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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 2/25/26.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 1-3, 9-12.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are added.
Currently, claim(s) 1-16 is/are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/25, 4/16/26 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (2016/0193530) in view of Demarco et al. (2013/0174007) and Nakagawa et al. (2019/0009178).
Re Claim 1,
Parker discloses a control system that assists generation of a distribution content item representing progress of a video game played by a user, the control system comprising: at least one memory that stores a program (Fig 1, ¶¶0051, 0089, 0309-0310, 0326); and at least one processor that executes the program to:
in accordance with instructions from the user, update the material data in conjunction with progress of the video game played by the user (Fig 3-6, 10, ¶¶0055, 0061, 0063-0068; a specific broadcast stream is updated and display along with live game stream played on the player computers); and
in conjunction with the progress of the video game played by the user, transmit the material data to the editing system based on a request that uses the address information from an editing system that generates the distribution content item (Fig 1, 3-8, 10, ¶¶0055, 0061, 0063-0068, 0071-0074, 075-0076; during the live game streaming, various type of metadata are included in the data stream, wherein the data stream is transmitted to a data synchronization engine to synchronize the video and audio streams with the metadata).
Parker is silent on providing the user with address information representing a Uniform Resource Locator of material data on an effect material used for the distribution content item, a control setting and an editing system that generates the distribution content item.
However, Demarco teaches providing the user with address information representing a Uniform Resource Locator of material data on an effect material used for the distribution content item and an editing system that generates the distribution content item (Fig 1, 2-3C, ¶¶0005, 0016, 0019-0021, 0024; different overlays are stored at different URLs, further, a user interface is provided for generating a video sequence with overlays). Demarco further teaches such a configuration allows user to efficiently retrieve and play videos that have been enhanced to include tags and overlays (¶0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Demarco into the system of Parker in order to allow user to efficiently retrieve and play videos that have been enhanced to include tags and overlays.
Nakagawa teaches a play state recognition unit that recognizes a play state of a game, i.e., a control setting, and adding an effect to an image representing a state of a commentator (Fig 4, ¶¶0051, 0054, 0056-0057). Nakagawa further teaches such a configuration provides gaming commentary with high entertainability (¶0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Nakagawa into the gaming system of Parker in order to provide gaming commentary with high entertainability.
Re Claim 2,
Parker discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the control setting includes a basic condition. However, Nakagawa teaches the control condition includes a basic condition (Fig 4, ¶¶0051, 0054, 0056-0057). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 3,
Parker discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on an effect impartation condition relating to the progress of the video game. However, Nakagawa teaches an effect impartation condition relating to the progress of the video game (Fig 4, ¶¶0051, 0054, 0056-0057). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 4,
Parker discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on a condition relating to a time point in the video game. However, Nakagawa teaches a condition relating to a time point in the video game (Fig 4, ¶¶0051, 0054, 0056-0057). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 5,
Parker discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on a condition relating to a virtual place in the video game. However, Nakagawa teaches a condition relating to a virtual place in the video game (Fig 4, ¶¶0051, 0054, 0056-0057). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 6,
Parker discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on a condition relating to an event that will occur in the video game. However, Nakagawa teaches a condition relating to an event that will occur in the video game (Fig 4, ¶¶0051, 0054, 0056-0057). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 7,
Parker discloses an event relating to a specific game character in the video game (¶¶0055, 0061, 0063-0068, 0071-0074, 075-0076).
Re Claim 8,
Parker discloses an event relating to a specific action performed by a game character in the video game (¶¶0055, 0061, 0063-0068, 0071-0074, 075-0076).
Re Claim 9,
Parker discloses all limitations as set forth above including updating the material data a result of determination of whether the control condition is met but is silent on receiving state data representing a result of determination of whether the control setting is met; and update the material data based on the state data. However, Nakagawa teaches receiving state data (¶¶0051, 0054, 0056-0057). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 10,
Parker discloses all limitations as set forth above including determine whether the control setting is met and update the material data based on whether the control condition being met but is silent on receiving state data representing a state of the video game. However, Nakagawa teaches receiving state data representing a state of the video game (¶¶0051, 0054, 0056-0057). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 11, 12,
Claims describe an information processing method and a non-transitory CRM embodied the control system of claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Re Claim 13,
Parker discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) representing the address of the material data is stored in a storage device of the control system. However, Demarco teaches the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) representing the address of the material data is stored in a storage device of the control system (Fig 1, 2-3C, ¶¶0005, 0016, 0019-0021, 0024). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 15,
Parker discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on generating the address information representing the address of the material data, and transmiting the address information to a gaming device that controls the video game, such that the user inputs the address information into the editing system. However, Demarco teaches generating the address information representing the address of the material data, and transmiting the address information to a gaming device that controls the video game, such that the user inputs the address information into the editing system (Fig 1, 2-3C, ¶¶0005, 0016, 0019-0024). See claim 1 for motivation.
Claim(s) 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (2016/0193530) in view of Demarco et al. (2013/0174007) and Nakagawa et al. (2019/0009178), further in view of Sundareson et al. (2020/0411056).
Re Claim 14,
Parker as modified by Demarco and Nakagawa discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on updating without further instruction from the user. However, Sundareson teaches automatically applying special effects to high interest durations of gameplay sessions (¶¶0004, 001, 0018, 0026). Sundareson further teaches such a configuration provides capturing the real-time experience of gameplay, and reflecting such real-time experience in differential encodings of gameplay sessions (¶0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sundareson into the game system of Parker as modified by Demarco and Nakagawa in order to capture the real-time experience of gameplay, and reflecting such real-time experience in differential encodings of gameplay sessions.
Re Claim 16,
Parker as modified by Demarco and Nakagawa discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the control setting is set prior to a start of the video game played by the user. However, Sundareson teaches the control setting is set prior to a start of the video game played by the user (¶¶0004, 001, 0018, 0026). See claim 14 for motivation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 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
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 JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights