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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. According to the specification, the invention relates to a method of providing a virtual environment responsive to player inputs. Exemplary claims 1, 13 and 20 include the following underlined claim elements:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: during a current gaming session, offering a current video game player a cloud-based help session relating to a particular video game; obtaining a help session starting state from a saved state of game play by the current video game player; loading the help session starting state into a cloud-based help session of the particular video game; receiving video game inputs from a client device of a video game helper during the cloud-based help session; directing the video game inputs to the cloud-based help session while sending streaming output of the particular video game to the client device of the video game helper; obtaining an updated help session state of the particular video game after the cloud-based help session; and in at least one instance, providing the updated help session state to the current gaming session
13. A system comprising: processing resources; and storage resources storing computer-readable instructions which, when executed by the processing resources, cause the processing resources to: during a current gaming session, offer a current video game player a cloud-based help session relating to a particular video game; obtain a help session starting state from a saved state of game play by the current video game player; load the help session starting state into a cloud-based help session of the particular video game; receive video game inputs from a client device of a video game helper during the cloud-based help session; direct the inputs to the cloud-based help session while sending streaming output of the particular video game to the client device of the video game helper; obtain an updated help session state of the particular video game after the cloud-based help session; and in at least one instance, provide the updated help session state to the current gaming session
20. A computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions which, when executed by a hardware processing unit, cause the hardware processing unit to perform acts comprising: during a current gaming session, offering a current video game player a cloud-based help session relating to a particular video game; obtaining a help session starting state from a saved state of game play by the current video game player; loading the help session starting state into a cloud-based help session of the particular video game; receiving video game inputs from a client device of a video game helper during the cloud-based help session; directing the inputs to the cloud-based help session while sending streaming output of the particular video game to the client device of the video game helper; obtaining an updated help session state of the particular video game after the cloud-based help session; and in at least one instance, providing the updated help session state to the current gaming session.
The underlined claim elements above are directed in user interaction in a game environment and applying game logic to user interactions which is the court enumerated abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities, following rules or instructions. The various dependent claims only further detail the abstract ideas or constitute insignificant extra solution activity and consequently are also considered abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited “client device”, “processing resources”, “storage resources” amount to implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Applicant’s specification states “As noted above with respect to FIG. 8A, system 800 includes several devices, including a console client device 810, a mobile client device 820, and a game server 830. As also noted, not all device implementations can be illustrated, and other device implementations should be apparent to the skilled artisan from the description above and below.
The term “device,” “computer,” “computing device,” “client device,” and or “server device” as used herein can mean any type of device that has some amount of hardware processing capability and/or hardware storage/memory capability. Processing capability can be provided by one or more hardware processors (e.g., hardware processing units/cores) that can execute data in the form of computer-readable instructions to provide functionality. Computer-readable instructions and/or data can be stored on storage, such as storage/memory and or the datastore. The term “system” as used herein can refer to a single device, multiple devices, etc”, [0125] & [0126]). This supports a conclusion that the method operates in a general computing environment and that the claim provides mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims are directed to providing a virtual environment to the player and responding to player input. This is not related to a long standing problem in computer technology. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language and only generic computer components are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using a generic computer. The various dependent claims only further detail the abstract idea or are insignificant extra solution activity and also fail to rise significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The claims do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) computer network system: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter wherein the claim recites a processing program that is not claimed as embodied in a non-transitory storage medium. Because Applicant's disclosure is not limited solely to tangible embodiments, the claimed subject matter, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be a carrier wave comprises of instructions and is, therefore, non-statutory. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable storage media, particularly when the specification is silent. (See MPEP 2111.01). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2).
To overcome this type of rejection, the claims need to be amended to include only the physical computer storage media unassociated with any intangible or non-functional transmission media. Examiner suggests adding the word -- non-transitory -- to the claim. Other word choices will be considered but the one proposed shall overcome the rejection. Appropriate attention is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 13 and 20 recite “in at least one instance, providing the updated help session state to the current gaming session” which appears to be a conditional limitation. Consequently, it is unclear whether this limitation is required to meet the claim language and renders the claims indefinite.
The various dependent claims inherit the above issue from their respective parent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto at al. (pub. no. 20210113931) in view of Green et al. (pub. no. 20130084985).
Regarding claim 1, Benedetto discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: during a current gaming session, offering a current video game player a cloud-based help session relating to a particular video game (“FIG. 1A illustrates a system used for providing real-time assistance during game play of a player playing a gaming application by connecting the player to an expert over a communication session, wherein the gaming application can be executing on a local computing device or over a cloud game network, in accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure”, [0011]);
obtaining a help session starting state from a saved state of game play by the current video game player (“Further, client device 100 is configured to interact with the game server 205 to capture and store one or more game contexts of the game play of user 5 when playing a gaming application, wherein each game context includes information (e.g., game state, user information, etc.) related to the game play. More particularly, game processor 201 of game server 205 is configured to generate and/or receive game context of the game play of user 5 when playing the gaming application. In another implementation, game contexts may be generated by the local game execution engine 111 on client device 100, outputted and delivered over network 150 to game processor 201. In addition, game contexts may be generated by game executing engine 211 within the game processor 201 at the cloud network, such as through the game context generator 122. Game contexts may be locally stored on client device 100 and/or stored at the context profiles database 142 of the game server 205.
Each game context includes metadata and/or information related to the game play. Game contexts may be captured at various points in the progression of playing the gaming application, such as in the middle of a level. For illustration, game contexts may help determine where the player (e.g., character of the player) has been within the gaming application, where the player is in the gaming application, what the player has done, what assets and skills the player or the character has accumulated, what quests or tasks are presented to the player, and where the player will be going within the gaming application. Further, the metadata and information in each game context may provide and/or be analyzed to provide support related to the game play of the user, such as when matching a player requesting help during his or her game play to an expert, wherein the game play has a particular context related to the request for help, and the selected expert is best suited to providing help for that context. Specifically, based on the game contexts, client device 100 is configured to interact with game server 205 to display a user interface that is able to connect a player playing a gaming application to an expert through a communication session to provide real-time assistance during game play of the player.
More particularly, game context also includes game state data that defines the state of the game at that point. For example, game state data may include game characters, game objects, game object attributes, game attributes, game object state, graphic overlays, location of a character within a gaming world of the game play of the user 5, the scene or gaming environment of the game play, the level of the gaming application, the assets of the character (e.g., weapons, tools, bombs, etc.), the type or race of the character (e.g., wizard, soldier, etc.), the current quest and/or task presented to the player, loadout, skills set of the character, etc. In that manner, game state data allows for the generation of the gaming environment that existed at the corresponding point in the video game. Game state data may also include the state of every device used for rendering the game play, such as states of CPU, GPU, memory, register values, program counter value, programmable DMA state, buffered data for the DMA, audio chip state, CD-ROM state, etc. The game state data is stored in game state database 145”, [0036] – [0038];
“Game processor 201 includes help session controller 120 to facilitate the establishing and managing of a help session that provides real-time assistance during game play of a player playing a gaming application, such as by connecting the player to an expert over a communication session. The help session controller 120 may control one or more components to establish and manage the help session, including for example the expert matching engine 123, pre-help session matching engine 124, share screen controller 126, share play controller, and others. For example, when a player requests help, such as through a query (e.g., “How do I beat Boss-A?” or “I need help—NOW!”), the help session controller 120 is configured to connect that player with an expert over a communication session supporting the help session so that the expert can provide assistance”, [0043]);
loading the help session starting state into a cloud-based help session of the particular video game; receiving video game inputs from a client device of a video game helper during the cloud-based help session; directing the video game inputs to the cloud-based help session while sending streaming output of the particular video game to the client device of the video game helper (“In one embodiment, when a player requests help for that game, the request is sent to the available experts who are most likely to be able to help. That is, the pool of experts are filtered to determine a set of experts that have similar game contexts as the player. In one implementation, the first expert from the filtered set to accept the help request is selected as the expert providing assistance. In that case, a help session is established between the player and the selected expert. In another implementation, the selected expert is the one who has the highest match based on the game criteria including game context, thresholds, ratings, etc. During the help session, the expert can provide guidance via text or voice, from a web, mobile, or console interface.
In one embodiment, to better help the player, the expert can request to spectate the player's screen—such as through a Share Screen (or ShareScreen) functionality. The expert can then watch a stream of the player's game (e.g., video), providing guidance during the game play. The Share Screen functionality is managed through the share screen controller 126 in cooperation with the help session controller 120.
If the player is unable to complete a given objective (e.g., task, quest, etc) himself with or without expert assistance, the expert can ask the player to share his controller, such as in a Share Play or SharePlay configuration that is configured to transfer control of the gaming application to the expert, in one implementation. In another case, the player may actively request the expert to take over control of the game play. In either case, the expert can then control the player's game (e.g., the game play) remotely via SharePlay or any similar functionality. As such, the expert is able to complete the objective for the player. At any point, control can be passed back to the player. For instance, the player may have a master position (e.g., kill switch) that when activated by the player switches control back to the player. As an example, the player may decide that the expert is going beyond what is agreed upon (e.g., expert playing beyond the objective), or may decide that he or she would like another go at the objective. Also, at any point (during or afterwards) the expert can always pass control back to the player. The SharePlay functionality is managed through the share play controller 127 in cooperation with the help session controller 120”, [0046] – [0048];
“In still another embodiment, to protect the game play of the player P1, the expert E5 generates an independent expert game play that is limited to the current context of the player P1, such that the game play of expert E5 can be focused on providing assistance to the player P1 that is relevant to the assistance query. For example, the player P1 may not want anyone to contaminate his or her game play, such that player P1 wants to finish the gaming application without an expert playing the game play to get through a difficult task. The player P1 may want to see how a difficult task may be performed and/or beaten. As such, limited state information may be provided to a device of the expert E5. The limited state information may be game state data that provides just enough information to replicate the current context of player P1 on the device of expert E5. In that manner, the expert E5 can play the gaming application on a local device to generate expert game play for the current context, and stream the expert game play back to the player P1”, [0126]).
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that Benedetto does not disclose an obtaining an updated state after the helper has progressed the game and restarting play in the original game using the updated state. Green however, teaches obtaining an updated state after the helper has progressed the game and restarting play in the original game using the updated state (“Once the friend has the game installed on their entertainment device, the system operates in a similar manner to the second instance above. Consequently where the friend is successful in overcoming the challenge on behalf of the first player, an updated version of the especially formatted save game is again produced.
The entertainment device of the first player then receives the updated version of the especially formatted save game, either directly from the friend's device via a peer-to-peer link, or via the private network when they are logged in with their unique ID.
The updated version of the especially formatted save game includes a flag or other indicator (for example a dedicated file extension) to indicate to the operating system and/or the game on the friend's entertainment device 10A that it is not a conventional save game and moreover that it is not an initial especially formatted save game.
Upon receiving the updated version of the especially formatted save game, the entertainment device of the first player generates a notification message for the user, allowing the user to decide whether they want to use the updated version of the especially formatted save game received from their friend. This notification may be implemented by the OS (for example upon log-on and synchronization with the private network) or by the game (for example upon starting the game).
In a first instance, the first player has managed for themselves to overcome the in-game challenge in the meantime and so may not wish to use the updated version of the especially formatted save game. In this case, the updated version of the especially formatted save game is deleted from the entertainment device. Optionally, the first player may be provided with the opportunity to thank their friend by sending a message to them. The friend may be identified from data within the updated version of the especially formatted save game, or by comparing identification data within the updated version of the especially formatted save game with identification data within the originally sent especially formatted save game and/or request.
In a second instance, the first player indicates their wish to use the updated version of the especially formatted save game. In response to the updated version of the especially formatted save game, the OS or game causes the game or OS to operate in a gamer teaching mode.
If the updated version of the especially formatted save game contains a video recording of the friend's play, then in gamer teaching mode either the OS or the game then play this recording back for the user to watch. Consequently the first player may then replicate the friend's play. Optionally, the updated version of the especially formatted save game also contains a save of the new game state after completion of the challenge by the friend (e.g. at the point of the termination condition). Therefore if the user still can't replicate their friend's play for themselves, they can bypass the challenge by selecting this new game state. Notably, because the new game state was based upon the friend playing the game using the first player's original game state, the new game state remains wholly consistent for the first player (for example, they retain all their objects, experience points, game branches or the like, which may be unique to their previous play of the game to this point)”, [0059] – [0065]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here both Benedetto and Green are directed to live help systems for video games. To add the Green updated game state to the Benedetto invention would be to combine a prior art element according to a known method to yield a predictable result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Benedetto invention to use the updated state as taught by Green. To do so would enable a player to bypass a difficult situation thereby increasing the perceived entertainment value of the game.
Regarding claim 2, Benedetto discloses during the cloud-based help session, sending the streaming video output of the particular video game to another client device of the current video game player ([0126]).
Regarding claim 3, Benedetto discloses sending an indication of the video game inputs received from the video game helper to the another client device with the streaming output of the particular video game (“Additionally, window 630 may provide information related to the assistance provided by the expert. For example, the sequence of control inputs (e.g., input commands) made by the expert when battling the enemy combatant 512 may be provided. Purely for illustration, the expert may have told the player P1 that the key to beating the enemy combatant 512 (as the Boss) is performing the “hammer blow sequence.” The player P1 may not know that sequence, or may not be proficient in performing that sequence, and has authorized the expert to take over control the game play in order to beat the enemy combatant 512. As the expert is submitting input commands for controlling the game play, the associated controller inputs or actions are displayed in window 630. For example, a sequence of controller inputs 660 may include right button, left button, A button, A button, O button, X button, etc”, [0049]).
Regarding claim 5, Benedetto discloses the current gaming session being a locally-executed session on another client device of the current video game player ([0011]).
Regarding claim 6, Benedetto discloses the current gaming session being another cloud-based session ([0011]).
Regarding claim 7, Benedetto discloses prompting the current video game player to save a current state of the particular video game responsive to acceptance of the cloud-based help session; and using the current state as the help session starting state (“In one implementation, the game context is related to snapshot information that provides information enabling execution of an instance of the video game beginning from a point in the video game associated with a corresponding snapshot. Access to a particular snapshot that is captured during game play of a player, and that is stored allows another instance of the gaming application to be executed using information in the snapshot, such as game state and possibly user information relating to the previously described game context. For example, another user is able to jump into a parallel version of the game play associated with the snapshot. A full discussion on the creation and use of snapshots is provided within U.S. application Ser. No. 15/411,421, entitled “Method And System For Saving A Snapshot of Game Play And Used To Begin Later Execution Of The Game Play By Any User As Executed On A Game Cloud System,” which is incorporated by reference in its entirety”, [0040]; 15/411421 corresponds to Benedetto et al. (pub. no.20170354888), “Benedetto ‘888” hereafter;
“Snapshot generator 212 is configured to capture a plurality of snapshots generated from the game play of user 5. Each snapshot provides information that enables execution of an instance of the video game beginning from a point in the video game associated with a corresponding snapshot. The snapshots are automatically generated during game play of the video game by user 5. Portions of each of the snapshots are stored in relevant databases independently configured or configured under data store 140, in embodiments. In another embodiment, snapshots may be generated manually through instruction by user 5. In that manner, any user through selection of a corresponding snapshot may jump into the game play of user 5 at a point in the video game associated with the corresponding snapshot. Game processor 210 is configured to access information in database 140 in order to enable the jumping into a saved game play of any user based on a corresponding snapshot. That is, the requesting user is able to begin playing the video game at a jump point corresponding to a selected snapshot using the game characters of the original user's game play that generated and saved the snapshot”, Benedetto ‘888: [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Benedetto and Green discloses prompting the current video game player to accept or reject the updated help session state; and in an instance when the current video game player accepts the updated help session state, loading the updated help session state into the current gaming session (Green: [0062] & [0064]).
Regarding claim 9, Benedetto discloses calling an application programming interface that instructs the particular video game to save a current game state; and using the current game state as the help session starting state ([0040] and Benedetto ‘888: [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Benedetto and Green discloses providing the updated help session state to the current video game session comprises: generating a link to the updated help session state; and sending the link to the particular video game, wherein the particular video game is configured to retrieve the updated help session state via the link and resume execution from the updated help session state (Green: [0060]).
Regarding claim 11, Benedetto discloses retrieving the help session starting state from one or more quick resume saves on a console client device of the current video game player; or retrieving the help session starting state from one or more cloud saves stored for the current video game player ([0040] and Benedetto ‘888: [0048]).
Regarding claim 12, Benedetto discloses detecting a help session triggering condition during the current gaming session (“Game processor 201 includes help session controller 120 to facilitate the establishing and managing of a help session that provides real-time assistance during game play of a player playing a gaming application, such as by connecting the player to an expert over a communication session. The help session controller 120 may control one or more components to establish and manage the help session, including for example the expert matching engine 123, pre-help session matching engine 124, share screen controller 126, share play controller, and others. For example, when a player requests help, such as through a query (e.g., “How do I beat Boss-A?” or “I need help—NOW!”), the help session controller 120 is configured to connect that player with an expert over a communication session supporting the help session so that the expert can provide assistance”, [0043]);
and automatically saving the help session starting state responsive to detecting the help session triggering condition ([0040] and Benedetto ‘888: [0048]).
Claim 13 is directed to a system that implements the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Benedetto discloses analyze the help session starting state to select the video game helper (“In particular, game processor 201 includes expert matching engine 123 that in cooperation with the help session controller 120 is configured for matching the player to the expert based on game contexts for the player and the selected expert. That is, in order to connect the player to an expert who can help, critical data about the player's current session is captured, such as quest, level, loadout, location, skills, etc., which can be defined as game criteria, which includes game contexts previously described. Specifically, the matching process focuses on game criteria and/or thresholds when selecting the expert. Game criteria can be game context information, including game state and user/player saved data previously described, particular standards set by the player (e.g., only wants the best experts—5 star expert), expert availability, etc. For example, the game criteria is used to pair the player with an expert who has similar experiences with the gaming application based on the game criteria (e.g., weighting particular pieces of information). Game criteria may include threshold information to filter the pool of experts to a manageable set. For example, the threshold may be a minimum quality standard (e.g., expert rating, valuation, etc.), or recency of playing the gaming application so that the expert can provide the freshest assistance that is not encumbered with lack of immediate recall. Ideally, based on the game criteria, the expert has already beaten that part of the game (e.g., which the player is currently playing and needs assistance), and ideally who did it with a similar configuration”, [0044]).
Regarding claim 16, Benedetto discloses the help session starting state comprising a binary format or a computer language format ([0040] and Benedetto ‘888: [0048]).
Regarding claim 19, Benedetto discloses access help session data for help sessions by a plurality of helpers; and select the helper based on the help session data ([0044]).
Claim 20 is directed to a article of manufacture the contains code that implements the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 4, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedetto at al. (pub. no. 20210113931) in view of Green et al. (pub. no. 20130084985) as applied respectively to claims 3, 13 and 14 above and further in view of Summa et al. (pub. no. 20230211241).
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that Benedetto and Green to do explicitly disclose a graphical representation of a video game controller with synchronized controller inputs. Summa however, teaches a graphical representation of a video game controller with synchronized controller inputs (“FIG. 5C also includes example gamepad input displays 528, 530. For example, when not displayed side by side a single gamepad 528 may be displayed underneath a gaming application window or a gaming application streaming video window and may be adjusted to highlight inputs that are selected or activated. When gaming application data from the user/expert and gaming application video streaming data from the other of the user/expert are displayed side by side, gamepad outlines 528, 530 may be displayed beneath each gaming application window. When a user selects an input, such as the up and right direction pad buttons 534 or the square button 532, the input may be highlighted. Thus, both a user and an expert may play side-by side and observe inputs entered by the other party to the gaming assistance session. In some embodiments, the user's information handling system may stream video and audio data from the gaming application along with input data to the expert's information handling system, while the expert's information handling system may transmit video and audio data from the gaming application along with input data to the user's information handling system simultaneously. Thus, a user may be able to observe an expert's gameplay in real time, along with the expert's input, while the user attempts the same portion of the game alongside the expert, even if the game is not a traditional co-op experience”, [0062]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here both Benedetto and Summa are directed to live help systems for video games. To add the Summa controller display to the Benedetto invention would be to combine a prior art element according to a known method to yield a predictable result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Benedetto invention to use the controller display as taught by Summa. To do so would increase the intuitive nature of the help thereby increasing the perceived value of the system.
Regarding claim 15, it is noted that Benedetto and Green to do explicitly disclose selecting a helper using a machine learning model. Summa however, teaches selecting a helper using a machine learning model (“The scoring module 718 may also provide scoring information to a matchmaking model update module 722. The matchmaking model update module 722 may update a matchmaking module 710, such as updating an algorithm for connecting gaming experts with gamers. For example, the matchmaking model update module 722 may apply machine learning algorithms to update the matchmaking module 710 algorithm based on outcomes of matches between experts and gamers. If matching gaming experts having certain gaming characteristics with gamers having certain gaming characteristics results in lower scored outcomes than matching of gaming experts having other gaming characteristics with gamers having other gaming characteristics, then the matchmaking model update module 722 may update the matchmaking algorithm to reduce the instances matching of experts and gamers having the certain gaming characteristics and increase the instances of matching of experts and gamers having the other gaming characteristics. For example, if matching of gamers having gaming characteristics indicating a more laid-back personality with experts having gaming characteristics indicating a more energetic personality results in poor outcomes from the scoring module 718, the matchmaking model update module 722 may update the matchmaking module 710 to reduce the instances of recommendation of such experts to such gamers. Therefore, a matchmaking algorithm of the matchmaking module 710 may be updated based on scoring outcomes of gaming assistance sessions”, [0077]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here both Benedetto and Summa are directed to live help systems for video games. To add the Summa updating of the match making model using machine learning to the Benedetto invention would be to combine a prior art element according to a known method to yield a predictable result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Benedetto invention to update the match making model using machine learning as taught by Summa. To do so would enable the match making adapt to changing conditions thereby increasing the perceived value of the system.
Regarding claim 18, it is noted that Benedetto and Green to do explicitly disclose voice input requesting help. Summa however, teaches voice input requesting help (“An example method of pairing users with expert gamers for gaming assistance session is shown in FIG. 8. The method 800 may be performed by a user's information handling system, one or more intermediary information handling systems such as remote cloud-based server running the system 700 of FIG. 7, and/or by an information handling system of a gaming expert. The method 800 may begin, at step 802, with receipt of a request for expert assistance associated with a gaming application. For example, a user of an information handling system may encounter a difficult challenge in a gaming application and may select an option for requesting assistance, may make a voice request, or may otherwise request assistance with a gaming application”, [0078]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here both Benedetto and Summa are directed to live help systems for video games. To add the Summa voice request for help to the Benedetto invention would be to combine a prior art element according to a known method to yield a predictable result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Benedetto invention to include a voice request for help as taught by Summa. To do so would make the user interface more intuitive thereby increasing the perceived value of the game.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE STEFAN GALKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-9 & 12-5.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/LAWRENCE S GALKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights