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) 1-9, 13-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greff (US 20230067090) in view of Anderson (US 20210052976).
In claims 1, 13 and 21, Greff discloses Identifying gameplay aspects of a computer game, Responsive to the gameplay aspects, automatically commencing recording a computer game being played by the computer gamer (various triggers to record a computer game are described by Greff, for example Keybinds (paragraph 115), Gaming events such as a player making a hit or kill (paragraph 249, comparison to historical data including by AI (paragraph 255 256), detection of sound or utterance of a player (paragraph 257) )
Although Greff does not disclose specifically recording in response to the heart rate of the player, Greff does disclose triggers which are based on inputs which are monitoring the computer gamer. Anderson discloses a game used by content creators which include tracking user heartrate and affecting the gameplay based on the heartrate (paragraph 83 discloses increasing your heart rate causing the monster to get hit). As Greff discloses recording in response to a player making a hit, and Anderson discloses a game wherein you increase your heartrate to make a hit, this combination would teach triggering recordings in response to a heartrate of the user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Greff with Anderson in order to allow for the recorded triggering conditions of Greff to be used in various types of games including the content creation game described in Anderson.
In claims 2, 15, and 22 Greff in view of Anderson discloses commencing recording of the computer game responsive to the heart rate being at least as high as a first heartrate (paragraph 83 teaches increasing your heart rate causing the monster to get hit, with Greff paragraph 259 teaching recording in response to the monster getting hit)
In claims 3, 16 and 23, Greff in view of Anderson discloses ending the recording of the computer game responsive to the heart rate being less than the first heart rate (Anderson would stop hitting the enemy once their heart rate goes down, which would cause the recording to stop)
In claims 4 and 17, Anderson discloses presenting on a display on which the computer game is presented, a heat map related to the heart rate (paragraph 151-152, this displays content tiles which are maps related to the heart rate challenge disclosed in paragraph 83. The tiles are related to the heat as well as disclosed in paragraph 93)
In claims 5 and 18, Anderson discloses the heat map comprises a map of the virtual space (paragraphs 151-152)
In claims 6 and 19, Anderson discloses the map of the virtual space comprises a travel path of the computer gamer through the virtual space (Fig 31)
In claims 7 and 20, Greff in view of Anderson discloses the claimed invention except that the travel path comprises first and second color segments corresponding to respective heart rates of the computer gamer as the computer gamer traverses the virtual space, however Official notice is taken that displaying relevant information to a player, and the use of colors to display relevant information was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Greff in view of Anderson with this well known technique in order to allow for the heart rate fluctuations of the user to be more easily understood by the user.
In claims 8 and 9 Anderson discloses monitoring a heart rate based on a heart rate monitor (paragraphs 80 and 83). Under BRI the wearable device of Anderson is a game controller as it is used to control the gameplay. Greff in view of Anderson fails to disclose use of two electrical components which provide a reference voltage and a pulse indication voltage, however Official notice is taken that use of electrical components which provide reference and pulse indication to monitor a pulse 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 Greff in view of Anderson with this well known technique in order to allow for the heart rate to be more closely monitored.
In claim 14, Greff discloses the computer simulation comprises a computer game (title)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang (US 20160228763) discloses monitoring heart rate information and determining the emotional fluctuation of the user (paragraph 31). This is relevant in combination with Greff, as a “scream” or “laughing” is used in Greff to teach recording in response to emotional fluctuation of the user.
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