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 Abigail (US 20070070914)
In claim 1, 8, and 15 Abigail 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 #32, paragraph 14, each user has their associated latency )
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 (the network condition is the network’s communication speed, paragraph 14, with respect to threshold, the threshold may simply be 0, but it is whatever acceptable range of equalization is used by the prior art)
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 (paragraph 18-23. An imposed latency is applied to players with a lower latency in order to equalize the latency of all devices)
In claims 2, 9, and 16 Abigail 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 5) 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 14)
In claim 4, Abagail discloses determining a deficiency of a network condition, and associating the deficiency of the network condition with the game metric (paragraph 14, latency is a deficiency of a network condition)
In claims 5 and 14, Abagail 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 (paragraphs 20-21, latency is calculated over time as latencies may change over time, thus the adjustment would also change over time, if the latency between the devices become equal, it would go back to pre-adjustment levels)
In claim 6 Abagail 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 (paragraph 14)
In claims 7 and 13, Abagail 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 18-23)
In claim 10, Abagail discloses determining the game metric associated with the player comprises determining an in game performance of the player (part of the player’s “performance” of the game is the time in which the user’s inputs are “performed” on the server side due to latency, as per paragraph 14)
In claim 11, Abagail discloses determining the one or more network conditions are at least partially responsible for the game metric associated with the player (paragraph 14)
In claims 12 and 18, Abagail 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 (paragraph 14)
In claim 17, Abagail discloses an online gaming session (fig. 1)
In claim 19 Abagail 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 (paragraph 14)
In claim 20, Abagail discloses an in-game action configured to penalize the one or more second players (paragraphs 18-23, 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 Abagail
In claim 3, Abagail 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 is taken 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 amendments overcome the 112 rejection of claim 2.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Particularly, Applicant argues “Abigail fails to teach each element of claim 1. Abigail is generally directed to [applicant’s description of Abigail’s teachings]. Thus Abigail teaches [further applicant description of Abigail’s teachings]. However Abigail fails to teach or suggest [direct quote from claim 1]. Instead Abigail teaches [applicant’s description of Abigail’s teachings]. Abigail is silent with regard to [applicant claim language]” Particularly, examiner has relied upon latency to teach the game metrics of the instant application. Applicant has provided no argument as to why latency does not read upon the BRI of game metric, or what particularly is missing, instead simply saying, effectively “Abigail teaches latency. Abigail does not teach a game metric”. This leaves Examiner left to guess as to what Applicant believes is missing from prior art. Examiner’s best guess is that as the instant application’s paragraph 46 describes game metrics are being, for example, scores, positions, levels, kills, deaths, etc, that Applicant believes the BRI only covers statistics related to the play of the game, however there are no limitations within the claims which limit them so narrowly, instead the claims merely require metrics which have been broadly labeled as “game” metrics, meaning the BRI would only require any form of relationship to a game, even tangential. As the latency is the latency within a game, it is a game metric.
Applicant provides similarly conclusory statements with general allegations of patentability in argument A(ii), B(i), and B(ii), with Examiner yet again being left to guess as to what exactly is believed to be missing from the prior art of record, however these additional arguments also appear to amount to an allegation that game metrics has some undisclosed narrower interpretation or limitation which the prior art is argued to be missing. As such for the same reasons as above, these arguments are also not persuasive.
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 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