DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final communication is in response to Application No. 18/816,439 filed 8/27/224 which is a continuation of Application No. 17/517,875 (now U.S. Patent 12,070,696) and claims priority from Provisional Application 63/111,528 filed 11/9/2020. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-21 have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,070,696. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 are a broadening of the scope of claim 9 of the Patent which includes the recording of activities of an interactive content title, loading/launching the selected/requested activities that are presented, and generating the combined gameplay view as in the instant 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gary (US 2016/0151713 A1), and further in view of Leung et al. (US 2017/0001122 A1, from IDS submitted 11/19/2024, hereinafter “Leung”).
Regarding claim 1, Gary teaches a method of generating playback content of gameplay activities, the method comprising:
recording media content depicting one or more in-game activities associated with gameplay of one or more interactive content titles, wherein the recorded media content is associated with gameplay data. More specifically, information about a second user’s in-game activity/achievement, and even video of the achievement, could be recorded for transmission to a first user (Gary, [0008], [0029]).
receiving input from a first user account via a graphical user interface requesting a replayable activity corresponding to one of the in-game activities of an identified one of the interactive content titles, and launching the identified interactive content title at a user device associated with the first user account based on the recorded media content and the associated gameplay data for the in-game activity that corresponds to the requested replayable activity. More specifically, a popup message is displayed in a graphical user interface of the first user to inform them that a second user just met or exceeded some goal in a video game (Gary, [0022]). The message can include a link, software button, or other selectable element such that the first user, if on a compatible game console, can click the button and immediately start playing the game in the same challenge area, checkpoint, level, mission, room, scenario, scene, or other portion or specified point in which the second user achieved the goal (Gary, [0022]).
However, Gary may not explicitly teach every aspect of
generating a combined gameplay view of the replayable activity at the user device, wherein the combined gameplay view includes a first gameplay view associated with gameplay of the in-game activity by the first user account combined with a second gameplay view associated with the replayable activity synchronously in real time.
Lueng discloses a spectating system that exposes an application programming interface (API) to game systems (Leung, abstract). Second user inputs to a game may be stored as part of a game record with one or more game states and other game information to form a record of a particular game session that may, for example, be sent to first users including but not limited to spectators. A game record including second user inputs may be replayed, and in some embodiments a first user of a replay may “step into” the replay as described later in this document (Lueng, [0063]). The game record that is presented to a first user may be a portion of the game and starting at a specific point in the game session timeline (Lueng, [0071]). In ghosting mode, a first user may jump into a replay of a previously recorded game session of a second user, via the spectating system interface. The second user's character/gear (e.g., racecar) may still be visible as a “ghost” to the first user. Thus, the first user may compare their performance to that of the second user by viewing the second user's “ghost” during replay (Lueng, [0072], [0237]). Notifications regarding achievements of players can be received (Lueng, [0296], [0301]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Gary and Leung that a method for generating playback content of gameplay activities for a first user where playback is recorded of a second user’s previous gameplay would include generating a combined gameplay view that includes game play of a first user synchronized with previously recorded gameplay of a second user. With Gary and Leung disclosing recording gameplay activities of second users so that first users may view and participate in the gameplay, with Gary disclosing the input and launching of a gameplay activity, and with Leung additionally disclosing that gameplay includes generating a combined gameplay view that includes game play of a first user synchronized with previously recorded gameplay of a second user, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for generating playback content of gameplay activities for a first user where playback is recorded of a second user’s previous gameplay would include generating a combined gameplay view that includes game play of a first user synchronized with previously recorded gameplay of a second user in order to include a fun way of comparing one’s own performance to that of other users for training/learning particular strategies to achieve similar goals (Leung, [0072], [0237]). One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for generating playback content of gameplay activities for a first user where playback is recorded of a second user’s previous gameplay.
Regarding claim 2, Gary and Leung teach the method of claim 1, wherein launching the identified interactive content title at the user device for the replayable activity is further based on a selected invite. More specifically, Figures 1A and 1B depict a message pop-up that invites a first user to launch a particular in-game activity (Gary, [0036]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 3, Gary and Leung teach the method of claim 2, further comprising triggering the invite when the first user account is identified as reaching a checkpoint of the identified interactive content title. More specifically, the method is characterized as challenging another person to a portion of a video game which includes receiving an indicator that a second person playing an instance of a video game has met or exceeded a predetermined goal (checkpoint) in a portion of the video game and sending a message to a device associated with the first person, the message indicating that the second person has met or exceeded the predetermined goal (Gary, [0009], [0022], [0033], [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Gary and Leung teach the method of claim 2, further comprising triggering the invite when a second user account associated with the second gameplay view creates a challenge. More specifically, Figures 5A and 5B illustrates screens upon which a second user can set up custom predetermined goals for his or her friends and Figure 6 describes the process of triggering the invite when a goal is met (Gary, [0044]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 5, Gary and Leung teach the method of claim 2, further comprising determining a ranking for the first user account based on the in-game activity of the replayable activity, and triggering the invite based on a change in the ranking. More specifically, achieving a high score or level, construed as change in a top rank, triggers the message/notification/invite (Gary, [0025], [0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Gary and Leung teach the method of claim 1, further comprising generating an overlay, wherein the combined gameplay view includes the overlay. More specifically, in ghosting mode, the second user's character/gear (e.g., racecar) may still be visible as a “ghost” to the first user (construed as overlaid). Thus, the first user may compare their performance to that of the second user by viewing the second user's “ghost” during replay (Lueng, [0072], [0237]).
Regarding claim 7, Gary and Leung teach the method of claim 6, wherein the overlay displays completion information regarding the replayable activity in accordance with the gameplay data. More specifically, the ghost provides information on how the second user completed the activity (Lueng, [0072], [0237]).
Regarding claim 8, Gary and Leung teach the method of claim 6, wherein the overlay includes a ghost view of a second user account associated with the second gameplay view. More specifically, in ghosting mode, the second user's character/gear (e.g., racecar) may still be visible as a “ghost” to the first user (construed as overlaid). Thus, the first user may compare their performance to that of the second user by viewing the second user's “ghost” during replay (Lueng, [0072], [0237]).
Regarding claims 11-18, these claims recite the system that performs the method of claims 1-8, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 21, this claim recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium having embodied thereon a program that performs the method of claim 10, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gary and Leung, and further in view of Hain et al. (US 9,950,264 A1, hereinafter “Hain”).
Regarding claim 9, Gary and Leung teach the method of claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein the combined view includes a playback display of controller inputs associated with the first user account and received during the replayable activity.
Hain discloses recording, playback and usage of enhanced walkthroughs, such as for use with video games. Preferred embodiments of the present invention provide multimedia walkthrough content in conjunction with visual representation of control utilization during playback of a video game (Hain, abstract). Figure 7 depicts a user interface where a user plays a game 700 with overlays 701 and 702 that depict the recorded playback and controller inputs as they occur within the recorded playback (Hain, col 4, lines 41-51, Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Gary and Leung with Hain that a method for generating playback content of gameplay activities for a first user where playback is recorded of a second user’s previous gameplay would include generating a combined gameplay view that includes game play of a first user synchronized with previously recorded gameplay of a second user and the combined view includes a playback display of controller inputs associated with the first user account and received during the replayable activity. With Gary, Leung, and Hain disclosing recording gameplay activities of second users so that first users may view and participate in the gameplay, with Gary disclosing the input and launching of a gameplay activity, with Leung and Hain additionally disclosing that gameplay includes generating a combined gameplay view that includes game play of a first user synchronized with previously recorded gameplay of a second user, and with Hain additionally disclosing that the combined view includes a playback display of controller inputs associated with the first user account and received during the game play, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for generating playback content of gameplay activities for a first user where playback is recorded of a second user’s previous gameplay would include generating a combined gameplay view that includes game play of a first user synchronized with previously recorded gameplay of a second user and the combined view includes a playback display of controller inputs associated with the first user account and received during the replayable activity in order to include a fun way of comparing one’s own performance to that of other users for training/learning particular strategies to achieve similar goals (Leung, [0072], [0237]; Hain, col 12, lines 28-30). One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for generating playback content of gameplay activities for a first user where playback is recorded of a second user’s previous gameplay.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites the system that performs the method of claim 9, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gary and Leung, and further in view of Moncrief et al. (US 5,577,913 A, hereinafter “Moncrief”).
Regarding claim 10, Gary and Leung teach the method of claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of further comprising determining a score based on the gameplay data of the replayable activity associated with the first user account, wherein the score is displayed as an overlay in the combined gameplay view.
Moncrief discloses a combined gameplay view that shows a recording of a gameplay of a replayable activity (Moncrief, abstract, col 3, lines 23-32; at least Figures 3, 4, and 10). The views of at least Figures, 3, 4, and 10, which depicts a ghost/lap/drone/last driver’s car that represents a recording of another user’s best score/lap in a racing game for a particular race/track, is combined with an in-dash overlay view of at least Figures 3 and 4 (Moncrief, col 9 line 56 – col 12, line 25). The in-dash view includes the first user’s score (Moncrief, col 6, lines 33-52), therefore, the view combining the overlay in-dash view and the view of a second user’s car includes the score.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Gary and Leung with Moncrief that a method for generating playback content of gameplay activities for a first user where playback is recorded of a second user’s previous gameplay would include generating a combined gameplay view that includes game play of a first user synchronized with previously recorded gameplay of a second user and further comprising determining a score based on the gameplay data of the replayable activity associated with the first user account, wherein the score is displayed as an overlay in the combined gameplay view. With Gary, Leung, and Hain disclosing recording gameplay activities of second users so that first users may view and participate in the gameplay, with Gary disclosing the input and launching of a gameplay activity, with Leung and Hain additionally disclosing that gameplay includes generating a combined gameplay view that includes game play of a first user synchronized with previously recorded gameplay of a second user, and with Hain additionally disclosing that the combined view includes a playback display of controller inputs associated with the first user account and received during the game play, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for generating playback content of gameplay activities for a first user where playback is recorded of a second user’s previous gameplay would include generating a combined gameplay view that includes game play of a first user synchronized with previously recorded gameplay of a second user and further comprising determining a score based on the gameplay data of the replayable activity associated with the first user account, wherein the score is displayed as an overlay in the combined gameplay view in order to include a fun way of comparing one’s own performance to that of other users for training/learning particular strategies to achieve better scores (Leung, [0072], [0237]; Moncrief, col 2, lines 27-40; col 5, lines 26-32). One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for generating playback content of gameplay activities for a first user where playback is recorded of a second user’s previous gameplay.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites the system that performs the method of claim 10, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Trombetta (US 2020/0097147 A1) and Trombetta (US 2020/0086217 A1) – playing activities within interactive content titles.
Hall (US 2009/0176557 A1) – notifications when game leaderboards change with a selection to launch the games.
Chimes (US 2021/0228984 A1) – replay of a particular activity within a game recording.
Brunstetter (US 9,526,995 B2) – playing and replay of a particular recorded activity within a game that includes replaying controller inputs.
Smith (US 10,293,258 B2) – playback of recorded games as ghost data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F RIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm, ET.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/PATRICK F RIEGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights