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 .
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-25 of the instant application rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-2 and 13-14 of the instant application rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12159460 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below:
Instant Application
US 12159460 B2
1. A computer-implemented method for generating customized summary of virtual actions and events, the computer-implemented method comprising:
tracking gaze data via a camera associated with a client device during a current interactive session to identify a point of focus within a stream of a three-dimensional virtual environment of a respective interactive content title towards which one or both eyes of a player are focused;
identifying a period of distraction during which the point of focus is determined not to be focused within the three-dimensional virtual environment, wherein a set of events occurred within the three-dimensional virtual environment during the period of distraction;
selecting a subset of events from among the set of events that occurred within the three-dimensional virtual environment during the period of distraction, wherein each of the events in the selected subset is associated with a portion of the stream; and
generating customized content for the client device in accordance with the gaze data, wherein generating the customized content is based on one or more portions of the stream associated with the selected subset of events.
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a customized summary of virtual actions and events, the computer-implemented method comprising:
storing one or more sets of object data associated with historical gameplay data in memory; assigning one or more customized tags to the one or more sets of object data, each of the customized tags regarding a plurality of events that meet a threshold of significance in an identified storyline in gameplay by a player of a respective interactive content title, wherein the threshold is compared to one or more scores of the events as scored in accordance with a point system; monitoring gameplay data sent over a communication network from a client device of the player engaged in a current activity of the respective interactive content title within a current gameplay session; detecting a trigger in the monitored gameplay data, wherein the trigger is associated with a request for a summary that encapsulates actions and events of past gameplay associated with the trigger; selecting a subset of the actions and events of the past gameplay for the summary based on one or more selected customized tags associated with the trigger and scores assigned to the subset of actions and events in accordance with the point system; and generating the summary based on selected subset of the actions and events, wherein the generated summary is provided to the client device for presentation within a virtual environment associated with the interactive content title.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
tracking gaze data via a camera associated with the client device during the current gameplay session to identify a point of focus within a three-dimensional virtual environment of the respective interactive content title towards which one or both eyes of the player are focused; and
identifying that the point of focus indicated by the gaze data is not focused within the three-dimensional virtual environment during a period of distraction,
wherein the trigger is based on the point of focus not being focused within the three-dimensional virtual environment for more than threshold limit, and wherein the selected subset includes activities and events associated with the identified period of distraction.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, claims 1-2 of US 12159460 B2 recites all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application as shown by the underlined portions above. The same reasoning applies to claim 13 which limitations are recited in claims 13-14 of the patent. Therefore claims 1 and 13 rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, the additional limitations are recited in claims 1-2 and 13-14 of the patent, respectively.
Claims 3 and 15 of the instant application rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12159460 B2 in view of US 20220167068 A1 to Zavesky et al. (“Zavesky”).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the additional limitations of claim 3 are not recited in claim 2 of the patent, but are disclosed by Zavesky as explained in the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 3 below.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement the method of claim 2 of the patent, wherein the threshold of significance is met by one of the events when the event is determined to have adjusted a storyline of the interactive content title, as taught by Zavesky, to reorient the user to the current scene or character or action in a game or immersive experience (Zavesky: Par. [0084]). The same reasoning applies to the system of claim 15.
Claims 4, 10-11, 16 and 22-23 of the instant application rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12159460 B2 in view of US 20090011831 A1 to Yamada.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the additional limitations of claim 4 are not recited in the patent, but are disclosed by Yamada as explained in the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 4 below.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement the method of claim 2 of the patent in view of a flashback sequence including a user-specific narrative of Yamada for the purpose of shifting hues and transparency to allow the user to determine the difference in past play and current play in an easy-to-understand manner (Yamada, par. [0162]-[0163]). The same reasoning applies to the system of claim 16.
Regarding claims 10 and 22, the additional limitations of claim 10 are not recited in claims 1-2 of the patent, but are disclosed by Yamada as explained in the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 10 below.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement the method of claim 2 of the patent, wherein the customized content includes an overlay that superimposes a ghost version of a previous interactive session over a display of the current interactive session, as taught by Yamada, for the purpose of determining whether or not performance improves during play (Yamada, paragraph 159). (Yamada, par. [0159]). The same reasoning applies to the system of claim 22.
Regarding claims 11 and 23, the additional limitations of claim 11 are not recited in claims 1-2 of the patent, but are disclosed by Yamada as explained in the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 11 below.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement the method of claim 2 of the patent, wherein generating the customized content includes restoring a status or setting from a previous interactive session of a user of the client device, as taught by Yamada, for the purpose of enabling the player to easily grasp his/her current status in comparison to his/her past self (Yamada, par. [0015]). The same reasoning applies to the system of claim 23.
Claims 5-6 and 17-18 of the instant application rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12159460 B2 in view of Yamada, further in view of US 9308445 B1 to Merzenich et al. (“Merzenich”).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the additional limitations of claim 5 are not recited in the patent, but are disclosed by Merzenich as explained in the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 5 below.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement the method of claim 2 of the patent by tracking combos that have been input by the user to implement one of the actions within the virtual environment, as taught by Merzenich to provide cognitive training games that improves executive function, attention, and working memory (Merzenich: col. 56 ln. 44-55). The same reasoning applies to the system of claim 17.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the additional limitations of claim 6 are not recited in the patent, but are disclosed by Merzenich as explained in the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 6 below.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement the method of claim 2 of the patent, wherein the customized content is presented during a testing period, wherein the customized content includes data regarding on previously played combos associated with the respective event, as taught by Merzenich to provide cognitive training games that improves executive function, attention, and working memory (Merzenich: col. 56 ln. 44-55). The same reasoning applies to the system of claim 18.
Claims 7-8 and 19-20 of the instant application rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12159460 B2 in view of Merzenich, further in view of US 9950251 B1 to Lewis et al., (“Lewis”).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the additional limitations of claim 7 are not recited in claims 1-2 of the patent, but are disclosed by Merzenich and Lewis as explained in the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 7 below.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement the method of claim 2 of the patent by storing one or more captured media clips associated with the customized tags, as taught by Merzenich, and deleting one or more other captured media clips that are not associated with the customized tags, as taught by Lewis, for eliminating or deleting media clips for the purpose of indicating which portions of gameplay video to include in the compilation reel (Lewis, col. 21 ln. 58-67). The same reasoning applies to the system of claim 19.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the additional limitations of claim 8 are not recited in claims 1-2 of the patent, but are disclosed by Merzenich as explained in the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 8 below.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement the method of claim 2 of the patent, wherein the customized content includes a highlight reel based on the stored captured media clips, as taught by Merzenich, to provide a game that strengthens the link between different systems of affect processing by associating an emotion with a written emotion tag (Merzenich: col. 73 ln. 10-18). The same reasoning applies to the system of claim 20.
Claims 9 and 21 of the instant application rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12159460 B2 in view of US 12099654 B1 to Mulliken et al. (“Mulliken”).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, the additional limitations of claim 9 are not recited in claims 1-2 of the patent, but are disclosed by Mulliken as explained in the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 9 below.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement the method of claim 2 of the patent, wherein the customized content includes generated virtual effects indicators correlated with directional sounds during the period of distraction, as taught by Mulliken, to redirect the user's attention towards the relevant areas of the content presentation (Mulliken: col. 9 ln. 33-55). The same reasoning applies to the system of claim 21.
Claims 12 and 24 of the instant application rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12159460 B2 in view of US 10741215 B1 to Sundareson et al. (“Sundareson”).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, claim 2 of the patent recites wherein selecting the subset of events is responsive to the detected trigger, but does not recite all the limitations of claim 12. The additional limitations are disclosed by Sundareson as explained in the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 12 below.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement the method of claim 2 of the patent, wherein detecting the trigger is based on the player not moving for a period of time that passes a threshold limit, as taught by Sundareson, to determine levels of low interest or distraction based on user inputs such as mouse, gamepad, joystick or the like (Sundareson: col. 5 ln. 21-40). The same reasoning applies to the system of claim 24.
Claim 25 of the instant application rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12159460 B2 in view of Merzenich
Regarding claim 25, the method of claims 1-2 of the patent recites all the limitations of claim 25 except for: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program executable by one or more processors to perform the method.
In analogous art, Merzenich discloses a computer system comprising memory and processors for executing instructions for performing the corresponding method (Merzenich: col. 26 ln. 36-48; col. 19 ln. 46-49).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize that the computer implemented method of claim 2 of the patent could be implemented using components such as software, memory and processors, such as taught by Merzenich, because that is the generally understood meaning of a computer-implemented method.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 13 and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9308445 B1 to Merzenich et al., (hereinafter “Merzenich”) in view of 20140184550 A1 to Hennessey et al., (“Hennessey”).
Consider claim 1, Merzenich discloses a computer-implemented method for generating customized summary of virtual actions and events (col. 46 ln. 33-46: “The training program 110 also includes a set of assessment tools 111 that provide a basis for evaluating key default-system components in any participant”).
Merzenich fails to explicitly disclose the computer-implemented method comprising:
tracking gaze data via a camera associated with a client device during a current interactive session to identify a point of focus within a stream of a three-dimensional virtual environment of a respective interactive content title towards which one or both eyes of a player are focused.
In analogous art Hennessey discloses tracking gaze data via a camera associated with a client device during a current interactive session to identify a point of focus within a stream of a three-dimensional virtual environment of a respective interactive content title towards which one or both eyes of a player are focused (Par. [0058] and Fig 2-3: “The gaze tracking module 22 in this example includes an imaging device 30 for tracking the motion of the eyes of the subject 12”; Par. [0144]: “Gaze visualization methods for this mode could include: a 3D heatmap in the gaze environment; lines of sight starting from the in-game character avatar or the camera position, and intersecting with the game environment where the player is looking”; Par. [0163]-[0164]: “A scene 702 being observed by a user may be a real world scene or a 2D or 3D display”).
identifying a period of distraction during which the point of focus is determined not to be focused within the three-dimensional virtual environment, wherein a set of events occurred within the three-dimensional virtual environment during the period of distraction (Par. [0146]-[0147]: “adding in game reminders to look at specific element like maps or resources if no gaze is detected there in a long time; adding a tutorial that uses the gaze to know if the player understands/does what he is supposed to; and training people to pay attention to certain in game, e.g., by notifying the person if they do not look when they should”);
selecting a subset of events from among the set of events that occurred within the three-dimensional virtual environment during the period of distraction, wherein each of the events in the selected subset is associated with a portion of the stream (Par. [0146]-[0147]: “adding in game reminders to look at specific element like maps or resources if no gaze is detected there in a long time; adding a tutorial that uses the gaze to know if the player understands/does what he is supposed to; and training people to pay attention to certain in game, e.g., by notifying the person if they do not look when they should”); and
generating customized content for the client device in accordance with the gaze data, wherein generating the customized content is based on one or more portions of the stream associated with the selected subset of events (Par. [0146]-[0147]: “adding in game reminders to look at specific element like maps or resources if no gaze is detected there in a long time; adding a tutorial that uses the gaze to know if the player understands/does what he is supposed to; and training people to pay attention to certain in game, e.g., by notifying the person if they do not look when they should”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify modified Merzenich in view of the gaze correlation teaching of Hennessey for the purpose of adding in game reminders to look at specific elements (Hennessey, par. [0146]).
Consider claim 13, the system is rejected based on the same rationale as the method of claim 1 and because modified Merzenich further teaches a communication interface that communicates with a client device over a communication network, (Merzenich: col. 27 ln. 8-20: “The computer network allows information such as test scores, game statistics, and other subject information to flow from a subject's computer to a server. An administrator can review the information and can then download configuration and control information pertaining to a particular subject, back to the subject's computer.”) wherein the communication interface receives gaze data captured via a camera associated with the client device (Hennessey: figs. 3 and 11 and par. [0146]-[0047]: adding in game reminders to look at specific element like maps or resources if no gaze is detected there in a long time; par. [0156]: “The gaze information could be sent to the server”) memory that tracks the received gaze data; and one or more processors that execute instructions stored in memory (Hennessey: par. [0077]: “Gaze information, input/interaction information, and information about the environment 14 may be provided to a content analysis module 100”).
The motivation to combine references is the same as regarding claim 1.
Consider claim 25, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is rejected based on the same rationale as the method of claim 1 and because modified Merzenich further teaches a computer system comprising processors for executing instructions for performing the corresponding method (Merzenich: col. 26 ln. 36-48: A typical computer system (not shown) for use with the present invention will contain a computer, having a CPU, 45 memory, hard disk, and various input and output devices; col. 19 ln. 46-49: the game manager is embodied in a computer configured to execute a program of instructions).
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich in view of Hennessey, further in view of US 20220167068 A1 to Zavesky et al. (“Zavesky”).
Consider claim 2, modified Merzenich discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Hennessey further teaches assigning one or more customized tags to one or more portions of the stream associated with the period of distraction (Par. [0143]: “Statistics can also be computed based on gaze information. For example, as shown in FIG. 36, a looks per minute (LPM) value 410 can be displayed to indicate the number of times the viewer is looking at a particular object, per period of time”). Hennessey dose not explicitly disclose the assigning based on the associated events meeting a threshold of significance in an identified storyline of the interactive content title, wherein selecting the subset of event is based on the customized tags.
In analogous art, Zavesky discloses determining the associated events meeting a threshold of significance in an identified storyline of the interactive content title (Par. [0043]: “the system and method may retrieve from storage information that the viewer was distracted during presentation of a key portion of the plot or storyline during an earlier episode. To enhance the viewer's enjoyment, the system and method may suspend playback and give the viewer options to replay some or all of the key portion of the plot or storyline”; Par. [0048]: “For example, if the system detects the viewer has been distracted for a time duration, the system may select a summary segment including the last important plot development or information segment, and related material, and provide the summary segment to the viewer at a less-distracted context”; Par. [0049]: “For example, in an e-sports environment, a gamer may need to leave mid-game. Upon rejoining the game, the system and method may provide a summary segment that shows exciting points of the game”).
Therefore the combination of Hennessey and Zavesky discloses wherein selecting the subset of event is based on the customized tags (Hennessey: (Par. [0146]-[0147]: “adding in game reminders to look at specific element like maps or resources if no gaze is detected there in a long time. Zavesky: Par. [0043]: “information that the viewer was distracted during presentation of a key portion of the plot or storyline”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the teachings of modified Merzenich in view of above teachings of Zavesky to reorient the user to the current scene or character or action in a game or immersive experience (Zavesky: Par. [0084]).
Consider claim 3, modified Merzenich discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, and Zavesky further teaches wherein the threshold of significance is met by one of the events when the event is determined to have adjusted a storyline of the interactive content title (Par. [0048]: “For example, if the system detects the viewer has been distracted for a time duration, the system may select a summary segment including the last important plot development or information segment, and related material, and provide the summary segment to the viewer at a less-distracted context”; Par. [0049]: “The gaming environment includes features such as screen realm and story arc” Par. [0090]: “A second factor for scoring a summary segment is on a character or a story line. The recap planning system 270 operates to determine information such as the influence of a character or plot line in the user's current context. Based on that, the recap planning system 270 determines how much of each episode or other information needs to be reviewed in a summary segment”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the teachings of modified Merzenich in view of above teachings of Zavesky to reorient the user to the current scene or character or action in a game or immersive experience (Zavesky: Par. [0084]).
Consider claims 14-15, the system is rejected along the same rationale as the method of claims 2-3, respectively.
Claims 4-6, 10-11, 16-18 and 22-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich in view of Hennessey, further in view of US 20090011831 A1 to Yamada.
Consider claim 4, modified Merzenich discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but fails to disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
In analogous art, Yamada discloses wherein the customized content includes a custom flashback sequence regarding a storyline specific to a user of the client device (Abstract: game device for showing a past operation history; par. [0155]: the performance of the user's character and the performance of the ghost in the current mission are compared; par. [0153]: During the period the user's character and the ghost do not overlap of the present diagram, the ghost 711 is displayed transparently on the screen 701 such that the background is seen therethrough), and wherein the customized content further includes a display regarding one or more combos or cheat codes input by the user during one of the events in the selected subset (par. [0162]: “For example, in a case where the ghost is faster than the user's character, the difference obtained when the speed of the user's character is simply subtracted from the speed of the ghost is positive, while in a case where the user's character is slower than the ghost, the difference is negative. Here, for example, the hue is shifted in the red direction in a case where the difference is a positive value, and the hue is shifted in the blue direction in a case where the difference is a negative value. Also in this case, the ghost is displayed semi-transparently.” Note, therefore the displayed sequence of character actions reads on a combo).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the teachings of modified Merzenich in view of a flashback sequence including a user-specific narrative of Yamada for the purpose of shifting hues and transparency to allow the user to determine the difference in past play and current play in an easy-to-understand manner (Yamada, par. [0162]-[0163]).
Consider claim 5, the combination of Merzenich-Hennessey-Yamada discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4, and Merzenich further teaches tracking combos that have been input by the user to implement one of the actions within the virtual environment (col. 56, ln. 44-57: repetition-based cognitive training games using audio/visual stimuli with multiple stimulus sets may be used, singly or in combination. The game described herein is but one example of a cognitive training game using a computing system to present audio/Visual stimuli to a participant); and generating the display including instructions for input of the combos into the client device. (col. 56 ln. 25-34: game gives the participant a general instruction 122 and a specific rule 123, 128 to follow, like matching objects based on shape or color or pattern. The game presents two stimuli 124, 125 and challenges the participant to indicate, for example, by selecting an appropriate arrow button).
Consider claim 6, modified Merzenich discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4, and Merzenich further teaches wherein the customized content is presented during a testing period, wherein the customized content includes data regarding on previously played combos associated with the respective event (col. 69 ln. 1-45: the participant is asked to manipulate temporal information like determining which time interval is longest … Visual and auditory feedback is given on the participant's accuracy … To increase difficulty of gameplay, these techniques are used: 1) adding more target images, 2) adding distracting animations that are to be ignored, 3) allowing target images to span more 20 onscreen area, and 4) having animation durations become more similar. Note, therefore the feedback and difficulty increases are based on previously played combinations related to the respective event).
Consider claim 10, modified Merzenich discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but fails to disclose the further limitations of claim 10.
In analogous art, Yamada teaches wherein the customized content includes an overlay that superimposes a ghost version of a previous interactive session over a display of the current interactive session (Abstract: game device for showing a past operation history; par. [0158]: a plurality of markers are established on the road in accordance with the distance from the start point, and the current passage history array 333 and the past passage history array 334 are prepared as history areas for recording the time at which these markers are passed. Note, therefore based on markers/tags to compare different game play sessions; par. [0159]: the past self of the player or another person is reproduced as the ghost, making it possible for the player to easily assess whether or not the performance improves even during the play, by observing the transparency degree of the ghost).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the teachings of modified Merzenich in view of the overlay for visual tags of Yamada for the purpose of determining whether or not performance improves during play (Yamada, paragraph 159). (Yamada, par. [0159]).
Consider claim 11, modified Merzenich discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein generating the customized content includes restoring a status or setting from a previous interactive session of a user of the client device.
In analogous art, Yamada discloses wherein generating the customized content includes restoring a status or setting from a previous interactive session of a user of the client device. (Abstract: game device for showing a past operation history; par. [0105]: rewritably stores data indicating the play status (past performance, etc.) of a racing game, etc., data indicating the progress status of the game, data of chat communication logs (records), etc.; par. [0128]: “The second moving unit 305 moves the ghost in the virtual space, based on a moving instruction input stored in the input history storage unit 304”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the teachings of modified Merzenich in view of restoring a status or setting from a previous gameplay session of Yamada for the purpose of enabling the player to easily grasp his/her current status in comparison to his/her past self (Yamada, par. [0015]).
Consider claim 16, the system is rejected along the same rationale as the method of claim 4.
Consider claim 17, modified Merzenich discloses wherein the processors execute further instructions to: track combos that have been used and associated objects; and generate instructions regarding entry of the combos into the client device (col. 56, ln. 44-57: repetition-based cognitive training games using audio/visual stimuli with multiple stimulus sets may be used, singly or in combination. The game described herein is but one example of a cognitive training game using a computing system to present audio/Visual stimuli to a participant; col. 56 ln. 25-34: game gives the participant a general instruction 122 and a specific rule 123, 128 to follow, like matching objects based on shape or color or pattern. The game presents two stimuli 124, 125 and challenges the participant to indicate, for example, by selecting an appropriate arrow button).
Consider claims 18 and 22-23, the system is rejected along the same rationale as the method of claims 6 and 10-11, respectively.
Claims 7-8 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich in view of Hennessey and Zavesky, further in view of US 9950251 B1 to Lewis et al., (“Lewis”).
Consider claim 7, modified Merzenich discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, and Merzenich further teaches storing one or more captured media clips associated with the customized tags (col 69, ln. 1-15: At the start of a trial, the participant selects an image and observes how much time it animates for. Then the participant selects a different image and observes how much time it animates for. Afterward, the participant is asked to find the image with the shorter or longer animation. Note, therefore the animation correspond to video clips, the clips associated with customized tags, e.g., animation duration). Merzenich fails to explicitly disclose deleting one or more other captured media clips that are not associated with the customized tags.
In analogous art, Lewis discloses deleting one or more other captured media clips that are not associated with the customized tags (Abstract: metadata may include a set of trigger indicators associated with a set of gameplay events; col. 21 ln. 46-57: if a portion of a compilation reel is not popular, the compilation rules may be modified to reduce or eliminate the probability that the type of unpopular video will be selected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the teachings of modified Merzenich in view of the above teachings of Lewis for eliminating or deleting media clips for the purpose of indicating which portions of gameplay video to include in the compilation reel (Lewis, col. 21 ln. 58-67).
Consider claim 8, modified Merzenich discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7, and Merzenich further teaches wherein the customized content includes a highlight reel based on the stored captured media clips (col. 72 ln. 66 – col. 73 ln. 19: Emotion Motion provides an indication of whether the game participant's response was correct along with an indication of a speed of the response … the game further strengthens the link between different systems of affect processing by associating an emotion with a written emotion tag; and (3) the game uses video clips of emotions, which have more ecological validity than stills. Subjects need to decide which emotion is presented in a video clip).
Consider claims 19-20, the system is rejected along the same rationale as the method of claims 7-8, respectively.
Claims 9 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich in view of Hennessey, further in view of US 12099654 B1 to Mulliken et al. (“Mulliken”).
Consider claim 9, modified Merzenich discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 9.
In analogous art, Mulliken discloses wherein the customized content includes generated virtual effects indicators correlated with directional sounds during the period of distraction (col. 9 ln. 33-55: “For example, an icon may appear, or a text box may appear instructing the user to pay attention. In some implementations, the modified content 334 may include an auditory stimulus. For example, spatialized audio may be presented at one or more of the relevant content areas 328 to redirect the user's attention towards the relevant areas of the content presentation (e.g., if determined the user not attentive to the content 302)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the teachings of modified Merzenich in view of the above teachings of Mulliken to redirect the user's attention towards the relevant areas of the content presentation.
Consider claim 21, the system is rejected along the same rationale as the method of claim 9.
Claims 12 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich in view of Hennessey, further in view of US 10741215 B1 to Sundareson et al. (“Sundareson”).
Consider claim 12, modified Merzenich discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising detecting a trigger during the current interactive session,
Modified Merzenich fails to explicitly disclose wherein detecting the trigger is based on the player not moving for a period of time that passes a threshold limit.
In analogous art, Sundareson discloses wherein detecting the trigger is based on the player not moving for a period of time that passes a threshold limit (col. 4 ln. 63 - col. 5 ln. 40: “Further, a measure of user interaction during a time-based segment of a gameplay session may be used to identify both a duration of predicted interest and its corresponding interest level … the measure of user interaction (or user input) may be derived from the player's input devices (such as a touchscreen, touchpad, keyboard, mouse, gamepad, joystick, microphone, or the like). The measure of user interaction may be used to identify a time-based segment of high(er) or low(er) user interaction … durations of predicted interest and their corresponding interest levels may either be encoded into a recording of a gameplay session or may be captured as metadata to configure the playback of a gameplay session recording”. Note, therefore it is implicit that the player not moving for a period of time that passes a threshold limit would correspond to the detected time-based segment of low user interaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the teachings of modified Merzenich and the in-game reminders of Hennessey in view of the above teachings of Sundareson to determine levels of low interest or distraction based on user inputs such as mouse, gamepad, joystick or the like (Sundareson: col. 5 ln. 21-40).
Consider claim 24, the system is rejected along the same rationale as the method of claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
STEPHEN R. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/THAI Q TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights