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
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) 1-2, 4, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dead Cells (with reliance on https://web.archive.org/web/20230521004904/https://deadcells.wiki.gg/wiki/Streamer_Mode) in view of Twitch (with reliance on https://web.archive.org/web/20210613115848/https://basic-guide-to-twitchtv.pagecloud.com/chatfundamentals) and Gamedev (with reliance on https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/2df7xo/how_do_you_timestamp_your_games_packets/).
Re claim 1, Dead Cells discloses an apparatus comprising: a processor assembly programmed with instructions (Dead Cells is a PC game, therefore operating on a computer with a processor) to: execute a computer game that comprises a scene in which game actions associated with a character of the computer game are possible (“the streamer’s runs” therefore being computer game scenes); receive input of a remote device at which a livestream of the computer game is viewed without controlling a character of the computer game, the input comprising a graphic-based reaction (“Streamer Mode is a special mode that uses Twitch streaming integration, which lets viewers of a stream interact with the streamer’s runs in a variety of ways” and “Viewers can also help to destroy the chest by sending relevant messages in the streamer’s chat,” wherein messages are considered graphic-based as they are rendered on screen as graphics); determine, based on the input, a sentiment type associated with the graphic-based reaction (see “Gameplay Modifiers,” where different chat commands provide different sentiments that affect gameplay); and based on the input, trigger an in-game power-up (“They give gear with the same level as those found in normal chests in the biome they occupy” and also see section “Gameplay Modifiers” listing a variety of different effects viewers can vote for).
However, Dead Cells does not disclose detecting a game action of the game actions wherein the game action has a start time. Gamedev teaches the technique of timestamping game packets which allows for clients and servers to remain synchronized and therefore be reliably used to reference events (see comment by gamestothepeople). By implementing such a synchronized clock, it is therefore possible to send accurate location and movement data to and from server and client. It would have been obvious to implement timestamping as taught by Gamedev in order to increase the accuracy and usefulness of data about players between server and client.
Re claim 2, Dead Cells discloses the graphic-based reaction is selected from a palette of reaction options of a GUI of the remote device, and wherein the palette of reaction options comprise a positive and negative sentiment graphic-based reaction (see “Gameplay Modifiers,” wherein the various modifiers are voted on by players and therefore provide a palette of reaction options to the player via a GUI, with both positive and negative sentiments providing positive or negative modifiers).
Re claim 3, while Dead Cells discloses allowing viewers to interact with a game played by the streamer with chat commands, there is no explicit disclosure that those chat commands are an emoji or emote. Twitch teaches extensions allowing for chat commands to be converted into emojis or emotes, as shown in an example below:
PNG
media_image1.png
228
203
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, by utilizing an extension as disclosed by Twitch, one could implement the chat commands of a game with Twitch integration such as Dead Cells in the form of emojis and emotes by associating the commands with an image.
It would have been obvious to implement chat commands that are emojis or emotes as taught by Twitch with the streamer mode of Dead Cells in order to enhance the enjoyment and entertainment value of chat interaction with the streamer.
Re claim 4, Dead Cells discloses based on the graphic-based reaction comprising a first sentiment type, trigger a first modification to the character in the scene (“Chickenthor” makes Captain Chicken automatically attack nearby enemies with lightning bolts, therefore being a positive sentiment as it helps the player); and based on the graphic-based reaction comprising a second sentiment type, trigger a second modification to the character in the scene, the second sentiment type being different from the first sentiment and the second modification being different from the first modification (“Bloodlust” makes the player constantly lose small amounts of health which is offset by killing enemies, therefore being an overall negative sentiment as it hinders the player).
Re claims 16-17 and 19-20, see the rejections to claims 1-2 and 4.
Claim(s) 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dead Cells in view of Gamedev and Twitch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vermintide 2 (with reliance on https://web.archive.org/web/20210410120422/https://vermintide2.fandom.com/wiki/Twitch_Mode).
Re claim 5, while Dead Cells has discussed receiving inputs from different people viewing the livestream comprising a graphic-based reaction, there is no disclosure of based on the respective inputs being received within a threshold of time, triggering the modification. Vermintide teaches another game with integration with Twitch allowing viewers of the stream to vote on decisions that affect the game, wherein there is an adjustable time limit to receive votes (“twitch_vote_time = <Seconds before the vote timer runs out>”). It would have been obvious to implement a time limit for viewers as taught by Vermintide in order to ensure that gameplay and the stream is not held up by indecisive viewers.
Re claim 6, Vermintide teaches the threshold period of time begins based on a start time and is less than an entire amount of time to play a particular level of scene of the computer game (“twitch_time_between_votes = <Seconds between each vote>,” wherein the start of a game vote is considered a game action, and wherein the time of the vote is less than the scene time as designated by the vote time in claim 5). It is inherent that any timed action such as a timed vote has a start and end time.
Re claims 7-10, see the rejections to claims 5-6. Vermintide teaches receiving plural inputs in the form of votes in chat in order to trigger a variety of different potential options, including buffs (see “List of possible modifiers”). The Examiner takes Official Notice that the concept of voting is notoriously well-known and would result in the option with the most votes (i.e. plural inputs, greater than one, or a particular sequence of inputs) would be the resulting outcome. Both Dead Cells and Vermintide disclose a plurality of different types of modifications and have been discussed above.
Re claim 11, Vermintide teaches a modification that decays over time regardless of gameplay (see “Fozzrik's Fantastic Fulminate: Gives one player infinite fragmentation bombs for 10 seconds”).
Re claim 12, Vermintide teaches a health modification (“Blessing of Regeneration: Applies a regenerative effect to all party members, making them regain Permanent Health”).
Re claim 13, Vermintide teaches a modification comprising a character ability power-up (see “Fozzrik's Fantastic Fulminate: Gives one player infinite fragmentation bombs for 10 seconds”).
Re claim 14, Vermintide teaches a modification comprising added character life (see at least “Blessing of Regeneration” and “Healing Draught”).
Re claim 15, Vermintide teaches a player inventory modification (“Healing Draught”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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. Furthermore, certain elements of the previous rejection are still considered to teach aspects of the claimed invention. Since the reactions of Dead Cells are effects that modify the gameplay of the streamer in positive and negative ways, these reactions are considered different types of sentiments.
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 Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715