DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
2. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “Apparatus And Method For Providing Video Walkthroughs to Players Of A Video Game Based On Contextual Information”.
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“health video” in line 2 of paragraph 56 and line 1 of paragraph 58 should be “help video.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. The terms “replay confirmation point” and “confirmation point” are used throughout the claims. As these are not terms of art, their interpretation will be assumed in light of the specification to refer to a particular “timestamp” in a video file at which point playback of the video will be paused, as determined by any suitable method known in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
7. Regarding claim 4, the only additional limitation recited by the claim is "assigning the detected position as a confirmation point" during the detecting step. However, the way claims 2 and 3 are written appears to imply that the "positions" detected during the detection step according to the criteria recited in claims 2 and 3 and the "replay confirmation points" recited in claim 1 as also being detected during the detection step are the same, with claims 2 and 3 simply serving to specify how the "replay confirmation points" recited in claim 1 are detected in the first place. Thus, "detecting" a "position" and "assigning the detected position as a confirmation point" appears to be merely a different way of saying "detecting one or more replay confirmation points," so it is unclear how claim 4 serves to further limit claim 3.
8. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim 1, 10-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Benedetto et al (U.S. Patent No 20200122043) in view of Talbot et al (U.S. Patent No 20210233570).
12. Regarding claim 1, Benedetto et al, henceforth Benedetto, discloses “a method comprising: performing, using processing circuitry, a data processing task in response to operation of one or more user controls (see paragraph 17, lines 5-7, “[…] the client device running a game may generate the user interface providing the contextual guidance for the game”); generating video material for display to provide guidance to a user in the operation of the user controls to control performance of the data processing task (see paragraphs 15, lines 1-3, “In some embodiments, the remote networked service determines the user requires mechanical guidance to complete the user's current objective” and 17, lines 9-13, “The guidance may be in the form of text, image, video, audio, or a combination thereof. In certain embodiments, the remote networked service skips to a particular time stamp in a provided video, the time stamp being associated with the in-game context”); replaying the video material in response to operation of the one or more user controls (paragraph 9, lines 1-5, “According to an example embodiment of the present disclosure, the user requests help with a game via a client device, such as a game console, personal computer, mobile device, etc., at various entry points or channels. Entry points may include a quick menu, game hub, voice interface […]”; see also paragraph 56, lines 1-5, “Method 600 commences at block 610 with determining, based on contextual information regarding an application, an objective of the user. Optionally, the method 600 may commence with receiving a user request for guidance from a client device”); detecting one or more replay confirmation points with respect to the video material and pausing replay of the video material at a given confirmation point” (see paragraph 20, lines 4-10, “The remote networked service automatically refreshes content presented via the user interface based on real-time updates to user context and activity. This includes allowing the user to play the game while simultaneously watching a help video […] with the video automatically pausing when it shows the necessary help clip”).
13. However, Benedetto does not disclose “requesting user confirmation to continue replay of the video material beyond the given confirmation point.”
14. Talbot et al, henceforth Talbot, teaches a method for “improving the interactivity of media content” which, like Benedetto, also discusses the use of an “auto-pause” feature where playback of a media asset, such as a video, is automatically interrupted based on the detection of a scene transition. Notably, Talbot’s “auto-pause” feature waits for the user to decide when to resume playback (see paragraph 73, lines 1-4, “In some embodiments, when the detected end of a scene is reached in the media asset player, the media asset may optionally pause automatically until the user resumes playback”).
15. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify walkthrough videos taught by Benedetto to wait for the player to resume playback of a video walkthrough, as taught by Talbot, in order to provide the player more convenience and control over the gaming experience.
16. The rejection of method claim 1 above applies to the corresponding limitations of device claims 12 and 14. Claims 12 and 14 are mapped below for clarity of the record and to specify any new limitations not included in claim 1.
17. Regarding claim 10, Benedetto (in view of Talbot) discloses “The method of claim 1, in which the processing circuitry comprises computer game processing circuitry and the data processing task comprises a computer game operation” (see Benedetto paragraph 17, lines 5-7, “[…] the client device running a game may generate the user interface providing the contextual guidance for the game”).
18. Regarding claim 11, Benedetto (in view of Talbot) discloses “The method of claim 10, comprising the step of the computer game processing circuitry allowing progression to a next data processing task to be performed by the computer game processing circuitry in response to operation of the one or more user controls in response to successful completion of a current data processing task” (see Benedetto: the mention of a “fifth level” in paragraph 17, lines 13-18 implies multiple levels; line 11 of paragraph 20 also mentions “progression” to a “next objective”).
19. Regarding claim 12, Benedetto (in view of Talbot) discloses “A non-transitory, computer readable storage medium containing computer software which, when executed by one or more computers, causes the one or more computers to perform a method comprising: performing, using processing circuitry, a data processing task in response to operation of one or more user controls (see Benedetto paragraph 17, lines 5-7, “[…] the client device running a game may generate the user interface providing the contextual guidance for the game”); generating video material for display to provide guidance to a user in the operation of the user controls to control performance of the data processing task (see Benedetto paragraphs 15, lines 1-3, “In some embodiments, the remote networked service determines the user requires mechanical guidance to complete the user's current objective” and 17, lines 9-13, “The guidance may be in the form of text, image, video, audio, or a combination thereof. In certain embodiments, the remote networked service skips to a particular time stamp in a provided video, the time stamp being associated with the in-game context”); replaying the video material in response to operation of the one or more user controls (Benedetto paragraph 9, lines 1-5, “According to an example embodiment of the present disclosure, the user requests help with a game via a client device, such as a game console, personal computer, mobile device, etc., at various entry points or channels. Entry points may include a quick menu, game hub, voice interface […]”; see also paragraph 56, lines 1-5, “Method 600 commences at block 610 with determining, based on contextual information regarding an application, an objective of the user. Optionally, the method 600 may commence with receiving a user request for guidance from a client device”); detecting one or more replay confirmation points with respect to the video material and pausing replay of the video material at a given confirmation point (see Benedetto paragraph 20, lines 4-10, “The remote networked service automatically refreshes content presented via the user interface based on real-time updates to user context and activity. This includes allowing the user to play the game while simultaneously watching a help video […] with the video automatically pausing when it shows the necessary help clip”) and requesting user confirmation to continue replay of the video material beyond the given confirmation point” (see Talbot paragraph 73, lines 1-4, “In some embodiments, when the detected end of a scene is reached in the media asset player, the media asset may optionally pause automatically until the user resumes playback”).
20. Regarding claim 14, Benedetto (in view of Talbot) discloses “[An] apparatus comprising one or more user controls; and processing circuitry to perform a data processing task in response to operation of one or more user controls (see Benedetto paragraph 17, lines 5-7, “[…] the client device running a game may generate the user interface providing the contextual guidance for the game”); the processing circuitry being configured to: generate video material for display to provide guidance to a user in the operation of the user controls to control performance of the data processing task (see Benedetto paragraphs 15, lines 1-3, “In some embodiments, the remote networked service determines the user requires mechanical guidance to complete the user's current objective” and 17, lines 9-13, “The guidance may be in the form of text, image, video, audio, or a combination thereof. In certain embodiments, the remote networked service skips to a particular time stamp in a provided video, the time stamp being associated with the in-game context”); replay the video material in response to operation of the one or more user controls (Benedetto paragraph 9, lines 1-3, “According to an example embodiment of the present disclosure, the user requests help with a game via a client device”); detect one or more replay confirmation points with respect to the video material and pause replay of the video material at a given confirmation point (see Benedetto paragraph 20, lines 4-10, “The remote networked service automatically refreshes content presented via the user interface based on real-time updates to user context and activity. This includes allowing the user to play the game while simultaneously watching a help video […] with the video automatically pausing when it shows the necessary help clip”) and request user confirmation to continue replay of the video material beyond the given confirmation point” (see Talbot paragraph 73, lines 1-4, “In some embodiments, when the detected end of a scene is reached in the media asset player, the media asset may optionally pause automatically until the user resumes playback”).
21. Regarding claim 15, Benedetto (in view of Talbot) discloses “the apparatus of claim 14, in which the processing circuitry comprises computer game processing circuitry and the data processing task comprises a computer game operation” (see Benedetto paragraph 17, lines 5-7, “[…] the client device running a game may generate the user interface providing the contextual guidance for the game”).
22. Claim(s) 2-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto in view of Talbot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foerster et al (U.S. Patent No 9820004).
23. Regarding claim 2, Benedetto (in view of Talbot) discloses “The method of claim 1.”
24. However, Benedetto (in view of Talbot) does not disclose “the detecting step comprises detecting amongst a plurality of instances of replay of the video material, respective position within the video material at which the respective user stopped replay.”
25. Benedetto describes the possibility of a player becoming exposed to “spoilers” as a “risk” in lines 16-17 of paragraph 5, which is included in a list of “pain points” associated with the process of manually searching for video walkthroughs of video games online (paragraph 5, lines 5-7). Although Benedetto teaches “pausing [the video walkthrough] when it shows the necessary help clip” (paragraph 20, lines 9-10), Benedetto does not specify exactly how the system determines the length of the clip or determines at what point the walkthrough is no longer “necessary.” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to find a means of automatically determining a suitable point at which to stop playback of the walkthrough video in order to avoid “spoiling” upcoming game content for the player by prematurely revealing the solution to and/or the outcome of clearing the objective before the player has a chance to discover the solution and/or outcome on their own.
26. Foerster et al, henceforth Foerster, teaches a system for optimizing the timing of display of content overlaid over a video by determining which segment of a video is the “least engaging” based on “retention data” collected from a plurality of viewers of the video (see column 3, lines 25-33, “As used herein, retention data refers to information that indicates points in a video where viewers tend to stop engaging with or watching a video. In an aspect, this retention data can be obtained from watch histories of a plurality of users. For example, watch histories of a plurality of users that have selected a video for playing can be analyzed to identify segments or frames […] in the video where the respective viewers stopped engaging with or watching the video”). In particular, Foerster’s system identifies points in the video where the majority of viewers watching a particular segment of the video stopped watching during that particular segment, referred to as the “highest relative drop off value”, (see column 10, lines 36-41, “Relative percentages of viewers that drop off refers to the number of users that drop off at respective segments of the video with respect to the number of viewers, (with respect to the total number of user that began watching the video), remaining engaged with or watching the video at the respective segments” and column 12, lines 6-7 and 10-11, “identification component 110 can identify a […] segment of the video associated with a highest relative drop off value”).
27. Users of Benedetto’s system, being motivated to avoid “spoiling” upcoming game content for themselves, would be motivated to manually stop playback of the walkthrough to avoid watching beyond the section of the video which reveals how to progress beyond the current in-game objective faced by the players: Foerster’s system would be capable of recording the timestamps at which each of these individual users decided to stop watching the video and using this “retention data” to identify the segment of the video which the users find the “least engaging”, and in particular the exact timestamp in the “help clip” provided by Benedetto where the majority of viewers stopped watching or exited the video, solving the problem of how Benedetto’s system determines “when it [has shown] the necessary help clip” (as mentioned in paragraph 20, lines 9-10) by providing a means of automatically determining a suitable point at which to stop playback of the walkthrough video.
28. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of providing guidance to players of a video game by automatically retrieving walkthrough videos of said video game taught by Benedetto (in view of Talbot) to automatically determine timestamps in the video walkthrough at which to end playback by detecting positions in the playback of the video at which a plurality of users decided to stop playback, as taught by Foerster, and in order to avoid “spoiling” upcoming game content for the players, as taught by Benedetto.
29. Regarding claim 3, Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) discloses “the method of claim 2.”
30. However, Benedetto (in view of Talbot) does not disclose “the detecting step comprises detecting amongst the plurality of instances of replay of the video material, a position within the video material at which the respective user stopped replay which meets a first predetermined criterion.”
31. As discussed above, Foerster’s system is capable of determining the segment of a video with the “highest relative drop off rate”, i.e., where a majority of viewers of a particular segment of a video stopped watching or exited the video, which reads on the limitations of claim 3 (the “highest relative drop off rate” metric is a “predetermined criterion” associated with positions in the video material where a plurality of users stopped replay).
32. Users of Benedetto’s system, being motivated to avoid “spoiling” upcoming game content for themselves, would be motived to manually stop playback of the walkthrough to avoid watching beyond the section of the video which reveals how to progress beyond the current in-game objective faced by the players: Foerster’s system would be capable of recording the timestamps at which each of these individual users decided to stop watching the video and using this “retention data” to identify the segment of the video which the users find the “least engaging”, and in particular the exact timestamp in the “help clip” provided by Benedetto where the majority of viewers stopped watching or exited the video, solving the problem of how Benedetto’s system determines “when it [has shown] the necessary help clip” (as mentioned in paragraph 20, lines 9-10) by providing a means of automatically determining a suitable point at which to stop playback of the walkthrough video.
33. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the method of providing guidance to players of a video game by automatically retrieving walkthrough videos of said video game taught by Benedetto (in view of Talbot) to automatically determine timestamps in the video walkthrough at which to end playback by determining the positions in the “help clips” provided by Benedetto’s system at which a plurality of users decided to stop playback which meets a first predetermined criterion, that criterion where the majority of viewers stopped watching the help clip, as taught by Foerster, in order to avoid “spoiling” upcoming game content for the players, as taught by Benedetto.
34. Regarding claim 4, Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Zhang) discloses “the method of claim 3”, and as claim 4 fails to further limit claim 3, Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Zhang) is also read as disclosing all the limitations of claim 4.
35. Regarding claim 8, Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) discloses “the method of claim 3.”
36. However, Benedetto (in view of Talbot) does not disclose “the first predetermined criterion is that the detected position is a most common position amongst the plurality of instances of the video material at which the user stopped replay.”
37. As discussed above, Foerster’s system is capable of determining the segment of a video with the “highest relative drop off rate”, i.e., where a majority of viewers of a particular segment of a video stopped watching or exited the video, which reads on the limitations of claim 8 (the position “where a majority of viewers stopped watching” is synonymous with “the most common position […] at which the user stopped replay”).
38. Users of Benedetto’s system, being motivated to avoid “spoiling” upcoming game content for themselves, would have been motivated to manually stop playback of the walkthrough to avoid watching beyond the section of the video which reveals how to progress beyond the current in-game objective faced by the players: Foerster’s system would be capable of recording the timestamps at which each of these individual users decided to stop watching the video and using this “retention data” to identify the segment of the video which the users find the “least engaging”, and in particular the exact timestamp in the “help clip” provided by Benedetto where the majority of viewers stopped watching or exited the video, solving the problem of how Benedetto’s system determines “when it [has shown] the necessary help clip” (as mentioned in paragraph 20, lines 9-10) by providing a means of automatically determining a suitable point at which to stop playback of the walkthrough video.
39. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of providing guidance to players of a video game by automatically retrieving walkthrough videos of said video game taught by Benedetto (in view of Talbot) to automatically determine timestamps in the video walkthrough at which to end playback by determining the most common positions in the “help clips” provided by Benedetto’s system at which viewers stopped watching the respective help clips, as taught by Foerster, in order to avoid “spoiling” upcoming game content for the players, as taught by Benedetto.
40. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto in view of Talbot and Foerster as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of NeuroLaunch.
41. Regarding claim 5, Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) discloses “the method of claim 3.”
42. However, Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) does not disclose “the detecting step comprises assigning a position which is at a predetermined period before the detected position as a confirmation point.”
43. It is a known scientific principle that human perception of events is limited by a “reaction time” or “processing delay”, as taught by NeuroLaunch (“Sensory processing latency refers to the time it takes for our brains to interpret and make sense of incoming sensory information. When you see a flash of light or hear a sudden noise, there’s a brief delay before your brain registers and processes that information”). This principle would be well-understood in the field of video game development, as game developers must ensure that players are given enough time to visually process a game event to ensure players are actually capable of reacting to said game event without the game feeling “unfair”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, having decided to use Foerster’s method of using retention data to determine where to automatically stop playback of the “help clips” provided to players of a video game by Benedetto’s guidance system, would recognize that in some instances simply stopping the video where a majority of viewers stopped watching would be insufficient to prevent future viewers of the help clip from being exposed to “spoilers” of upcoming game content, in the case where the majority of viewers realized they were seeing a “spoiler” and consequently decided to stop watching or exit the help clip being delayed relative to the moment where the “spoiler” is first revealed.
44. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of providing guidance to players of a video game by automatically retrieving walkthrough videos of the video game taught by Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) to advance the timestamp at which a majority of viewers stopped watching a respective help clip by a predetermined period in order to prevent accidental exposure of viewers of the help clip to “spoilers” of upcoming game content, as taught by Benedetto.
45. Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto in view of Talbot and Foerster as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Huang et al (U.S. Patent No 20120242900).
46. Regarding claim 6, Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) discloses “the method of claim 3.”
47. However, Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) does not disclose “comprising the step of detecting inter-image differences in the video material; in which the step of detecting one or more replay confirmation points comprises assigning as a confirmation point a position before the detected position for which the detected inter-image differences meet a second predetermined criterion as a confirmation point.”
48. Huang et al, henceforth Huang, teaches a method for inserting secondary content into a media stream having a plurality of frames by dividing the media stream into a plurality of “shots” and scenes and identifying insertion points corresponding to transitions between successive shots and/or scenes. Huang teaches that determining the points in the stream corresponding to transitions between shots may be achieved by performing “shot detection” (paragraph 40, lines 1-5, “Shot detection is the temporal segmentation of a media stream 5. Shot detection segments the media into its basic units i.e. shots. During shot detection, the beginning and end points of a shot are identified, e.g., using frame index numbers”). In particular, Huang teaches a “variance difference based shot detection scheme”, which computes the variance of each frame starting from the first frame in a shot in addition to the difference in variance between each successive pair of frames (see paragraph 44, lines 3-7, “The frame variance of the temporally next frame is calculated (boxes 120 and 130). The difference in variance between adjacent frames is calculated (box 140). A condition for delta variance is tested. A new shot is started if the condition(s) for the delta variance Dvar are satisfied (box 160)”). Examiner notes that Huang’s “condition for delta variance” is effectively synonymous with a “predetermined criterion” based on a “detected inter-image difference”, as recited in claim 6.
49. As discussed above, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that using Foerster’s method of analyzing retention data to determine a suitable point at which to automatically stop playback of the “help clips” provided by Benedetto’s system would not be sufficient to prevent exposing players to “spoilers” of upcoming game content due to the “processing delay” between the moment of a person’s exposure to the “spoiler” and the moment when they are able to react to the spoiler and stop the video, and thus the system of Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) would not serve its intended purpose of being “spoiler-free” (Benedetto paragraph 6, line 2). It also would have been known in the art at the time of the claimed invention that scripted, in-game cutscenes, such as those used to “introduce” a new boss enemy in a dramatic fashion, reveal a new area or location in the game with an artistic establishing shot, or play a scene to advance the plot of the game’s story, are one type of game content which may be considered as a “spoiler” by players. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the shot detection algorithm taught by Huang would be a viable means of detecting the onset of such cutscenes in a pre-recorded walkthrough of a video game, and could thus be employed as a means of automatically determining timestamps at which to stop playback of the “help clips” provided by Benedetto’s system to prevent prematurely exposing players to scripted cutscenes before the players have had a chance to experience the cutscenes firsthand. Huang’s shot detection algorithm would be particularly appealing for this purpose, being capable of detecting a variety of different types of scene transitions (see paragraph 43, lines 2-4, “This scheme is robust to detect the abrupt transitions while still yielding good performance to detect gradual transitions”).
50. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of providing guidance to players of a video game by automatically retrieving walkthrough videos of said video game taught by Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) to automatically determine timestamps in the video walkthrough at which to end playback by using a shot detection algorithm, such as the one taught by Huang, to compute the difference in the variance between successive frames of the video and identify points in the video where a transition to a scripted cutscene occurs based on this difference meeting a predetermined condition, in order to avoid “spoiling” upcoming game content for the players, as taught by Benedetto.
51. Regarding claim 7, Benedetto (in view of Talbot, Foerster, and Huang) discloses “the method of claim 6.”
52. However, Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) does not disclose “the second predetermined criterion is that the detected inter-image difference exhibits a local maximum within a search period before the detected position.”
53. Huang, describing the “variance difference based shot detection scheme” mentioned above, teaches several “conditions for delta variance” used to detect when a shot transition has occurred between two frames. One of these conditions is described in paragraph 46, and comprises a step wherein “the maximum difference in delta variance (maxDvar) from the starting or first frame until the current frame is calculated” (lines 1-3). As the delta variance is the difference between the variance scores of two successive frames (“inter-image difference”), and the maximum delta variance is calculated over a period from a starting frame to a first frame (“a local maximum within a search period”), and this condition is used as a “predetermined criterion” to determine when a shot transition has occurred (paragraph 44, lines 7-9, “A new shot is started if the condition(s) for the delta variance Dvar are satisfied”), Huang’s shot detection algorithm reads on the limitations recited in claim 7.
54. As discussed above, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that using Foerster’s method of analyzing retention data to determine a suitable point at which to automatically stop playback of the “help clips” provided by Benedetto’s system would not be sufficient to prevent exposing players to “spoilers” of upcoming game content due to the “processing delay” between the moment of a person’s exposure to the “spoiler” and the moment when they are able to react to the spoiler and stop the video, and thus the system of Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) would not serve its intended purpose of being “spoiler-free” (Benedetto paragraph 6, line 2). It also would have been known in the art at the time of the claimed invention that scripted, in-game cutscenes, such as those used to “introduce” a new boss enemy in a dramatic fashion, reveal a new area or location in the game with an artistic establishing shot, or play a scene to advance the plot of the game’s story, are one type of game content which may be considered as a “spoiler” by players. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the shot detection algorithm taught by Huang would be a viable means of detecting the onset of such cutscenes in a pre-recorded walkthrough of a video game, and could thus be employed as a means of automatically determining timestamps at which to stop playback of the “help clips” provided by Benedetto’s system to prevent prematurely exposing players to scripted cutscenes before the players have had a chance to experience the cutscenes firsthand. Huang’s shot detection algorithm would be particularly appealing for this purpose, being capable of detecting a variety of different types of scene transitions (see paragraph 43, lines 2-4, “This scheme is robust to detect the abrupt transitions while still yielding good performance to detect gradual transitions”).
55. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of providing guidance to players of a video game by automatically retrieving walkthrough videos of said video game taught by Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) to automatically determine timestamps in the video walkthrough at which to end playback by using a shot detection algorithm, such as the one taught by Huang, to compute the difference in the variance between successive frames of the video and identify points in the video where a transition to a scripted cutscene occurs based on this difference meeting a predetermined condition, where this condition comprises calculating the maximum difference in variance between successive frames, and they would have been motivated to do so to avoid “spoiling” upcoming game content for the players, as taught by Benedetto.
56. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto in view of Talbot and Foerster as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (U.S. Patent No 20160381419).
57. Regarding claim 9, Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) discloses “the method of claim 3.”
58. However, Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) does not disclose “the first predetermined criterion is that the detected position is a first position amongst the plurality of instances of the video material at which at least a threshold proportion of users stopped replay.”
59. Zhang et al, henceforth Zhang, discloses a method for segmenting a video based on user engagement in respective segments of the video. Zhang’s method is notably similar to Foerster’s, as both are directed to calculating levels of user engagement for multiple segments of a video and segmenting the video based on the calculated levels of user engagement, and both teach using control signals generated by the users in their calculations of user engagement (see Zhang paragraph 55, which discusses assigning values to control signals such as stopping replay of a video). Zhang teaches the use of “various statistical analysis mechanisms to characterize and organize video segments based on their respective user engagement scores“ (paragraph 60, lines 1-4); in particular, Zhang’s method is capable of “identify[ing] […] segments of a video that receive user engagement scores above a threshold” (see paragraph 60, lines 4-6).
60. Users of Benedetto’s system, being motivated to avoid “spoiling” upcoming game content for themselves, would, if given the means to do so, manually stop playback of the walkthrough to avoid watching beyond the section of the video which reveals how to progress beyond the current in-game objective faced by the players: Foerster’s system would be capable of recording the timestamps at which each of these individual users decided to stop watching the video and using this “retention data” to identify the segment of the video which the users find the “least engaging”, and in particular the exact timestamp in the “help clip” provided by Benedetto where the majority of viewers stopped watching or exited the video, solving the problem of how Benedetto’s system determines “when it [has shown] the necessary help clip” (as mentioned in paragraph 20, lines 9-10) by providing a means of automatically determining a suitable point at which to stop playback of the walkthrough video.
61. One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that different players have differing levels of skill and/or frustration thresholds, resulting in some players being satisfied with receiving a “smaller” hint than what would be necessary to satisfy other players. In these cases, stopping playback of the help clip at the point where a majority of users stopped watching the video might result in dissatisfaction among players of higher levels of skill and/or those with lower frustration thresholds than the average player, as they might consider that the help clip has revealed “too much” information for their liking; in other words, what the majority of players might not consider a “spoiler” might still be considered a “spoiler” to other members of the playerbase due to differing levels of skill and frustration tolerance. To accommodate these preferences, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider using the earliest timestamps at which a certain number or percentage of players stopped watching the help video, with a threshold being used to ensure that the quit points recorded by Foerster’s system are truly reflective of players attempting to avoid spoilers and not the result of a user accidentally exiting the video or accidentally requesting a walkthrough.
62. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of providing guidance to players of a video game by automatically retrieving walkthrough videos of said video game taught by Benedetto (in view of Talbot and Foerster) to automatically determine timestamps in the video walkthrough at which to end playback by detecting positions in the playback of the video at which a plurality of users decided to stop playback, as taught by Foerster, and in particular to identify the first timestamp in the video where a number or percentage of users above a certain threshold decided to stop playback, as taught by Zhang, and they would have been motivated to do so to avoid “spoiling” upcoming game content for the players, as taught by Benedetto.
Conclusion
63. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH HAROLD JOHANSSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:30 to 6:30.
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. 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.
/K.H.J./
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights