Detailed Action
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 have been cancelled, and new claims 21-25 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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. If this application names joint inventors, 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 12, 14 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decrop et al (US 11,297,383 B1) in view of Bright et al (US 8,591,332 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Decrop discloses a method for automatically generating filler content for a video game (Abstract) comprising accessing a first video output corresponding to a first collection of data (206), accessing a second video output corresponding to the second collection of data (210), and executing an artificial intelligence (AI) system to automatically generate filler content that fills a content gap between the first output and the second output (col. 7 lines 60 - 67), the AI system configured to use the first collection of data and the second collection of data as inputs for generation of the filler content (214). Bright suggests—where Decrop does not disclose—wherein the first and second data video outputs are game outputs corresponding to game play state data (col. 5 lines 20-38). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Decrop and Bright in order to allow for the creation of personalized gaming highlight videos (See Bright col. 1 lines 25-40)..
Regarding claims 2, 22 and 25, Decrop discloses wherein the first video game output includes a first video clip and wherein the second video game output includes a second video clip (col. 3 lines 5-20), and wherein the video game filler content includes a filler video clip that extends from the first video clip to the second video clip (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Decrop discloses wherein the AI system is configured to generate the filler video clip independently of a game engine of the video game (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Decrop discloses wherein the first video output includes a first audio clip and wherein the second video output includes a second audio clip (col. 3 lines 5-20), and wherein the filler content includes a filler audio clip that extends from the first audio clip to the second audio clip, the filler audio clip temporally and contextually correlated with the filler video clip (214). Bright suggests—where Decrop does not disclose—wherein the first and second data video outputs are game outputs corresponding to game play state data (col. 5 lines 20-38). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Decrop and Bright in order to allow for the creation of personalized gaming highlight videos (See Bright col. 1 lines 25-40).
Regarding claim 8, Decrop discloses wherein the AI system is configured to generate the filler audio clip independently of a game engine of the video game (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Decrop discloses wherein the first video output includes a first audio clip and wherein the second video output includes a second audio clip (col. 3 lines 5-20), and wherein the video filler content includes a filler audio clip extending from the first audio clip to the second audio clip (214). Bright suggests—where Decrop does not disclose—wherein the first and second data video outputs are game outputs corresponding to game play state data (col. 5 lines 20-38). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Decrop and Bright in order to allow for the creation of personalized gaming highlight videos (See Bright col. 1 lines 25-40).
Regarding claim 14, Decrop discloses inserting the video filler content between the first video output and the second video output to create an enhanced video output, and conveying the enhanced video game output to the player of the video game (Fig. 2). Bright suggests—where Decrop does not disclose—wherein the first and second data video outputs are game outputs corresponding to game play state data (col. 5 lines 20-38). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Decrop and Bright in order to allow for the creation of personalized gaming highlight videos (See Bright col. 1 lines 25-40).
Clams 21 and 24 recite a system and computer-readable medium, respectively, which subsume the features of claim 1 above and are accordingly rejected for the same reasons given supra. Further regarding claims 21 and 24, Decrop discloses a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations (Fig. 5) and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations (Fig. 5).
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9-11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Garit et al (US 20240307791 A1) discloses regamification data facilitating content creation.
Sedouram et al (US 20240176820 A1) discloses interactive summarization of third party content.
Seth et al (US 11423945 B1) discloses real-time video collaboration.
Shen et al (US 20210117691 A1) discloses video game event summarization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. 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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights