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 4/8/26.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 1, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 19.
Currently, claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
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) 1-4, 7-12, 14-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleicher (2018/0078862) in view of Cottrell (2012/0134651).
Re Claim 1,
Schleicher discloses a method, comprising:
wherein the video game includes a plurality of playable events that are predefined, based on an arc order consistent with a story arc of the video game (Fig 4-5, ¶¶0042-0043; the video game platform may record the video game session, producing a raw recording of a series of events, i.e., an arc order, further, the recording may be divided into highlight events that are playable as a highlight reel);
selecting one or more playable events from the plurality of playable events to architect a mini story arc for the highlight reel (Fig 4, ¶0042; the video game platform selects different highlights from the series of events and creates a highlight reel that the player is interested in showing, i.e., architecting a mini story arc);
selecting a plurality of clips based on a plurality of user generated content associated with playing the one or more playable events, wherein the plurality of clips correspond to the one or more playable events (¶¶0024, 0027-0028, 0046, 0049; a video of the game highlights can be generated, either at the request of one or more users, under control of one or more users. That is, user generated tags are considered as user generated content that are used to selecting videos for the highlight); and
generating the highlight reel based on the plurality of clips that follows the mini story arc (Fig 4, 15, ¶¶0041-0044, 0047, 0060; the gaming platform generates the highlight reel based on the player selected highlights, wherein the highlight reel is streamed to the video game audience device set).
Schleicher does not explicitly disclose receiving a request for a highlight reel of a video game, wherein the request includes a story class for the highlight reel.
However, Cottrell teaches receiving a request for a highlight reel of a video game, wherein the request includes a story class for the highlight reel (¶¶0024, 0049; a user may request a video be prepared that shows all of that user's tagged events from all games played by that user, i.e., a story class of the player history). Cottrell further teaches such a configuration provides a meaningful and entertaining narrative highlight reel (¶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 Cottrell into the game system of Schleicher in order to provide a meaningful and entertaining narrative highlight reel.
Re Claims 2, 11, 17,
Schleicher discloses the plurality of playable events is identified and tagged during development of the video game (Fig 3-6, ¶¶0041-0044).
Re Claim 3,
Schleicher discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on collecting a plurality of game plays of the video game being played by a plurality of players; extracting a plurality of features from the plurality of game plays, wherein the plurality of features is related to one or more events occurring in the plurality of game plays; and inputting the plurality of features into a deep learning engine that is configured to identify and output the plurality of playable events. However, Cottrell teaches collecting a plurality of game plays of the video game being played by a plurality of players; extracting a plurality of features from the plurality of game plays, wherein the plurality of features is related to one or more events occurring in the plurality of game plays; and inputting the plurality of features into a deep learning engine that is configured to identify and output the plurality of playable events (Fig 5, ¶¶0019, 0044-0047, 0053-0054). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 4, 12, 18,
Schleicher discloses providing as input the plurality of playable events, the arc order, and as architecting the mini story arc with the one or more playable events (¶¶0023, 0041-0044, 0064). However, Cottrell teaches the story class for the highlight reel into a deep learning engine implementing generative artificial intelligence and using generative artificial intelligence (¶¶0008, 0019, 0024, 0049). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 7, 14, 20,
Schleicher discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the story class defines a complexity and duration of the highlight reel. However, Cottrell teaches the story class defines a complexity and duration of the highlight reel (¶¶0024, 0044-0047, 0049). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 8,
Schleicher discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the story class defines a limited period of the story arc for the mini story arc (¶¶0024, 0044-0047, 0049). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 9, 15,
Schleicher discloses the plurality of playable events that are predefined include at least one of the following: a key event that is required within the story arc; and a critical event that is descriptive of the mini story arc; and an ordinary event that links a first event and a second event of the plurality of playable events that are predefined (Fig 4, 15, ¶¶0041-0044, 0047).
Re Claims 10, 16,
Claims describe a computer system and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium performed by the method of claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Claim(s) 5-6, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleicher (2018/0078862) in view of Cottrell (2012/0134651), further in view of Sundareson (2020/0406140).
Re Claims 5, 13, 19,
Schleicher as modified by Cottrell teaches generating video highlights using machine heuristics, based upon based upon user preferences applied to the video generation process using machine automation (see Cottrell, ¶¶0027-0028, 0046, 0049, 0053) but does not explicitly disclose a deep learning engine using generative artificial intelligence. However, Sundareson teaches presenting a highlight reel using a machine learning model (¶¶0023, 0084). Sundareson further teaches such a configuration reduces time and computing resources for sharing gameplay (¶0003). 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 highlight reel of Schleicher as modified by Cottrell in order to reduces time and computing resources for generating the highlight.
Re Claim 6,
Schleicher discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the plurality of user generated content is recorded and stored by a proprietary gaming service, that provides gaming access to the video game, or by a third party source. However, Cottrell teaches the plurality of user generated content is recorded and stored by a proprietary gaming service, that provides gaming access to the video game, or by a third party source (Fig 1, ¶¶0022, 0027, 0030, 0053). See claim 1 for motivation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4/8/26 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