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 Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 16, 18, 20, and 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 16, 18, 20, and 21, multiple instances of “gameplay” should read “the gameplay” .
Claim 18, line 8, “a current time” should read “the current time”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the time and the format” in line 5, but this is previously claimed as “one of a time and a location” in line 3. The claim limitation in line 5 only needs one of “a time” or “a location”. However, later it claims “the time and the format” in line 5, but there is no mention of “the location”. It is unclear if this limitation will only apply if one of “a time” is met and not if one of “a location” is met. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that it can also be applied if “one of a time and a location” is met in line 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-9, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karp et al. (US 20230381649 A1; hereinafter Karp).
Regarding claim 1, Karp discloses a method, comprising: detecting a speaker attempting to interact with a player engaged in gameplay (friend of a player trying to communicate with the player; ¶64) of a video game via a head mounted display (HMD) at a current time (HMD 450 is used while user is playing; ¶56 and Fig 4A); analyzing inputs provided by the player at the current time to determine a level of involvement of the player in the gameplay (AI analyses input to identify one or more levels of user immersion at a current point in the gameplay; ¶6); and providing visual cues to the speaker to indicate the level of involvement of the player in the video game at the current time (lights or message shown that indicates the immersive state of the user; ¶20) and an option to interrupt the player during gameplay (player has services with a third party communicator that allows communication between player and users and friend of the player may contact the player via chat, messaging, voice, text, etc.; ¶64), the visual cues indicative of a likelihood of interruption entertained by the player at the current time of gameplay of the video game (indicators will show if player does not want any interruptions and it will also show if player is available for engaging; ¶20-21), wherein operations of the method are performed by an interactions processing engine executing on a server computing device (example device 500 is used to perform aspects of the various embodiments of the present disclose and it includes a server or other digital device; ¶65-66).
Regarding claim 2, Karp discloses wherein the level of involvement of the player is used to determine a mode of operation defined for the gameplay (the system determines the level of immersion of the player inside the game, which will lead to different modes; ¶20-21), the mode of operation indicative of the likelihood of interruption entertained by the player at the current time of the gameplay (the visual cues, such as lights will indicate if player doesn't want to be interrupted or if the player is in a more relaxed mode; see both ¶20-21).
Regarding claim 3, Karp discloses wherein the mode of operation for specifying includes one of an isolation mode and an interruption mode, wherein the isolation mode is selected to indicate full immersion of the player in the gameplay (the isolation mode here is in ¶20 where lights can show player does not want any interruptions) and the interruption mode is selected to indicate a partial immersion or non-immersion of the player in the gameplay and the player is willing to entertain interruption (¶21 shows an interruption mode where the player is in a more relaxed mode where he's available for engaging in communication).
Regarding claim 4, Karp discloses wherein analyzing the inputs further includes, analyzing game content generated by applying the inputs provided by the player to the video game (data collected from user inputs; ¶39), the game content including information to determine game context and game state at the current time (data provided is data used to define gaming context and from current gameplay; ¶39); and using the game state and the game context of gameplay and the inputs provided by the player determine the level of involvement of the player in the gameplay at the current time (the feature extractor extracts these relevant features in order to determine gaming context, or player engagement; ¶39-40), the level of involvement used to determine the likelihood of interruption entertained by the player during the current time of gameplay (the player engagement is used to show if the player is highly engaged with the video game or less immersed, which leads to showing the indicator that shows if player should be interrupted or not; ¶52-55), and the option to interrupt the player (friend of the player has the option to communicate with the player; ¶64) provided by the interactions processing engine to the speaker based on the game context and the game state (as mentioned before, the example device 500 , which includes a server, has multiple components that work towards determining level of immersion of the player in ¶65-66).
Regarding claim 5, Karp discloses wherein the level of involvement and the mode of operation of the player and the option to interrupt the player are updated dynamically to correspond with changes detected in the game context and the game state as the player continues gameplay of the video game (the method is implemented continuously to analyze game state data and determine player immersion and identify corresponding context of gaming activities; ¶49).
Regarding claim 6, Karp discloses wherein defining the mode of operation includes, querying game logic of the video game to obtain an intensity of the gameplay in a portion of the video game the player is interacting in at the current time (measuring levels of immersion are directly related to levels of intensity as mentioned in ¶52), the intensity of the gameplay defining a degree of concentration required from the player during the gameplay in the portion (Levels of immersion exceeding above a threshold or falling below a threshold indicates less or more concentration/intensity; ¶52), wherein the degree of concentration required and the inputs provided by the player are used to determine the level of involvement of the player in the gameplay (and these are used to determine the level of immersion of the player during a current gameplay of a video game; ¶52).
Regarding claim 7, Karp discloses wherein the intensity of the gameplay is directly proportional to the degree of concentration required from the player (higher level of immersion means more engagement with the game and more intensity/concentration, while lower level of immersion means less engagement with the game and less intensity/concentration; ¶52).
Regarding claim 8, Karp discloses wherein determining the level of involvement includes, analyzing the inputs provided by the player in the portion of the video game in accordance to the intensity of the gameplay required in said portion to define the level of involvement exhibited by the player in said portion of the video game (input provided to AI model to identify the level of immersion of the player in accordance with their level of concentration/intensity; ¶52).
Regarding claim 9, Karp discloses wherein when the intensity of the gameplay in the portion indicates a slow phase in the gameplay (when the level of immersion falls below a threshold level for an event such as completing the boss in ¶55, one of ordinary skill in the art comes to the understanding that less intensity in gameplay means a slow or more relaxed phase in gameplay and vice versa), the mode of operation of the player is dynamically set to interruption mode and the visual cues and the option provided to the speaker are adjusted to correspond with the interruption mode to indicate that the player can be interrupted at the current time of gameplay (indicator provides a signal that player can now be interrupted; ¶55).
Regarding claim 12, Karp discloses wherein when the intensity of the gameplay in the portion indicates an intense phase in the gameplay (when the player is highly immersed it indicates that this is an intense phase and the player wants no interruptions in ¶53, one of ordinary skill in the art comes to the understanding that more intensity in gameplay means a more intense phase in gameplay and vice versa), setting the mode of operation of the player to an isolation mode and the visual cues and the option provided to the speaker are updated to correspond with the isolation mode to indicate that the player is fully immersed in the gameplay at the current time (visual cues to indicate player does not want to be interrupted; ¶53).
Regarding claim 15, Karp discloses wherein the speaker is a real-world person approaching the player in a physical world or a spectator following the gameplay of the player and approaching the player online (persons nearby in ¶20 or a friend of the player in ¶64).
Regarding claim 16, Karp discloses wherein when the speaker is the real-world person, the visual cues are presented on an outside surface of the HMD of the player, and when the speaker is the spectator approaching the player online, providing the visual cues on a screen of the speaker alongside the game content generated during gameplay of the video game by the player (visual cue of "Do not disturb" on HMD; Fig 4C).
Regarding claim 17, Karp discloses wherein the visual cues provided for the speaker are speaker-specific (these indicators are specific for users approaching the player; ¶53) and defined based on a social relationship of the speaker to the player (users approaching player having a social relationship with the player, such as a friend; ¶64).
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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp in view of Osman et al. (US 20190314719 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Karp does not disclose pausing the gameplay of the portion of the video game, the pausing of the gameplay initiated by the interaction processing engine to allow the speaker to interact with the player.
However, Osman focuses on presenting gameplay through a HMD and detecting a person speaking around the area, which relates to Karp because gameplay is also implemented through a HMD with another user in the area trying to communicate with the player. Osman teaches pausing the gameplay of the portion of the video game, the pausing of the gameplay initiated by the interaction processing engine to allow the speaker to interact with the player (if a person has been identified as talking in the vicinity, an option to pause gameplay is presented to the user; ¶58).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp to implement the teachings of Osman for the benefit of transitioning properly from an active gameplay state to a pause state. If a player is actively playing and an interruption happens that needs the attention of the player, then providing an option to pause gameplay will allow the player to transition out of gameplay in order to interact with whoever interrupted him.
Regarding claim 11, Karp does not disclose further includes dynamically adjusting one or more characteristics associated with the gameplay of the video game, so as to allow the player to interact with the speaker, the dynamic adjustment includes reducing at least one of speed and volume.
However, Osman teaches further includes dynamically adjusting one or more characteristics associated with the gameplay of the video game, so as to allow the player to interact with the speaker, the dynamic adjustment includes reducing at least one of speed and volume (when user pauses the gameplay, the movement of the character is progressively slowed until the character has stopped; ¶58 and 6A-6B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp to implement the teachings of Osman for the benefit of making the transition from an active gameplay state to a pause state smoother. If a player is actively playing and an interruption happens that needs the attention of the player, then providing an option to pause gameplay by slowing down the game until full pause will allow the player to transition out of gameplay in a smooth way to interact with whoever interrupted him.
Claims 13, 14, 18-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp in view of Jonathan S. KAUFTHAL (US 20190320138 A1; hereinafter Kaufthal).
Regarding claim 13, Karp discloses wherein the option provided to the speaker is updated to allow the speaker to leave a verbal message to the player (communication with player can be done via chat, messaging, voice, text, etc; ¶64), and detecting the verbal message from the speaker (detecting verbal message; ¶64). Karp does not disclose responsive to detecting the verbal message, converting the verbal message to a format specified for the player to derive a formatted message, and forwarding the formatted message for rendering to the player in accordance to a presentation requirement specified for the player.
However, Kaufthal focuses on system and techniques for awareness of players using virtual reality, such as a VR headset or HMD, which relates to Karp because it deals with users surrounding the player for potential interruptions while the player is immersed in gameplay. Kaufthal teaches converting the verbal message to a format specified for the player to derive a formatted message (system can identify verbal words and perform analysis in ¶93), and forwarding the formatted message for rendering to the player in accordance to a presentation requirement specified for the player (messages being formatted and rendered to the player while they are immersed; Fig 4C and ¶93-95).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp to implement the teachings of Kaufthal for the benefit of displaying the interruption in a format the player can easily access. If a player is actively playing and an interruption happens, the player might not even know it’s happening. This is why the system itself will format that interruption to display it in the virtual space of the game, in order for the player to easily see it.
Regarding claim 14, Karp does not explicitly disclose wherein the format can be one of a textual format, video format, anime format, and a temporally delayed audio format, and wherein the presentation requirement specifies one of a time and a location on a display screen for presenting the formatted message, and wherein the time and the format are defined based on severity of content included in the verbal message.
However, Kaufthal teaches wherein the format can be one of a textual format, video format, anime format, and a temporally delayed audio format (textual format shown in Fig 4C), and wherein the presentation requirement specifies one of a time and a location on a display screen for presenting the formatted message (Fig 3 shows different locations where the text can appear), and wherein the time and the format are defined based on severity of content included in the verbal message (locations are different based on the level of the notification; Fig 3 and ¶84-85).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp to implement the teachings of Kaufthal for the benefit of displaying the interruption in a format that adequately measures the importance of the interruption. For example, an interruption made by a friend to go eat is a more relaxed interruption that can wait, while an interruption because the player in in danger or a family member is in the emergency room is an interruption that needs immediate attention.
Regarding claim 18, Karp discloses a method, comprising: detecting a speaker attempting to interact with a player (friend of a player trying to communicate with the player; ¶64) engaged in gameplay of a video game via a head mounted display (HMD) at a current time (HMD 450 is used while user is playing; ¶56 and Fig 4A); applying inputs provided by the player during gameplay of the video game to generate game content (input from gameplay collected from the player; ¶39), the game content providing information used to determine game context and a game state of the video game at the current time (used to define gaming context; ¶39); analyzing the game context and the game state of the video game to determine a level of involvement of the player in the gameplay at a current time (feature extractor is able to extract game context data relevant for determining a gaming context of the game play of a video game and other data for determining behavior of the player, which includes the level of concentration or involvement with the game; ¶40); wherein operations are performed by an interactions processing engine executing on a server (example device 500 is used to perform aspects of the various embodiments of the present disclose and it includes a server or other digital device; ¶65-66). Karp does not disclose when the level of involvement of the player indicates that the player is fully immersed in the gameplay, providing visual cues to the player, the visual cues providing details of the speaker attempting to interact with the player during gameplay.
However, Kaufthal teaches when the level of involvement of the player indicates that the player is fully immersed in the gameplay, providing visual cues to the player (player currently immersed in the gameplay by exploring Machu Picchu; Fig 4A and ¶90), the visual cues providing details of the speaker attempting to interact with the player during gameplay (visual cues asking player if he wants to pause because there is someone talking; ¶93-95 and Fig. 4C).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp to implement the teachings of Kaufthal for the benefit of displaying the interruption in a format the player can easily access. If a player is actively playing and an interruption happens, the player might not even know it’s happening. This is why the system itself will format that interruption to display it in the virtual space of the game, in order for the player to easily see it.
Regarding claim 19, Karp does not disclose wherein the details included in the visual cues include at least an identity of the speaker, a type and content of interaction initiated by the speaker.
However, Kaufthal teaches wherein the details included in the visual cues include at least an identity of the speaker (John Doe; ¶95), a type and content of interaction initiated by the speaker (determining a type of interruption to provide the content to the user; ¶93 and Fig 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp to implement the teachings of Kaufthal for the benefit of displaying the interruption in a format that adequately measures the importance of the interruption. For example, an interruption made by a friend to go eat is a more relaxed interruption that can wait, while an interruption from your mom because the player in in danger or a family member is in the emergency room is an interruption that needs immediate attention.
Regarding claim 20, Karp does not disclose wherein when more than one speaker expresses interest in interacting with the player during gameplay, the details included in the visual cues include a list of speakers that have expressed interest in interacting with the player and content of the interactions, and wherein the list of speakers is prioritized in accordance to a preference of the speakers specified for the player.
However, Kaufthal teaches wherein when more than one speaker expresses interest in interacting with the player during gameplay (one or more people identified; ¶63-¶64), the details included in the visual cues include a list of speakers that have expressed interest in interacting with the player and content of the interactions (this is a video signal that will show one or more persons of interest to the player; ¶63-¶64), and wherein the list of speakers is prioritized in accordance to a preference of the speakers specified for the player (the system may compare the results of the facial recognition to the users friends list or a specific list made by the player of people of interest; ¶63-¶64).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp to implement the teachings of Kaufthal for the benefit of displaying the interruption in a format that adequately measures the importance of the interruption. For example, an interruption made by a friend to go eat is a more relaxed interruption that can wait, while an interruption from your mom because the player in in danger or a family member is in the emergency room is an interruption that needs immediate attention. Adding to this, a priority list that a user has made, also measures the importance of the interruption.
Regarding claim 21, Karp discloses wherein determining the level of involvement further includes, determining a mode of operation specified for the gameplay of the player, the mode of operation used to determine if the player allows interruption during gameplay (lights can show player does not want any interruptions; ¶20).
Regarding claim 22, Karp discloses wherein the mode of operation is provided by the player or is determined by analyzing game logic of the video game and the inputs provided during gameplay of the player (this is determined by the system automatically by analyzing what is happening in the game and the inputs of the player; ¶20 and ¶26).
Regarding claim 25, Karp discloses further includes, receiving additional inputs from the player as the player continues with the gameplay (this is happening in real time and the system will make adjustments based on the inputs provided by the player; ¶49); and updating the game content of the video game by applying the additional inputs received from the player (¶49), the updating of the game content resulting in updates to the game context and the game state of the video game (game context is included in the continuous analysis; ¶49), wherein the level of involvement of the player is adjusted to correlate with changes detected in the game context and the game state, the adjustment to the level of involvement influencing the mode of operation of the player (the updates happen naturally because this process happens continuously while the player is playing the video game, which includes the level of immersion of the player; ¶49).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp in view of Kaufthal as applied to claims 18, 19, and 21 above, and further in view of David Perry (US 20160361646 A1; hereinafter Perry).
Regarding claim 23, Karp discloses when the mode of operation specified for the gameplay of the player indicates an isolation mode, providing the visual cues includes (the isolation mode here is in ¶20 where lights can show player does not want any interruptions). Karp does not disclose receiving an audio message from the speaker that corresponds to a portion of the video game the player is engaged in at the current time; and converting the audio message into textual content for rendering on a screen of the player alongside the game content.
However, Kaufthal teaches converting the audio message into textual content for rendering on a screen of the player alongside the game content (speech-to-text analysis by the awareness module in ¶64-66 and awareness module displays text to the user in Fig 4C and ¶95).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp to implement the teachings of Kaufthal for the benefit of displaying the interruption in a format the player can easily access. If a player is actively playing and an interruption happens, the player might not even know it’s happening. This is why the system itself will format that interruption to display it in the virtual space of the game, in order for the player to easily see it.
Perry focuses on a system that saves a portion of a game with comments from spectators during a player’s live gaming session, which relates to Karp because spectators also interrupt the user playing with their comments while the user is fully immersed in gameplay. Perry teaches
receiving an audio message from the speaker that corresponds to a portion of the video game the player is engaged in at the current time (multiple users providing spoken comments and text comments as a user is playing the game; ¶41).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp to implement the teachings of Perry for the benefit of providing help or hints to the user in respect to their gameplay. Spectators will have input that will be good feedback or advice to the player in order to help them improve, which is why their messages will pertain to a portion of the gameplay of the player.
Regarding claim 24, Karp does not disclose wherein converting the audio message further includes providing a link to access a video recording of the portion of the video game capturing the gameplay of the player at the current time within the textual content, the video recording tagged with temporal attributes of the portion of the video game, the access allowing the player to watch a replay of the portion of the gameplay and the textual content is rendered alongside the video, and wherein the audio message pertains to gameplay of the player in the portion of the video game.
However, Perry teaches providing a link to access a video recording of the portion of the video game capturing the gameplay of the player at the current time within the textual content, the video recording tagged with temporal attributes of the portion of the video game, the access allowing the player to watch a replay of the portion of the gameplay and the textual content is rendered alongside the video, and wherein the audio message pertains to gameplay of the player in the portion of the video game (here the spectator is able to send a link with the gameplay of the player and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a link can have any type of information in it, including the video with all their attributes; ¶68).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp to implement the teachings of Perry for the benefit of providing help or hints to the user in respect to their gameplay through a video. Spectators will have input that will be good feedback or advice to the player in order to help them improve, which is why their messages will pertain to a portion of the gameplay of the player in a video.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8am-5pm.
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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights