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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response on 3/11/26 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 20, canceled claims 13 and added claim 21. Therefore, claims 1-12 and 14-21 are pending.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 & 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kestell (pat. no. 11,458,388) in view of Perry (pub. no. 20140187323).
Regarding claim 1, Kestell discloses a parameter processing method for a virtual scene, the method comprising: displaying, in a secondary user interface, [a] first parameter policy set and corresponding to the first account, the first parameter policy set comprising at least a parameter policy set by the first account, and the parameter policy comprising plural parameters including at least one of (i) position, size, or function of keys for controlling the first virtual object in a user interaction interface of the first account or (ii) sensitivity of virtual props in the virtual scene (“Controllers may be utilized by users to interact with software. The controllers may translate the tactile input from the user into commands for the software. Typically, the default controller configuration for software focuses on ease of learning, and generally is not optimized for skilled performance. However, users are not all alike, and the default controller settings may not be optimized for each user. Although controller settings may be adjusted, they often include myriad customization options, and are therefore too cumbersome for users to customize on their own. As a result, the user experience in interacting with the software may become limited, and the user may eventually quit interactions with the software altogether.
Furthermore, controller assignments are no longer just straight forward button assignments and preferred layouts. With multiple analog inputs (e.g., triggers and thumb sticks) as well as multiple game/player states that exist (e.g., running, jumping, flying, driving, aiming, etc.), input mapping has become highly customizable and highly personalized. A user's controller layout (including analog sensitivities) and game settings (turning on/off certain features) can be a competitive advantage. In most competitive/e-sports style games, the default controls are almost never used by high level players. The defaults are designed to be simple and easy to pick up but usually have major disadvantages. For example, in a shooter with the jump button assigned to the face of the controller, a player cannot aim while jumping because the user's right thumb is needed for both. Additionally, joystick/thumb stick sensitivity almost always defaults quite low for ease of control, but a high sensitivity would allow players to turn around faster when approached from behind, for example“, col. 3, lines 24-55;
“FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary graphical user interface (GUI) 200 for automatically adjusting controller settings (e.g., settings of a controller), according to certain aspects of the present disclosure. The GUI 200 may include a listing of controller settings 202 and a log 204 of implemented adjustments 206 (e.g., recommendations). In an implementation, the GUI 200 may include an option for a user to enable or disable automated adjustments to the settings of the controller”, col. 5, lines 21-29 and Fig. 2); receiving a user selection to perform an update based on the first parameter policy set via a selection control element in the secondary user interface; and updating a second parameter policy set corresponding to the second account based on at least one of the plural parameters of the first parameter policy set in response to the user selection to perform the update based on the first parameter policy set, wherein updated parameters of the second parameter policy set include at least one of (i) position, size, or function of keys for controlling a second virtual object in the virtual scene that are the same as the position, size, or function of keys for controlling the first virtual object or (ii) sensitivity of virtual props in the virtual scene that is the same as the sensitivity of the first parameter policy set (“Aspects of the present disclosure address these issues by providing for systems and methods for automated controller configuration recommendations. In an aspect, a machine learning system may account for how users are interfacing with software (e.g., a simulation, a video game, a developer tool, etc.) through a controller (e.g., analog/digital controllers including a gamepad, keyboard and mouse, a control surface, a handicapped accessible controller, steering wheel, flight stick, pedals, etc.). The system may provide recommendations for configuration settings of the controller to aid each user's respective tendencies. Additionally, configuration profiles (e.g., user profiles) can be shared on a social media platform and updated over time. This allows for the users to follow each other through their profiles. For example, a user may follow their friends and/or favorite streamers, etc., and may receive notifications of controller configuration changes to those profiles. The user may then also incorporate and merge down the controller configuration changes to their own profile. The system may also account for configuration settings that are used by the most skilled users, and then makes a comparison to users who have similar tendencies to form recommendations. The system may further query the user for user approval for changes. The system may also be configured for automatic/dynamic adjustments, if desired by the user”, col. 3, line 56 to col. 4, line 13; That the user is queried for approval for changes is interpreted to be receiving a user selection control element in a user interface).
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that Kestell does not disclose playing a video of another player’s gameplay where the video is associated with the parameters. Perry however, teaches playing a video of another player’s gameplay where the video is associated with the parameters (“Because the mini-games have customization associated with the user that created the mini-game, users may have a desire to share the mini-games with others. For example, the portion of the video recording that is associated with each mini-game will show the game play of the user that created the mini-game. The game play may show, for example, the accomplishments by the user, such as particular game scores, awards, etc.
In one embodiment, the mini-games can be shared via a game network, where users of the game network can post their created mini-games. In another embodiment, users can post links to the mini-games on one or more social networks. As a result of the sharing, other users in the game network or social network will be allowed access to the mini-games. In one embodiment, the mini-game will include two parts; one part is the video portion showing the game play of the user that created the mini-game, and a second part is an executable portion of the mini-game that parallels the section of the full game that was used to create the mini-game. In addition to the video portion and the executable portion, the mini-games may also include challenge comment provided by the user that created the mini-game”, [0039] & [0040];
“Thus, a user wishing to play the mini-game will be provided with a substantially similar game play experience as the user that originally played the game that created the video recording. In one embodiment, the mini-game will inherit the game parameters used for playing the game”, [0066]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Here both Kestell and Perry are directed multiplayer systems with social networking. To include allow the shared minigames of Perry in the Kestell invention would be to apply a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kestell to include the shared minigames as taught by Perry. To do would enhance use engagement thereby increasing the perceived entertainment value of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Kestell discloses displaying the first parameter policy set comprises: displaying a parameter entry element in the user interaction interface; and displaying the first parameter policy set associated with the video in response to a trigger operation for the parameter entry (col. 5, lines 21-29 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Kestell discloses displaying a parameter policy set of the first account; and in response to a second feature parameter of the first account being less than a second feature parameter of a third account, displaying a parameter policy set of the third account, wherein the third account is an account that controls a third virtual object to interact with the first virtual object in the virtual scene, and types of the third virtual object comprise: a virtual object in a same group as the first virtual object in an interaction process, and a virtual object in a different group from the first virtual object in the interaction process (“According to aspects, a configuration profile (e.g., user profile) may be generated for each user that includes the customized settings each user has for their controller. The user profile may include at least a skill level and an input tendency of the user. Each configuration profile may be shared to social media so that other users may search for and use profiles that are popular in their game/software communities. For example, these configuration profiles may be game setting specific and may naturally iterate over time so those changes can be pushed to other users' games/software automatically. Additionally, the integration with a social platform would aid in reinforcing the machine learning system so that it may stay updated regarding which configurations are most utilized and whether users are enjoying them”, col. 6, lines 14-28).
Regarding claim 5, Kestell discloses displaying only a parameter policy currently applied by the first account in the interaction process; displaying the parameter policy currently applied by the first account in the interaction process, and a parameter policy previously applied by the first account in the interaction process; displaying a parameter policy applied by the first account at an end of the interaction process; or displaying the parameter policy currently applied by the first account in the interaction process, the parameter policy previously applied by the first account in the interaction process, and a parameter policy to be applied later by the first account in the interaction process (col. 6, lines 14-28).
Regarding claim 12, Kestell discloses the updating the second parameter policy set comprises: displaying the second parameter policy set, wherein the second parameter policy set comprises a parameter policy set of the second account, and the parameter policy comprises a plurality of parameters for controlling the second virtual object in the user interaction interface of the second account (col. 5, lines 21-29 and Fig. 2);
in response to a replacement operation for at least one parameter policy in the second parameter policy set, the at least one parameter policy with at least one set of parameter policies in the first parameter policy set; and adding at least one set of parameter policies in the first parameter policy set to the second parameter policy set in response to an adding operation for the at least one set of parameter policies in the first parameter policy set (col. 3, line 56 to col. 4, line 13).
Claims 14, 15, 17 and 18 are directed to an apparatus that implements the methods of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons as claims 14, 15, 17 and 18 respectively.
Claim 21 is directed to an article of manufacture containing code that implements the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-11, 16, 19 and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
On pages 13 & 14, Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the prior art of record because Kestell and Perry fail to disclose displaying the first parameter policy set and receiving a user selection to perform an update. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kestell discloses displaying a parameter policy set in an interface in at least Fig. 2. In addition, Kestell discloses “The system may further query the user for user approval for changes”, col. 4, lines 10-12, which examiner interprets to be receiving a user selection to perform an update.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAWRENCE STEFAN GALKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-9 & 12-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/LAWRENCE S GALKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights