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 Objections
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, Line 3: Change “based” to – based on --.
Claim 16, Line 3: Change “based” to – based on --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0106877 to Knutsson.
In Reference to Claims 1 and 11
Knutsson discloses a system and method for electronic gaming control and performance normalization (Fig. 1), the system and method comprising:
a memory storing executable instructions (Fig. 1 hard disk, [0010, 0049]; and
a controller coupled to the interface and the memory (Fig. 1 CPU, [0010, 0015]), wherein the controller is configured for:
receiving, by a device (Fig. 2 client device [0192]), a game data stream for an electronic game (game server 205 supplies data streams supplied to the client device [0010, 0193]) wherein the game data stream includes game data for at least one user of the electronic game (Fig. 3 game environment [0201]);
analyzing, by the device, performance of the at least one user using the game data stream (progress represented in the game [0201]);
determining, by the device, a user performance rating for the at least one user (star rating [0217]), wherein the user performance rating is determined based on gameplay actions of the least one user (achieving levels is associated with rating [0217]);
determining, by the device, a normalization setting for the at least one user of the
electronic game based on the user performance rating (Examiner interprets the difficulty parameter of Knutsson as a normalization setting [0197]), the normalization setting modifying at
least one game operation of the electronic game (see difficulty parameter modified a score target for a level, increases available time or gives a booster to enhance game play [0197]); and
controlling, by the device, output of the game data stream using the normalization setting
for the at least one user (difficulty parameter is adjusted [0197, 0201]).
In Reference to Claims 2 and 12
Knutsson discloses a user receives a game data stream (Fig. 2 multiple client devices for at least three users of devices 220, 225, and 230) and where the normalization setting is determined based on performance rating of the at least one user relative to a performance rating of the at least one second user (Knutsson discloses relative performance is determined as evidenced by display of a leader board [0318]).
In Reference to Claims 3 and 13
Knutsson discloses tracking over time (progress through multiple levels or along a virtual path ([0201, 0204]) where quests are available over a period of time [0246]) where performance in the game is reflected in higher rankings when played within a certain time or within a specific time period ([0273]).
In Reference to Claims 5 and 15
Knutsson discloses performance of a reaction time measurement for the at least one user relative to electronic game in a bubble shooter game where a player has only so many shots or shots to blast a row of bombs ([0459]).
In Reference to Claims 6-7 and 16-17
Knutsson discloses modifying a score target level {game feature, reduction of a constraint} ([0197]) based on the rating of the player (star rating, high rating [0197, 0201]) and the difficulty parameter of the score for the level [0197]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 4, 8-10, 14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knutsson in view of WO 2021/202396 to Pare.
In Reference to Claims 4 and 14
Knutsson 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 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].
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 streaming of Knutsson 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 modification of network lag ([0132]).
In Reference to Claims 9 and 19
Pare teaches modification of the steaming to allow high performance client devices to play for a snappy experience which is a reduced hardware lag of the at least one user ([0132]).
In Reference to Claims 10 and 20
Pare teaches of updating a machine model for normalization based on the analysis of user performance for controlled output with at least one normalization setting by learning over a period of time and tracking user performance [0132]. In combination with Knutsson one of skill in the art would see the combined learning as a system wherein the ability to complete a level in Knutsson would be adjusted by the machine learning of Pare to ensure that the user is provided with a responsive system in line with delivering appropriate performance to high performance users.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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