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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown (US 20220150118)
In claim 1, 8, and 15 Brown discloses
Determining, one or more game metrics associated with one or more players of a networked game conducted via a multiplayer gaming environment (fig 2 #210,220, paragraphs 39-48, a competitive characteristic is determined)
Based on a difference between the one or more game metrics associated with the one or more players satisfying one or more thresholds, determining one or more network conditions associated with the multiplayer gaming environment, wherein the one or more network conditions are associated with one or more adaptive controls and adjusting, via the one or more adaptive controls, the one or more network conditions of the multiplayer gaming environment to create parity among the one or more game metrics ((figure 2 #230, paragraphs 57-59, in response to the disparity exceeding a threshold, the network slice is determined, and then figure 2 #240, a network performance is adjusted to create fairness between the players)
In claims 2, 9, and 16 Brown discloses the multiplayer gaming environment comprises one or more of one or more game servers (it is noted by examiner that this is a Markush group and thus only 1 limitation needs to be found, paragraph 101) and the one or more network conditions comprise one or more of latency (it is noted by examiner that this is a Markush group and thus only 1 limitation needs to be found paragraph 104)
In claim 4, Brown discloses determining a deficiency of a network condition, and associating the deficiency of the network condition with the game metric (paragraph 51 discloses competitive advantage that can be gained from hardware or software including via a network condition)
In claims 5 and 14, Brown discloses determining the one or more game metrics no longer satisfy the one or more thresholds and returning the one or more network conditions to a pre-adjustment level (figure 5 #525, paragraph 102, 130 shows time dynamic adjustments such that the game metric would be adjusted as the characteristics change, meaning that the network is adjusted over time and would thus mean that if there was no more difference in a competitive characteristic, the networks would be reconfigured to improve fairness back to the pre adjustment levels)
In claim 6 Brown discloses adjusting the one or more network conditions to create parity among the one or more game metrics, comprises adjusting the one or more network conditions until the difference in the one or more game metrics satisfies one or more second thresholds (figure 5, paragraph 77)
In claims 7 and 13, Brown discloses adjusting the one or more network conditions to degrade or improve an in game performance of the one or more players associated with the one or more users (paragraph 75)
In claim 10, Brown discloses determining the game metric associated with the player comprises determining an in game performance of the player (paragraphs 39-48)
In claim 11, Brown discloses determining the one or more network conditions are at least partially responsible for the game metric associated with the player (paragraph 51)
In claims 12 and 18, Brown discloses determining a difference between the one or more network conditions associated with the user device and one or more network conditions associated with one or more other user devices satisfies a threshold (paragraphs 39-48)
In claim 17, Brown discloses an online gaming session (paragraph 3)
In claim 19 Brown discloses adjusting the one or more network conditions comprises adjusting the one or more network conditions to create parity among the first player and the one or more second players (paragraphs 57-59)
In claim 20, Brown discloses an in-game action configured to penalize the one or more second players (paragraphs 57-59 the in game action is delaying/buffering the player’s input to penalize them so as to be equalized with the other players)
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown
In claim 3, Brown discloses the claimed invention except determining the difference between the one or more game metrics associated with the one or more players satisfies the one or more thresholds comprises determining the one or more game metrics is greater than one standard deviation from an average of one or more players, however Official notice was taken in the non final dated 9/30/2025 and no arguments were presented in the response dated 3/2/26, such it is taken as Applicant admitted prior art that determining a standard deviation and using it to find statistically significant results was notoriously well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a standard deviation as a threshold for the latency equalization of Abagail in order to determine the statistically significant differences in latency between players.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that a game metric is not a network condition, and that a network condition has latency as an enumerated list of examples is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the BRI of “game metric” does not include the specific interpretation Examiner has used, while refusing to put any language directly into the claims that satisfy this argument, and refusing to put within the prosecution history exactly how applicant is defining the meets and bounds of the term “game metric” such that it overcomes the game metric, except, seemingly, to argue that any enumerated non limiting example of a network condition within the specification may not be interpreted as a game metric. First and foremost, paragraph 46 directly contradicts applicant’s arguments. “The one or game metrics may comprise, for example, the one or more computing resource metrics” wherein a computing resource metric includes bandwidth. Further, even if this were not the case, applicant’s arguments on what the specification precludes from being equivalents is simply not aligned with how applicant’s specification is written, for example paragraph 19 of the instant application says “the game monitor may send and receive information from the one or more game servers to determine, for example one or more game metrics, one or more scores […]” this enumerated list differentiates a “game metric” from a “score”. By applicant’s logic, this would mean that a game metric also cannot be a score, however later on, applicant argues “the one or more game metrics may comprise […] (e.g. scores, […] kills)”, as per paragraph 46, and ALSO the specification states as per paragraph 34 “the one or more scores may be “kills””. So a game metric is a score, a score is a kill, but also a game metric and a score is sent to the game server, and a game metric may be a score OR a kill which are listed as if they are two different things.
However, despite applicant’s arguments not being persuasive, and despite Examiner continuing to interpret the claims such that Abigail may teach the invention as claimed, in order to further prosecution after 3 rounds of no progress, Examiner has rejected the instant application with Brown, as it more clearly identifies and compares game metrics which closer align with what Applicant believe to be the BRI of the term.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights