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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 6 and 7 are related to a different statutory class than claim 1, (see claim 1) "A computerized method", (see claim 6) "A computer game server", and (see claim 7) "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium". In addition, claims 6 and 7 do not provide recitations that further limit any subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20210158653 to Hartstein et al (Hartstein) in view of US Pub. 20200404219 to Yerli and YouTube video
“RIGGED! Adventures Beyond Wonderland - Wheel Maintenance: PROOF the game is RIGGED!” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAm7UCFWZ2Y to Trivia UK.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8. Hartstein discloses a computerized method for facilitating execution of an interactive live game, the method comprising, by a processor of a game server (¶5):
receiving from a player's device a request of a player to participate in an interactive live game (¶6);
repeatedly:
executing an interactive game, including generating game events (¶8);
based on the executed game, transmitting, to a video processor, game display data, wherein the transmitted data is used to create, by the video processor, together with a captured video of a live studio in which an operator operating a mobile activation button (Fig. 2, 208, ¶107), a live game video stream (¶¶7-12);
transmitting to the player's device the generated game events, thereby facilitating the player's device, after obtaining the live game video stream, to create a composited video stream comprising the live game video stream and data that pertains to the generated game events, the composited video stream constituting the interactive live game (¶¶59-64);
wherein at least some of the events are generated in response to receiving data indicative of a player's action in the executed interactive game (¶¶63-64, 66-67, 111); and
in response to receiving an input from the mobile activation button, transmitting transition data indicative of switching between the at least two themes in the environment (¶¶107, 138).
(as required by claim 8) at least one camera positioned in a live studio is configured to capture a video of a live studio in which an operator operating a mobile activation button to create a live game video stream and to live stream the captured video (¶78);
a game renderer configured to receive the data pertaining to the game display data from the live game server, to determine game display data, and to transmit the determined data to a video processor (¶79);
a video processor configured to receive the captured video from the at least one camera, receive the game display data from the game renderer, to create a live game video stream, and to transmit the live game video to the player's device (¶80);
thereby facilitating the player's device, after obtaining from the video processor the live game video stream, together with the game events, to create a composited synchronous video comprising the obtained live game video stream and data that pertains to the game events, wherein the composited synchronous video constitutes the interactive live game (¶82).
Hartstein fails to explicitly disclose virtual reality data, the virtual reality data including data pertaining a virtual reality environment comprising at least two themes.
Yerli and Trivia UK teaches virtual reality data (see Yerli ¶¶10, 18, 28), the virtual reality data including data pertaining a virtual reality environment comprising at least two themes (see Yerli ¶¶32, 62, 77, and see Trivia UK at 6:46, 27:25-27:50, 29:22-29:40). The gaming system of Hartstein would have motivation to use the teachings of Yerli and Trivia UK in order to combine real world images with virtual images during game play which would provide participants with a more dynamic viewing experience.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Hartstein with the teachings of Yerli and Trivia UK in order to combine real world and virtual images during game play which would provide participants with a better gaming experience.
PNG
media_image1.png
976
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
974
1248
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
994
1248
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
970
1250
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 2. Hartstein in view of Trivia UK teaches wherein the at least two themes are different themes (see Hartstein ¶¶138, 152), and wherein the operator is positioned in a different position in each of the at least two themes (see Trivia UK at 27:30- 27:40 the host moves around the game stage as the scenery changes).
Claim 3. Hartstein in view of Trivia UK teaches further comprising: in response to receiving the input, generating a transition game event indicative of a transition from one theme into another in the environment; and transmitting virtual reality data pertaining to the transition game event (see Hartstein ¶¶138, 152; and see Trivia UK at 6:46, 23:38, 27:25, 27:40, 29:40).
Claim 4. Hartstein in view of Trivia UK teaches wherein the mobile activation button (see Hartstein ¶107) comprises wireless buttons that are mounted on a wireless microphone and enables the operator to freely move around the studio, irrespective of the theme (see Trivia UK at 27:07-27:10 the host moves around the game stage with a wireless microphone).
Claim 5. Hartstein in view of Trivia UK teaches wherein the operator is positioned in a different location in at least two of the themes (see Trivia UK at 27:30- 27:40 the host moves around the game stage as the scenery changes).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-8 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12201903. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights