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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended Claims 6 and 16, thus the claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims and argues Knutsson does not anticipate the amended claims. Thus, the rejections based on Knutsson are withdrawn yet Applicant is directed to the combination of Wakeford in view of Ng for his consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 11-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0082354 to Wakeford in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0118084 to Ng.
In Reference to Claims 1, 11, and 20
Wakeford discloses a device (Fig. 1 server 102) for electronic gaming control and normalization, comprising:
an interface (Fig. 1 server 102 is an interface between game (Fig. 1 game module 106) streaming over network [0002, 0007, 0017] and client computing platform 104);
a memory storing executable instructions (Fig. 1 storage 118 and instructions [0003, 0004, 0033-0034]);
a controller (Fig. 1 processor 120) coupled to the interface and the memory (Fig. 1), therein the controller is configured to carry out the steps (Fig. 2), comprising:
receiving, by the device, a first game data stream for an electronic game and a second game data stream for the electronic game, wherein the first game data stream includes game data for a first user of the electronic game executed on a first user device and the second game data stream includes game data for a second user of the electronic game executed on a second user device (multiple clients receive individual data streams of game data of a same game where “system 100 may include one or more servers102. The server 102 may be configured to communicate with one or more client computing platforms 104 according to a client/server architecture. The users may access system 100 and/or the virtual space via client computing platforms 104, for instance, to engage in one or more games.” [0014]. And “[t]he game may be provided via a virtual space, and may include a plurality of resource types and/or maps. An instance of the virtual space may be executed by computer modules to determine views of the virtual space. The views may then be communicated (e.g., via streaming, via object/position data, and/or other information) from server(s) 102 and/or sources to client computing platforms 104 for presentation to users.” [0017] for “a virtual game that may provide more engaging and immersive in-game experiences.” ([0013]), wherein the first game data stream and the second game data stream are generated during a same game session for the electronic game (users engage in one game comprising game data [0014, 0018-0021] where “[t]he game module 106 may be configured to execute an instance of a game to facilitate presentation of the game to users. The game module 106 may be configured to implement in-game actions in the instance of the game, in response to action requests for the in-game actions by the users.” [0016]);
determining, by the device, a first device capability associated with the first user device using the first game data stream and a second device capability associated with the second user device using the second game data stream (Fig. 1 user resource determination module 108 wherein “capabilities available to users in connection with game play to include, without limitation, computing resources, network connectivity and game controller functionality, are detected, and various game characteristics relating to the difficulty of game play may be adjusted based on this information. Accordingly, embodiments may be configured for detection of hardware parameters such as device type being used, computing resources available on the device being used, characteristics of the display being used for game play and/or characteristics of one or more interface devices being used for gameplay.” [0013]); and
controlling, by the device, output of the first game data stream using the customization {normalization} setting for the first user (Fig. 2 206 and 208 wherein a user resource parameter is associated with a difficulty customization of a user in connection with the play of the player [0027, 0028, 0041] and the playing field for game players “may be leveled as between players that have a substantial difference in the capabilities of hardware and/or network available to them. As a result, users with more limited capabilities can be more competitive in head-to-head game play and are more likely to participate in various games that they otherwise might not due to the inferiority of their hardware and/or network resources as compared to other players.” [0044]).
However, Wakeford is silent as to:
determining, by the device, a first user performance rating for the first user and a second user performance rating for the second user based on a first user ability of the first user and a second user ability of the second user; and
determining, by the device, a normalization setting for the first user of the electronic game based on the first user performance rating, the second user performance rating, and a determined difference between the first device capability and the second device capability, the normalization setting modifying at least one game operation of the electronic game.
One of skill in the art would be aware of the managing latency of Ng to balance latencies between skilled and less skilled players (Abstr.).
According to Ng (Fig. 2a), in a game between clients 202, latency is determined 204 and adjustments 206 are applied as between gaming clients 208-212. In the process, Ng determines first and second performance ratings based on respective first and second user abilities (system determined whether players are new or lower skilled and players that are higher skilled [0022]). Ng determines a normalization setting for the first and second user based on these skill ratings and a determined difference between the first device capability and the second device capability, the normalization setting modifying at least one game operation of the electronic game (‘[f]or example, each player may have an associated target latency. This may allow the latency management server 40 to customize the game for each player's skill level, such as providing low latency for new or lower skilled players and providing higher latency for higher skilled players, forcing the higher skill player to adjust their gameplay to compensate for the latency disadvantage. As another example, each game may have a target latency and each player's individual latency may be adjusted to match the game's target latency. Alternatively, or additionally, the latency management server 40 may manage overall team latency. As an example, each team may have a target latency and the latency management server 40 may manage latency so that each team's players match the target latency for the team. Other methodologies also may be used.” [0022]). The latencies are derived from analysis of network characteristics of the clients and servers (Abstr., [0030, 0039-0041]). Finally, Ng controls output of the first game data stream using the normalization setting for the first user (Ng actually controls both the output data streams for the new or lower skilled player as well as the higher skill player. See wherein a scoring coefficient {normalization factor} is applied where “a first player is determined to have a 50 ms response time and a second player having a 100 ms response time, the second player's baseline score may be multiplied by a coefficient to accommodate the latency difference, such as such as a coefficient between about 1.05 and about 2.0, preferably between about 1.2 and about 1.7, and in some embodiments about 1.5. In other words, in this example, the first player may receive 100 points for a headshot while the second player may receive 150 points for a headshot).” [0068]).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the consideration of hardware parameters and customizations of Wakeford with the score coefficients of Ng which considers performance ratings based on skill levels as well as device differences (system latencies) to achieve the predictable result of balancing latencies between players of an online game. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 2 and 12
Wakeford discloses hardware differences (“hardware configuration and/or network connectivity capabilities” [0003, 0006], “device type being used” [0013]) and control input differences (“characteristics of one or more interface devices being used for gameplay” [0013, 0023], “controller type, mouse, keyboard, touch screen” [0024]).
In Reference to Claims 3 and 13
Wakeford discloses tracking streams over a period of time to detect latency wherein his assessment occur on a periodic basis as, for example, “network capabilities such as latency and response time vary over time.” ([0027]) as to a specific player hardware configuration and device type ([0003, 0006, 0013, 0023-0024]).
8. Claims 4, 8-10, 14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakeford, Ng, further in view of WO 2021/202396 to Pare.
In Reference to Claims 4 and 14
Wakeford discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose using a machine model to determine at least one normalization parameter for modification of a game function, the machine model trained to identify network lag. One of skill in the art would be aware of the network of Pare.
According to Pare, "an incoming game streaming request 1028 may be associated with player attributes that indicate a player 112 associated with the game streaming request 1028 has played an above-threshold number (e.g., over 1000) of games within a period of time (e.g., within the past 6 months). In this example, the streaming instance assignment algorithm 215 - using a rule-based approach, a machine-learning model(s), etc. - might determine a relatively - high value 238 for this game streaming request 1028 in order to assign, to the game streaming request 1028, a VM instance 1026 that can provide relatively -high performance (e.g., low latency, or an otherwise "snappy" streaming experience) to the client device 114 of the
player 112 of the game streaming request." [0132]. Pare teaches this process in order to provide a low latency gaming experience {normalization parameter}. Conversely, Pare teaches, based on player attributes, to offer a higher latency to deliver lower costs to subscribers [0132]. Additionally, in other instances, Pare assesses attributes to allow streaming to more client devices 114 using a single server; to lower cost to a subscriber for streaming; and thereby provide a cost savings to the developer [0132].
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the streaming of Wakeford with the machine model based on user attributes to deliver low or high latency tuned to the user performance to have either "snappy" game experiences or lower costs gaming. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 8 and 18
Pare teaches of modification of network lag ([0132]).
In Reference to Claims 9 and 19
Pare teaches of modification of the streaming to allow high performance client devices to play for a snappy experience which is a reduced hardware lag of at least one user ([0132]).
In Reference to Claim 10
Pare teaches of updating a machine model for normalization based on the analysis of user performance for the first user after application of the normalization setting ([0132]).
9. Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakeford, Ng, further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0259177 to Aghdaie.
In Reference to Claims 5 and 15
Wakeford discloses the invention substantially as claimed and Ng discloses determining
a performance rating for the at least one user includes determining at least one reaction time
measurement for the at least one user relative to electronic game (“response times [0039, 0040, 0051, 0068]). However, the reference does not explicitly disclose using the normalization setting comprises modifying an appearance of at least one game object by altering a size of a portion of the at least one game object. One of skill in the art would recognize the dynamic difficulty adjustments of Aghdaie.
Aghdaie teaches of adjusting the difficulty settings for the video game may include “changing configuration values that adjust a defined set of features in the video game 112. Alternatively, the difficulty configuration system 132 may determine configuration settings based at least in part on an evaluation of specific skills of the user as determined from the recent user interaction data. For example, it may be determined that the user is failing a number of objectives in the video game 112 because the user has trouble timing jumps. If the user is a type of user who will stop playing a video game 112 when the user has trouble completing objectives, as determined by the user cluster associated with the user, the difficult configuration system 132 may generate configuration values for the capabilities of the playable character in the video game 112 to make it easier to time the jumps (for example, by allowing the character to jump farther). In contrast, if another user does not have a problem timing jumps, but has trouble aiming a weapon, the difficulty configuration system 132 may generate configuration values that make it easier to shoot objectives by making the hit area of a weapon larger. In some cases, both of these changes may be made without the users realizing that the game has been modified.” [0116]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the customizations of hardware and software {normalizations} of Wakeford with the making of hit areas larger to adjust a difficulty configuration for a user of a game of Aghdaie. The Courts have held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 6 and 16
Further, Aghdaie teaches of controlling speed of movement of a game character wherein “[s]ome other non-limiting examples of features of the video game that can be modified, which may or may not be detectable by the user can include providing extra speed to an in-game character, improving throwing accuracy of an in-game character, improving the distance or height that the in-game character can jump, adjusting the responsiveness of controls, and the like. In some cases, the adjustments may additionally or alternatively include reducing the ability of an in-game character rather than improving the ability of the in-game character. For example, the in-game character may be made faster, but have less shooting accuracy.” ([0034]).
In Reference to Claims 7 and 17
Aghdaie teaches of reducing constraints for completing a game function wherein “the
difficult configuration system 132 may generate configuration values for the capabilities of the playable character in the video game 112 to make it easier to time the jumps (for example, by allowing the character to jump farther.” ([0116]).
Conclusion
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
12. 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.
13. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights