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) 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruzzo (US 20180001216) in view of Benedetto (US 20170354884)
In claims 1, 11, and 20 Bruzzo discloses
Displaying a first gameplay of a game controlled by a player to a user (paragraph 132, the first gameplay is the gameplay of the broadcaster, see paragraph 104. The gameplay of the first character is shown in figure 12A #1204 and 12B #1204’, for example)
Determining contextual information from the first gameplay of the game (It is noted by examiner that the term “contextual information” is extremely broad, and may be taught by any information related to the game which initiates second gameplay, thus may be taught by a number of teachings of the prior art, such as paragraph 123, wherein the contextual information is the broadcaster providing an option of user interaction, or the particular race which the broadcaster is racing in, or the game that the broadcaster is playing, etc)
Determining, by the processing circuitry, second gameplay of the game controlled by the user based on the contextual information of the first gameplay of the game and (paragraph 133, the second gameplay is the “second player vehicle” #1206. Although the images show the broadcaster car as being the “ghost” car, it is noted by examiner that paragraph 133 further discloses “a second player vehicle ghost may be displayed within the first instance”, which is to say that the second player’s ghost may be displayed upon the broadcaster’s gameplay.)
Displaying the second gameplay of the game with the first gameplay of the game (figure 12B)
Wherein the first game play is live streamed (paragraphs 103-104)
Bruzzo fails to disclose that the second gameplay is pre-recorded, and fails to teach obtaining operation information of the first gameplay of the game, the operation information indicating sub-operations and operation modes implemented by the player during progress of the first gameplay of the game, and generating text information based on the operation, wherein the text information, the displayed text information indicating the sub operations and the operation modes implemented in the first gameplay of the game however Bendetto discloses use of data from saved (aka pre recorded) sources (paragraph 45, 231. It is noted by examiner that in Bendetto the live player is described as the ghost, with the prerecording being the original object, however which of the objects is displayed as the ghost is a matter of operator preference and does not depart from the invention of Bruzzo) as well as teach obtaining operation information of the first gameplay of the game, the operation information indicating sub-operations and operation modes implemented by the player during progress of the first gameplay of the game, and generating text information based on the operation, wherein the text information, the displayed text information indicating the sub operations and the operation modes implemented in the first gameplay of the game (fig. 14 #1450, paragraph 230). As Bruzzo teaches that the second player may be shown as a ghost upon the broadcast, this combination would teach modifying Bruzzo to allow for the second player’s displayed ghost to include display of the input data and to be based upon historical/pre recorded data as taught by Bendetto. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Bruzzo with Bendetto in order to allow for the second player to compare their top performance (and related inputs) to the performance of the broadcaster, or in order to allow for the second player to more easily participate without needing to actively play the game.
In claims 2 and 12, Bendetto discloses that the second gameplay is from a plurality of pre-recorded gameplays of the user based on the contextual information (paragraph 45, 231)
In claims 3 and 13, Bruzzo discloses the player is first user and the user is a second user, the second user being different from the first user (as described above, there is a first player who is the broadcaster, and a second player)
In claims 4 and 14, Bruzzo discloses the first and second gameplay include at least one of: a same game character of the game, a same game mode of the game, a same progress of the game, a same state of the game, or a same game scene of the game (it is noted by examiner that this is a Markush group, and only one of these limitations needs to be disclosed. Figures 12A and 12B)
In claims 5 and 15 Bruzzo discloses displaying the second gameplay with the first gameplay in response to a user selection of a control element during the displaying of the first gameplay and synchronizing the display of the first and second gameplay based on the current gameplay information of the first gameplay (paragraph 123 discloses the user selection, figures 12A and 12B shows synchronized gameplay based on the current gameplay information of the first gameplay)
In claims 7, 17 and 21, with respect the operation information being generated based on a keyword extraction from speech information for that player, It is first noted by examiner that this is non-functional descriptive material, as per MPEP 2111.05 III, as the caption is as a whole directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, as such the limitation has no weight, and thus Bruzzo and Benedetto still teaches the invention as claimed, however even if this were not the case, although Bruzzo and Benedetto do not explicitly disclose keyword extraction from speech information of the player, Official notice is taken that providing automated captioning of speech was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Bruzzo and Benedetto with this well known technique in order to allow for deaf players, or players who have muted their device to be able to follow along with the gameplay.
In claims 8 and 18, Bruzzo discloses first caption information indicating a first strategy of the player that controls the first gameplay and second caption information indicating a second game strategy of the user that controls the second gameplay (It is first noted by examiner that this is non-functional descriptive material, as per MPEP 2111.05 III, as the caption is as a whole directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, however the prior art teaches this limitation, figure 11 #1130, the first strategy is “NICE RACE” and the second strategy is “I ROCKED THAT CHALLENGE”)
In claims 9 and 19, Bruzzo discloses the caption information of the game actions performed in the at least one of the first gameplay or the second gameplay information is based on a difference between attribute parameters of a game character in the first gameplay and a game character in the second gameplay at the same reference point (It is first noted by examiner that this is non-functional descriptive material, as per MPEP 2111.05 III, as the caption is as a whole directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, however the prior art teaches this limitation, figure 11 #1130, the first attribute information is having a “NICE RACE” and the second attribute information is to “ROCK THAT CHALLENGE”)
In claims 10 and 20 Bruzzo discloses comparing first game metrics of the game in the first gameplay and second game metrics of the game in the second gameplay including an action recommendation based on comparison of the first game metrics and the second game metrics (figure 12A, the metrics are the locations of the car, with one player being in the front, the recommendation would be the line that the player who is ahead has taken). With respect to the information being a caption, It is first noted by examiner that this is non-functional descriptive material, as per MPEP 2111.05 III, as the caption is as a whole directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, as such the limitation has no weight, and thus Bruzzo and Benedetto still teaches the invention as claimed, however even if this were not the case, although Bruzzo and Benedetto do not explicitly disclose captioning the recommendation to the player, Official notice is taken that providing a text recommendation was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Bruzzo and Benedetto with this well known technique in order to allow for clearer and easier to follow advice.
In claim 22, Benedetto discloses the text information further indicates a game strategy of the user that controls the second gameplay (paragraph 230)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amended claim language overcomes the previous art rejection, however a new rejection is made in view of Benedetto as set forth above.
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
Prosecution Insights