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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YouTube video, “(555) How Fighting Games Handle Inputs (Feat. GBVS, Sam Sho and SFV) - YouTube” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qix6eqIQlA to I am Iokua (herein referred to as Iokua) in view of US Pub. 20170144074 Brunstetter et al (Brunstetter) and US Pub. 20110151975 to Mori.
Claims 1 and 6. Iokua discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing instructions for an information processing device that comprises a processor, a display device, and an audio output device (a gaming device uses a combination of components including computer processor, memory, game software, display screen, and sound generating device in order to generate game play and virtual images presented throughout Iokua), the instructions causing the processor to execute:
acquiring, from a distribution server, a game video (the YouTube video uses a server to distribute the video of game play to people at their respective computing devices);
acquiring, from a management system, operation information on an operation in a distributor terminal by regarding a player playing a game in which a character controlled by the player appears in the game video (at 1:24-1:44, 6:40-6:49 inputs on left of screen with corresponding player character movement), and event information on an event having occurred in the game based on the operation information (at 1:24-1:44, 6:40-6:49 game action data at top left and right of screen, other game action data, e.g., “counter”, “damage”, “combo”, X “hit”);
combining the game video, the operation information, and the event information to generate a final video; and
presenting the final video via the display device and the audio output device (at 1:24-1:44, 6:40-6:49), wherein
the event information includes action information on an action of the character (at 1:24-1:44, 6:40-6:49 game action data at top left and right of screen, other game action data, e.g., “counter”, “damage”, “combo”, X “hit”), and status information on a status of the character (at 1:24-1:44, 6:40-6:49 at top and bottom of screen are multiple status bars), and
in the final video, the operation information and the action information are displayed (at 1:24-1:44, 6:40-6:49), and the status information is displayed as a bar along a time axis (at 1:24-1:44, 6:40-6:49 at top of screen are multiple status bars next to where a timer is usually placed at 6:29-6:35), together with the game video.
Iokua fails to explicitly disclose the operation information and the action information are displayed in chronological order (emphasis added).
Brunstetter teaches information displayed in chronological order (Fig. 6D, 660, 670, ¶¶103-105 where the manipulation and position data are displayed according to time received t0, t1, t2, and so on which is interpreted as a chronological order; note Mori explicitly discloses chronological order in ¶¶22, 42). The game presentation of Iokua would have motivation to use the teachings of Brunsttetter in view of Mori in order to provide related gaming information in a neat, organized manner which would make it easier for viewers to follow along and understand occurrences within a video game.
It would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the game presentation of Iokua with the teachings of Brunsttetter in view of Mori in order to provide related gaming information in a neat, organized manner which would make it easier for viewers to follow along and understand occurrences within a video game.
PNG
media_image1.png
1016
1340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1024
1340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1018
1330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1020
1338
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1024
1342
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
1014
1338
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 3. Iokua in view of Brunsttetter and Mori teaches
wherein the processor further:
combines the game video, the operation information, and the event information such that the event information can be viewed in comparison with the operation information (see Iokua at 1:24-1:44, 6:40-6:49 where various game information is presented during video game).
Claim 5. Iokua discloses wherein
in a case that a first player plays the game in the game video and that another character controlled by a second player appears in the game video (note, the second player is an AI or computer controlled player),
the processor combines the game video, operation information regarding the first player, and operation information regarding the second player such that the operation information regarding the second player can be viewed in comparison with the operation information regarding the first player during the second player is playing the game in the game video (see Iokua at 3:30-3:38, 6:51-6:59 both players’ input commands are displayed simultaneously).
PNG
media_image7.png
1014
1336
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 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
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 DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715