model based on the fragment feedback, wherein the fragment feedback comprises audible feedback recorded by a microphone associated with a client device used to play the playable fragment” (claim 6, with similar features in claim 21 using a camera);
“wherein generating the playable fragment from the video game further comprises: recording gameplay of the video game including one or more of user input data and game state data generated by processing the user input data by a video game processor; analyzing, by a game state analyzer, the recorded gameplay to determine a region of interest based on at least one of user gameplay feedback or levels of activity of the user input data or the game state data; defining, by a break point processor, boundaries within a gameplay context of the video game based on the region of interest that define options for selection of a beginning and an end for the playable fragment; and generating, by a fragment generator, the playable fragment based on the selection defined from the boundaries” (claim 12, with similar features in claim 26).
Response to Arguments
The Examiner notes that the previous claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn in light of the instant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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. 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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715