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 .
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) 1-3, 6-11, 15, 17, 20-25, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Damian et al. (US 2022/0339542 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 17, Damian discloses a game system comprising one or more processors, the one or more processors being configured to:
simultaneously start a first game and at least one second game that is the same as the first game and operates based on operation history information that is a history of an operation input (see par. [0029], As previously discussed, the ghost layer 200 may be displayed to the user in the form of a video that may be transformed, adjusted, and presented to the user within the instant game environment 201);
process the first game, based on the operation input by a user (see par. [0025], The model 5 may, based on an input of one or more captured frames of gameplay by the user who is currently playing a game, determine whether a same or similar scenario may be found within the same game based on one or more previously-recorded videos. The videos or video segments that may be used to determine the scenario that the current user may be confronting may or may not be the same as the video segments (410, 430, 440, 450, 460) upon which the virtual walkthrough 405 is based);
process the at least one second game, based on at least one piece of the operation history (see par. [0025], The model 5 may, based on an input of one or more captured frames of gameplay by the user who is currently playing a game, determine whether a same or similar scenario may be found within the same game based on one or more previously-recorded videos. The videos or video segments that may be used to determine the scenario that the current user may be confronting may or may not be the same as the video segments (410, 430, 440, 450, 460) upon which the virtual walkthrough 405 is based; thus the system uses the input from gameplay to find a matching scenario from the previously recorded videos);
generate an entire game image including a first game image based on the first game and at least one second game image based on the second game (see par. [0022], In 345, one or more suggested player actions (411-413, 431-433, 451-453, 454-457) may be displayed in the ghost layer 200 overlaying onto the game environment 201 of the instant game, such that both the current gameplay 201 and the ghost layer overlay 200 are visible to the player. For example, the ghost layer overlay 200 may be semitransparent to allow the underlying gameplay 201 to be concurrently visible); and
stop or end processing of each game if game states of the first game and the second game each satisfy a first condition (see par. [0022], Upon detecting completion of a suggested player action in 350, the ghost layer 200 may be updated to display one or more subsequent actions (411-413, 431-433, 451-453, 454-457), which may be normalized and rendered in the ghost layer 200 as previously described with respect to 345. It should be appreciated that any stage of method 300 may be merged with other stages, performed in an order different from that which is shown in FIG. 3A, repeated, removed altogether, or otherwise rearranged as needed without departing from the scope of the present subject matter).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 23, Damian discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the first game and the second game to operate by individual emulators, respectively (see par. [0021], FIG. 2 illustrates a ghost layer 200 that may be overlaid on a game environment 201 of an game currently being played by a user. The ghost layer 200, including ghost player 105 and/or ghost objects, such as ladder item 130, may be generated based on an analysis of one or more previously-recorded gameplay videos 305. Gameplay videos 305 may be sourced from, for example, video-sharing websites, live-streamed video, and other video streaming sources, conventional non-transitory computer memory storage devices, or as transmitted across a network via e-mail, instant messaging, SMS, text message, and the like; thus the first game and second game would be operated by different devices since the gameplay videos could come from a source other than the user’s game device).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Damian discloses wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to store a history of the operation input in the first game as the operation history information (see par. [0024], The metadata 376 may identify each action (371, 381, 391) of the player at each point in the game, among other types of information that may be useful to the analysis. For example, the emitted metadata 376 may also contain information that identifies each time the player lost a life, received damage, or otherwise made a mistake; thus the system is storing the user input and identifying whether it is successful or unsuccessful in the context of the game).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Damian discloses wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to process the second game, based on the operation history information stored by another game system (see par. [0021], Gameplay videos 305 may be sourced from, for example, video-sharing websites, live-streamed video, and other video streaming sources, conventional non-transitory computer memory storage devices, or as transmitted across a network via e-mail, instant messaging, SMS, text message, and the like).
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Damian discloses wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to generate the entire game image further including an image indicating an operation input in the first game, an operation input in the second game or an operation input in both the first game and the second game (see par. [0026], Referring hack to FIG. 2, the model 5 may overlay a screenshot or segment of video, known as the ghost layer 200, retrieved from the virtual walkthrough 405 on to the game environment 201 to suggest to the user one or more next actions (411-413, 431-433, 451-453, 454-457) that may facilitate advancement in the game 470).
Regarding claims 10 and 24, Damian discloses wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to cause the emulators to operate so as to start the first game and the second game from a predetermined scene of a predetermined game (see par. [0022], A match algorithm may determine, based on the capture frames, whether a scenario or moment occurring in the instant game suitable corresponds to a scenario or moment in either a video segment (410, 430, 440, 450, 460) stored in the virtual walkthrough 405 or another separately available video segment in 335).
Regarding claims 11 and 25, Damian discloses wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to process the second game, based on the operation history information obtained when an elapsed time from the start of the first game until the first condition is satisfied is shortest (see par. [0024], For example, the emitted metadata 376 may also contain information that identifies each time the player lost a life, received damage, or otherwise made a mistake. These metrics may be used to assess whether one gameplay video may exhibit a more successful gameplay approach when compared with another, and therefore may be a more suitable basis for the ghost layer 200 assistance; thus by determining a more successful gameplay approach, it is also reducing the time needed for completion of the task and game).
Regarding claims 15 and 29, Damian discloses wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to, if the game state satisfies a third condition in each of the first game and the second game, cause the game state to transition to a game state before the third condition is satisfied (see par. [0026], The actions displayed via the ghost layer 200 may occur once, may be repeated a fixed plurality number of times, or may be repeated indefinitely until the user performs the actions. The model 5 may detect that the user has performed the suggested actions displayed in the guide based on one or more of the user's game controller inputs, changes to the user's character, and other changes occurring to the game environment 201).
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 16, 18, 19, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damian et al. (US 2022/0339542 A1) in view of Hightower (US 6,488,505 B1).
Regarding claim 4 and 18, Damian discloses the system as discussed above. However, Damian does not explicitly disclose wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to generate the entire game image further including images respectively indicating elapsed times from the start of the first game and the second game.
Hightower teaches a system and method of vehicle competition wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to generate the entire game image further including images respectively indicating elapsed times from the start of the first game and the second game (see fig. 9 and col. 4, lines 46-47, A present race time 920 is also displayed, such as in a corner of the display). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Damian with the elapsed time display of Hightower so that the player can be aware of how much time has elapsed and how much time remains in the competition (see Hightower, col. 7, lines 11-12, competition parameters such as race finish times).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Damian discloses the system as discussed above. However, Damian does not explicitly disclose wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to, after the game states of the first game and the second game satisfy the first condition, generate the entire game image further including images respectively indicating elapsed times from the start of the first game and the second game until the first condition is satisfied.
Hightower teaches a system and method of vehicle competition wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to, after the game states of the first game and the second game satisfy the first condition, generate the entire game image further including images respectively indicating elapsed times from the start of the first game and the second game until the first condition is satisfied (see fig. 9 and col. 4, lines 46-47, A present race time 920 is also displayed, such as in a corner of the display; also see col. 5, lines 9-12, In one embodiment of the present invention, a player receives a free game for beating the race finish time of the ghost car 910 (having “FREE” above it) as it traverses the course 940). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Damian with the elapsed time display of Hightower so that the player can be aware of how much time has elapsed and how much time remains in the competition (see Hightower, col. 7, lines 11-12, competition parameters such as race finish times).
Regarding claims 16 and 30, Damian discloses the system as discussed above. However, Damian does not explicitly disclose wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to measure an elapsed time from the start of the game until the first condition is satisfied, including a time taken for the transition of the state.
Hightower teaches a system and method of vehicle competition wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to measure an elapsed time from the start of the game until the first condition is satisfied, including a time taken for the transition of the state (see col. 5, lines 9-12, In one embodiment of the present invention, a player receives a free game for beating the race finish time of the ghost car 910 (having “FREE” above it) as it traverses the course 940). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Damian to measure elapsed time as taught Hightower in order to facilitate the competition between the player and other players/characters (see Hightower, col. 7, lines 11-12, competition parameters such as race finish times).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 26-28 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to start the first game and the second game next in a predetermined order only if a second condition is satisfied in a series of games in which a plurality of types of the first games and the second games are performed continuously in the predetermined order.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada (US 8,012,020 B2)- teaches a game control method for showing a past operation history to a player in comparison with the current operation status
Chudley et al. (US 2005/0277455 A1)- teaches a racing game with ghost cars
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM EST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/ALLEN CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights