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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendments/arguments filed 6/23/26. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 remain pending, Claim 20 is newly added, and Claims 1-3, 9-10, and 15-17 are currently amended.
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 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A computer-implemented method for dynamically altering an avatar in a video game, comprising: streaming gameplay video of a session of a video game over a network to a plurality of spectator devices, wherein the session enables gameplay by a player represented by an avatar in the video game; receiving, over the network from the plurality of spectator devices, comments from spectators viewing the gameplay video via the spectator devices; determining keywords and relative importances of the keywords within the comments during the session; generating an input for an artificial intelligence model, wherein generating the input comprises selecting and ordering the keywords based on the relative importances; generating an avatar modification for the player using the input; and implementing the avatar modification to alter the avatar of the player” (Claim 1); “A computer-implemented method for dynamically altering an avatar in a video game, comprising: streaming gameplay video of a session of a video game over a network to a plurality of spectator devices, wherein the session enables gameplay by a player represented by an avatar in the video game; receiving, over the network from the plurality of spectator devices, comments from spectators viewing the gameplay video via the spectator devices; determining keywords and relative importances of the keywords within the comments during the session; generating an input for an artificial intelligence model, wherein generating the input comprises selecting and ordering the keywords based on the relative importances; generating a plurality of avatar modifications for the player using the input; receiving a selection of an avatar modification of the avatar modifications by the player; and implementing the avatar modification to alter the avatar of the player based on the selection” (Claim 9); and “A computer-implemented method for dynamically altering an avatar in a video game, comprising: streaming gameplay video of a session of a video game over a network to a plurality of spectator devices, wherein the session enables gameplay by a player represented by a first avatar in the video game; receiving, over the network from the plurality of spectator devices, comments from spectators viewing the gameplay video via the spectator devices; determining keywords and relative importances of the keywords within the comments during the session; generating an input for an artificial intelligence model, wherein generating the input comprises selecting and ordering the keywords based on the relative importances; generating a second avatar for the player using the input; and replacing the first avatar of the player with the second avatar” (Claim 21). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Mental Processes particularly concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Acts to or of receiving comments from spectators viewing the gameplay video; determining keywords and relative importances of the keywords within the comments during the session; generating an input, wherein generating the input comprises selecting and ordering the keywords based on the relative importances; generating an avatar modification for the player using the input; and implementing the avatar modification to alter the avatar of the player” (Claim 1); “receiving comments from spectators viewing the gameplay video; determining keywords and relative importances of the keywords within the comments during the session; generating an input wherein generating the input comprises selecting and ordering the keywords based on the relative importances; generating a plurality of avatar modifications for the player using the input; receiving a selection of an avatar modification of the avatar modifications by the player; and implementing the avatar modification to alter the avatar of the player based on the selection” (Claim 9); and “receiving comments from spectators viewing the gameplay video; determining keywords and relative importances of the keywords within the comments during the session; generating an input, wherein generating the input comprises selecting and ordering the keywords based on the relative importances; generating a second avatar for the player using the input; and replacing the first avatar of the player with the second avatar” (Claim 21) amount to receiving information, analyzing information, and displaying the result falling under the umbrella of mental processes (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. The recitations of utilization of a “computer-implemented”, “spectator devices”, “artificial intelligence model”, “computer”, and/or “device” are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids system, medium, method, and/or device(s) to which a computer performs/implements the system, medium, method, and/or device(s). The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-19 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung (US 2017/0001122) in view of Shukla (US 2017/0056764).
Claim 1: Lueng teaches a computer-implemented method for dynamically altering an avatar in a video game, comprising: streaming gameplay video of a session of a video game over a network (¶ 56, 81) to a plurality of spectator devices (160)(¶ 78-81, 337-339), wherein the session enables gameplay by a player represented by an avatar in the video game (¶ 55, 177); receiving, over the network from the plurality of spectator devices, comments from spectators viewing the gameplay video via the spectator devices; determining keywords within the comments during the session (Fig. 24b, ¶ 40, 69, 74, 86, 88, 154-155, 157, 171-173, 339, 343-345, emphasis on ¶ 171-173, 343-345); generating an input based on the determined keywords (Fig. 4, 492c or 492d, ¶ 171-174); generating an avatar modification for the player using the input (Fig. 24b, ¶ 40, 69, 73, 86, 88, 154-155, 157, 171-173, 177-184, 339, 343-345); implementing the avatar modification to alter the avatar of the player (¶ 177 – “This information may be used to generate inputs to the game system engine via the game system API of the spectating system that positively affect or reward the player's avatar or character within the game, for example by boosting player health, providing supplies, providing points, or in various other ways. In some embodiments, teams of players corresponding to broadcasters may be identified, and the teams may be affected by inputs to the game system engine based on the analysis of spectator audio and/or text chat inputs 465 for broadcaster(s) that are on the team.”, ¶ 178 – “In some embodiments, the analysis information 427 indicating channels or broadcasts of interest may be used to generate inputs to the game system engine via the game system API of the spectating system rewarding the respective broadcasters, for example by providing boosts, gear, or other in-game benefits to the broadcasters' in-game characters or avatars”, ¶ 179-184, 191).
Lueng teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting determining relative importances of the keywords within the comments during the session and generating an input for an artificial intelligence model, wherein generating the input comprises selecting and ordering the keywords based on the relative importances. Leung at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 51, 403) and teaches determining keywords within the comments during the session to determined/identify/detect corresponding events (see above, ¶ 171-174). Furthermore, an analogous art of Shukla teaches a similarly structured computer-implemented method including determining keywords and relative importances of the keywords within comments (text), and generating an input for an artificial intelligence model (support vector machine model (SVM) and/or Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) model), wherein generating the input comprises selecting and ordering the keywords based on the relative importances to determine an event (theme/topic)(Abstract, ¶ 18, 34, 36-37, 68, 73-78, tables 1-4, the artificial intelligence model uses weights to select and order extracted keywords based on the relative importances to determine an event (theme/topic)). 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 determining and input generating means of Leung with the determining keywords and relative importances and generating input means of Shukla because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of using keywords in comments to effectively detect/identify events in which at least Leung is intended (see above, ¶ 171-174). Such a modification provides an overall method to effectively gather and analyze intelligence within comments/text for identifying events (Shukla – see above, ¶ 4, 14, 66).
Claim 3: Lueng teaches generating an avatar modification comprises generating a plurality of recommended avatar modifications for the player using the input, wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: receiving a selection of one of the plurality of recommended avatar modifications based on results of a voting interface rendered for the plurality of spectator devices; and implementing the avatar modification based on the selection (¶ 75, 90, 116, 190, 282, 322 – “spectator participations in broadcasts that are used to determine randomizing 1992 and/or parametric 1994 game inputs to the game engine 1922 may include spectator interactions 164 with broadcast content 126 presented via the spectating UI 116 on the spectator devices 160. For example, the broadcast content 126 may include one or more UI elements that allow the spectating community to specify, select, or vote on game elements or events such as what type and how many enemies will appear at a level, what type of weapons or other gear players are given, difficulty levels, and so on.”, ¶ 334, 336, 357).
Claim 4: Lueng teaches wherein implementing the avatar modification occurs during the session (¶ 55, 73-74, 127, 154, 368).
Claim 6: Lueng teaches wherein implementing the avatar modification alters an appearance of at least a portion of the avatar (see above, ¶ 73-74, 177-184).
Claim 8: Lueng teaches wherein the comments include text or emojis (see above, Fig. 24b, ¶ 155, 172-173).
Claim 20: Lueng teaches updating the avatar modification based on spectator feedback data (¶ 73 – “In some embodiments, broadcaster/players may be rewarded for particular accomplishments, for example in-game achievements such as performing certain feats in front of crowds of certain sizes, or achieving certain levels of audience participation or support (audience size, enthusiasm, voting, etc.). As non-limiting examples, a broadcaster/player may get an in-game health or strength boost or may be rewarded with in-game powers, gear, weapons, or information based on a growing audience size or audience enthusiasm as expressed through audio and/or textual spectator chat input.”, ¶ 74, 246, 318, 331 – “, to generate a randomizing input for the game system, the spectating system may collect and process spectator audio and/or text chat inputs to generate an integer value that is passed to the game engine as a randomizing input via the game system API. In some embodiments, the spectating system may be continuously receiving and processing spectator text and/or audio inputs to generate or change the values for the randomizing inputs”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung (US 2017/0001122) in view of Shukla (US 2017/0056764), and in further view of Payzer (US 2019/0111343).
Claim 5: Leung in view of Shukla teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein implementing the avatar modification occurs during a break point in the gameplay. Leung at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 51, 403). Furthermore, an analogous art of Payzer teaches that spectator influence or modification within the game occurs during a break point in gameplay (¶ 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the spectator driven avatar modification of Leung in view of Shukla such that is implemented during a break point in gameplay as taught by Payzer because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of implementing a spectator modification during a point in gameplay in which at least Leung is intended (see above). Such a modification allows spectators to interact with the viewed game (Payzer - ¶ 2, 9, 13).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung (US 2017/0001122) in view of Shukla (US 2017/0056764), and in further view of Navok (US 2017/0072324).
Claim 7: Leung in view of Shukla teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting implementing the avatar modification in response to an approval by the player. Leung at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 51, 403). Furthermore, an analogous art of Navok teaches that a player has the option of approving any spectator game input/modification (¶ 23, 140-141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the spectator driven avatar modification of Leung in view of Shukla such that is implemented upon player approval as taught by Navok because such a modification provides a new and improved means of broadcast games and improving interaction of spectators within the broadcasted game (Navok - ¶ 6). Furthermore, such a modification allows for modification based on the player’s preference; thereby, making the overall effect more enjoyable.
Claim(s) 9, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung (US 2017/0001122) in view of Iwao (US 6,533,663), and in further view of Shukla (US 2017/0056764).
Claim 9: Lueng teaches a computer-implemented method for dynamically altering an avatar in a video game, comprising: streaming gameplay video of a session of a video game over a network (¶ 56, 81) to a plurality of spectator devices (160)(¶ 78-81, 337-339), wherein the session enables gameplay by a player represented by an avatar in the video game (¶ 55, 177); receiving, over the network from the plurality of spectator devices, comments from spectators viewing the gameplay video via the spectator devices; analyzing the comments to determine content of the comments during the session (Fig. 24b, ¶ 40, 69, 74, 86, 88, 154-155, 157, 171-173, 339, 343-345, emphasis on ¶ 171-173, 343-345); using the determined content of the comments to generate a plurality of avatar modifications for the player (Fig. 24b, ¶ 40, 69, 73, 86, 88, 154-155, 157, 171-173); implementing the avatar modification to alter the avatar of the player (¶ 177 – “This information may be used to generate inputs to the game system engine via the game system API of the spectating system that positively affect or reward the player's avatar or character within the game, for example by boosting player health, providing supplies, providing points, or in various other ways. In some embodiments, teams of players corresponding to broadcasters may be identified, and the teams may be affected by inputs to the game system engine based on the analysis of spectator audio and/or text chat inputs 465 for broadcaster(s) that are on the team.”, ¶ 178 – “In some embodiments, the analysis information 427 indicating channels or broadcasts of interest may be used to generate inputs to the game system engine via the game system API of the spectating system rewarding the respective broadcasters, fore example by providing boosts, gear, or other in-game benefits to the broadcasters' in-game characters or avatars”, ¶ 179-184, 191).
Leung teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting receiving a selection of one of the avatar modifications by the player, and responsive to said selection, then implementing the selected avatar modification to alter the avatar of the player. Leung at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Iwao teaches receiving selection of one of a plurality of avatar modifications (weapons, magic, etc) by the player, and responsive to said selection, then implementing the selected avatar modification to alter the avatar of the player (Col. 10:36-Col. 14:28, Figs. 11-15). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of modifications of Leung with the player selectable means of Iwao because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of implementing a selected avatar modification to alter the avatar of the player in which at least Leung is intended (see above). Such a modification allows for modification based on the player’s preference; thereby, making the overall effect more enjoyable.
Lueng in view of Iwao teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting determining relative importances of the keywords within the comments during the session and generating an input for an artificial intelligence model, wherein generating the input comprises selecting and ordering the keywords based on the relative importances. Leung at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 51, 403) and teaches determining keywords within the comments during the session to determined/identify/detect corresponding events (see above, ¶ 171-174). Furthermore, an analogous art of Shukla teaches a similarly structured computer-implemented method including determining keywords and relative importances of the keywords within comments (text), and generating an input for an artificial intelligence model (support vector machine model (SVM) and/or Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) model), wherein generating the input comprises selecting and ordering the keywords based on the relative importances to determine an event (theme/topic)(Abstract, ¶ 18, 34, 36-37, 68, 73-78, tables 1-4, the artificial intelligence model uses weights to select and order extracted keywords based on the relative importances to determine an event (theme/topic)). 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 determining and input generating means of Leung in view of Iwao with the determining keywords and relative importances and generating input means of Shukla because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of using keywords in comments to effectively detect/identify events in which at least Leung is intended (see above, ¶ 171-174). Such a modification provides an overall method to effectively gather and analyze intelligence within comments/text for identifying events (Shukla – see above, ¶ 4, 14, 66).
Claim 12: Lueng teaches wherein implementing the avatar modification occurs during the session (¶ 55, 73-74, 127, 154, 368).
Claim 14: Lueng teaches wherein implementing the avatar modification alters an appearance of at least a portion of the avatar (see above, ¶ 73-74, 177-184).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung (US 2017/0001122) in view of Iwao (US 6,533,663) in view of Shukla (US 2017/0056764), and in further view of Payzer (US 2019/0111343).
Claim 13: Leung in view of Iwao in view of Shukla teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein implementing the avatar modification occurs during a break point in the gameplay. Leung at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 51, 403). Furthermore, an analogous art of Payzer teaches that spectator influence or modification within the game occurs during a break point in gameplay (¶ 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the spectator driven avatar modification of Leung in view of Iwao in view of Shukla such that is implemented during a break point in gameplay as taught by Payzer because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of implementing a spectator modification during a point in gameplay in which at least Leung is intended (see above). Such a modification allows spectators to interact with the viewed game (Payzer - ¶ 2, 9, 13).
Claim(s) 15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung (US 2017/0001122) in view of Dorn (US 2022/0096937), and in further view of Shukla (US 2017/0056764).
Claim 15: Lueng teaches a computer-implemented method for dynamically altering an avatar in a video game, comprising: streaming gameplay video of a session of a video game over a network (¶ 56, 81) to a plurality of spectator devices (160)(¶ 78-81, 337-339), wherein the session enables gameplay by a player represented by a first avatar in the video game (¶ 55, 177); receiving, over the network from the plurality of spectator devices, comments from spectators viewing the gameplay video via the spectator devices; analyzing the comments to determine content of the comments during the session (Fig. 24b, ¶ 40, 69, 74, 86, 88, 154-155, 157, 171-173, 339, 343-345, emphasis on ¶ 171-173, 343-345); using the determined content of the comments to generate an avatar modification for the player (Fig. 24b, ¶ 40, 69, 73, 86, 88, 154-155, 157, 171-173); implementing the avatar modification to alter the first avatar of the player (¶ 177 – “This information may be used to generate inputs to the game system engine via the game system API of the spectating system that positively affect or reward the player's avatar or character within the game, for example by boosting player health, providing supplies, providing points, or in various other ways. In some embodiments, teams of players corresponding to broadcasters may be identified, and the teams may be affected by inputs to the game system engine based on the analysis of spectator audio and/or text chat inputs 465 for broadcaster(s) that are on the team.”, ¶ 178 – “In some embodiments, the analysis information 427 indicating channels or broadcasts of interest may be used to generate inputs to the game system engine via the game system API of the spectating system rewarding the respective broadcasters, fore example by providing boosts, gear, or other in-game benefits to the broadcasters' in-game characters or avatars”, ¶ 179-184, 191).
Leung teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the modification including generating a second avatar for the player; and replacing the first avatar of the player with the second avatar of the player. Leung at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Dorn teaches analyzing comments to determine content of the comments during the session; using the determined content of the comments to generate a second avatar for the player; and replacing the first avatar of the player with the second avatar (¶ 3-4, 7, 23, 48, 86-88, 92, 109, 114, Fig. 5c). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modification of Leung with the replacement means of Dorn because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of implementing a selected avatar modification to alter the avatar of the player in which at least Leung is intended (see above). Such a modification allows for modification reduces abusive activity in the video game; thereby, making sure that the player experiences a satisfying and pleasant game play experience (Dorn - ¶ 1, 5).
Lueng in view of Dorn teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting determining relative importances of the keywords within the comments during the session and generating an input for an artificial intelligence model, wherein generating the input comprises selecting and ordering the keywords based on the relative importances. Leung at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 51, 403) and teaches determining keywords within the comments during the session to determined/identify/detect corresponding events (see above, ¶ 171-174). Furthermore, an analogous art of Shukla teaches a similarly structured computer-implemented method including determining keywords and relative importances of the keywords within comments (text), and generating an input for an artificial intelligence model (support vector machine model (SVM) and/or Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) model), wherein generating the input comprises selecting and ordering the keywords based on the relative importances to determine an event (theme/topic)(Abstract, ¶ 18, 34, 36-37, 68, 73-78, tables 1-4, the artificial intelligence model uses weights to select and order extracted keywords based on the relative importances to determine an event (theme/topic)). 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 determining and input generating means of Leung in view of Dorn with the determining keywords and relative importances and generating input means of Shukla because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of using keywords in comments to effectively detect/identify events in which at least Leung is intended (see above, ¶ 171-174). Such a modification provides an overall method to effectively gather and analyze intelligence within comments/text for identifying events (Shukla – see above, ¶ 4, 14, 66).
Claim 17: Lueng teaches generating an avatar modification comprises generating a plurality of recommended avatar modifications for the player using the input, wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: receiving a selection of one of the plurality of recommended avatar modifications based on results of a voting interface rendered for the plurality of spectator devices; and implementing the avatar modification based on the selection (¶ 75, 90, 116, 190, 282, 322 – “spectator participations in broadcasts that are used to determine randomizing 1992 and/or parametric 1994 game inputs to the game engine 1922 may include spectator interactions 164 with broadcast content 126 presented via the spectating UI 116 on the spectator devices 160. For example, the broadcast content 126 may include one or more UI elements that allow the spectating community to specify, select, or vote on game elements or events such as what type and how many enemies will appear at a level, what type of weapons or other gear players are given, difficulty levels, and so on.”, ¶ 334, 336, 357).
Claim 18: Lueng in view of Dorn in view of Shukla teaches wherein replacing the first avatar with the second avatar during the session (Lueng - ¶ 55, 73-74, 127, 154, 368, Dorn regarding replacing of the avatar).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung (US 2017/0001122) in view of Dorn (US 2022/0096937) in view of Shukla (US 2017/0056764), and in further view of Payzer (US 2019/0111343).
Claim 19: Leung in view of Dorn in view of Shukla teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein implementing the avatar modification occurs during a break point in the gameplay. Leung at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 51, 403). Furthermore, an analogous art of Payzer teaches that spectator influence or modification within the game occurs during a break point in gameplay (¶ 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the spectator driven avatar modification of Leung in view of Dorn in view of Shukla such that is implemented during a break point in gameplay as taught by Payzer because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of implementing a spectator modification during a point in gameplay in which at least Leung is intended (see above). Such a modification allows spectators to interact with the viewed game (Payzer - ¶ 2, 9, 13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 12-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner replies upon the addition of Shukla (US 2017/0056764) to teach the newly added amendments of at least independent claims 1, 9, and 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights