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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nay (US 20200108316).
In claims 1, 7, and 8 Nay discloses
A game system comprising a computer that is connected via a network to an advertisement distribution system that distributes an advertisement to at least one advertisement display device that displays the advertisement to a plurality of users and provides each player with a game that progresses on a series of game screens through an input device that inputs a play action of each player and a display device that displays the series of game screens according to a play situation generated according to the play action (The streamers are the “players”, their input and display device would be shown in figure 1 #104 streamer’s computing system, which has an input as shown in figure 5 #512, the viewers are the “users”, and their advertisement display devices would be figure 1 #112.)
A screen discrimination unit that discriminates a specific game screen that satisfies a predetermined condition among the series of game screens displayed on the display device in play by each player of the game A data generation unit that generates display data for displaying the specific game screen (figure 2A would show the specific game screen, paragraph 35 discloses “an automated analysis of the scene displayed within the screen”, paragraph 36 discloses “a machine learning model may have been trained to detect a particular in game action such as a character killing an enemy in the game or a character being restored to full health from the video output of the display”. )
A data transmission unit that transmits the display data to the advertisement distribution system such that a game advertisement including the specific game screen as an advertisement material is distributed as the advertisement to the plurality of users via the advertisement display device (figure 2B “brought to you by FROG SODA” is inserted into the screen. Paragraph 36 discloses the advertisement material being distributed in response to health boosts. ), different from the display device (paragraph 34 discloses that figure 2A “the streamer’s computing system 104 may receive this video output for further post processing before uploading modified streaming video to a streaming platform”. Thus figure 2A is displayed upon the streamer’s computing system as per figure 1A #104, whereas figure 2B would be displayed upon the viewing user’s devices #112)
In claim 2, Nay discloses a plurality of the advertisement display devices respectively used by the plurality of users, the data transmission unit transmits the display data to the advertisement distribution system such that the game advertisement is distributed to the plurality of users via the plurality of advertisement display devices (figure 1 #112, this is being streamed to a plurality of viewers)
In claim 3, Nay discloses the computer serves as a permission opportunity provision unit which provides a provider as a player who has provided the specific game screen as the advertisement material with a permission opportunity for permitting use of the specific game screen as the advertisement material so that distribution of the game advertisement is limited to a case where the distribution is permitted by the provider (paragraph 28 discloses configurable settings by the user including an explicit selection by the user)
In claim 4, Nay discloses a designation instruction for designating the specific game screen among the series of game screens is input to the input device, at least an instruction result by the designation instruction is used as the predetermined condition, and the screen discrimination unit discriminates the game screen designated by each player in the designation instruction as the specific game screen (paragraph 28)
In claim 5, Nay discloses the computer serves as an advertisement information acquisition unit which is connected via a network to a server device that stores advertisement information including information of a condition necessary for discriminating the specific game screen, and acquires the advertisement information from the server device and wherein the information of the condition included in the advertisement information is used as the predetermined condition and the screen discrimination unit discriminates a game screen satisfying the condition as the specific game screen based on the information of the condition included in the advertisement information (36 discloses the FROG SODA advertisement material being distributed in response to health boosts)
In claim 6, Nay discloses the computer serves as an edit opportunity provision unit which provides each player with an edit opportunity for executing editing for at least one of the specific game screen or the game advertisement (paragraph 43)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “on the game screen shown in figure 2B, “frog soda” is purely advertisement content (advertisement material), the part of the game screen shown in figure 2A is not advertisement content (advertisement material)”. Figure 2B shows Frog Soda within the specific game screen of figure 2A.
Applicant further argues that “The advertisement distribution system according to various embodiments, using ‘the specific game screen’, the game corresponding ‘the specific game screen’ is advertised. Therefore the target for advertising is diametrically opposed between Nay and the present invention.” Applicant appears to be arguing the intended interpretation of content by an end user, by arguing whether or not a particular screen is an “advertisement”, and what the game screen is an advertisement for. These limitations do not appear to be within the claims, and even if they were, then a consideration would need to be made as to whether the printed matter is functional or non functional as per MPEP 2111.05. However, even if applicant’s limitations were within the claims, and were functional descriptive material, as best understood by Examiner, applicant is simply arguing that the unmodified Figure 2A reads upon the advertisement of the instant application.
Applicant argues that “the amended claims clarify this difference between the display device and the advertisement display device. Nay is simply a system that adds advertisement content to the game screen. So in Nay, the display device that displays the game screen in figure 2A itself becomes an advertisement display device which displays the game screen shown in figure 2B”. This is incorrect. As described above, figure 2A is displayed on the streamer’s computing system as per figure 1A #104, and figure 2B is displayed on the viewing user’s devices #112.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights