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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive aside from amended to claims 8 and 15 where the rejections have been withdrawn.
The applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that Bleasdale does not disclose, “predicting an interval of time based at least in part on user activity data associated with subject matter of a stream session.” Specifically, the applicant argues, in Bleasdale, the interval is a preselected or system-selected input parameter to the model, while the output of the model is a score for predicted user input.
The examiner disagrees. Bleasdale discloses predicting an interval of time based at least in part on user activity data associated with subject matter of a stream session ([0040], particularly, “In this scenario, the score 128 (as illustrated in FIG. 1) may relate to the probability that the first player 110(A) will actuate the “A” button of the game controller 106(A) to cause corresponding game control data 116 to be received from a first client machine 112(A) within a time period since the receiving of the new game state data 126. The time period (or time in the future when the user input is predicted to occur) may vary, and the trained machine learning model(s) 104 may be trained to predict user input that will be provided at any suitable time after receiving the input data”).
The applicant’s conclusions are inaccurate. Bleasdale’s interval is not pre-selected even if the length of the interval is (which the examiner does not concede). That is, the system operates in real-time so any interval of time would be in real time and thus dependent on the inputs. Bleasdale even explicitly states, “the probability that the first player 110(A) will actuate the “A” button of the game controller 106(A) to cause corresponding game control data 116 to be received from a first client machine 112(A) within a time period since the receiving of the new game state data 126. The time period (or time in the future when the user input is predicted to occur) may vary, and the trained machine learning model(s) 104 may be trained to predict user input that will be provided at any suitable time after receiving the input data.” Therefore, Bleasdale’s discloses, “predicting an interval of time based at least in part on user activity data associated with subject matter of a stream session.”
The applicant further argues Bleasdale does not disclose it does not describe identifying frames of a stream corresponding to a predicted interval of time and modifying those frames. The applicant further asserts Bleasdale does not teach or suggest modifying one or more frames of the stream that correspond to the interval of time.
The examiner disagrees. The claims do not recite anything about identifying frames of a stream corresponding to a predicted interval of time, just modifying one or more frames of the stream that correspond to the interval of time.
Bleasdale discloses modifying one or more frames of the stream that correspond to the interval of time ([0042], particularly, “Based at least in part on the machine-learned score(s) 128 determined for a type(s) of user input, the computing system 102 may generate game control data 108 that corresponds to the type of user input, provide the game control data 108 to the video game 120 as input, receive video game data 122 as output from the video game…In any case, a player 110, such as the second player 110(B), can perceive video game content that exhibits something related to player action(s) (e.g., an action(s) of the first player 110(A)) very close in time to a time when the player 110 (e.g., the first player 110(A)) provided the user input to the game controller 106(A) (i.e., without a noticeable delay that may degrade play quality of the video game 120). For instance, when the first player 110(A) selects the “A” button of the game controller 106(A), the second player 110(B) perceives a video game character 130 being controlled by the first player 110(A) as jumping in close synchronization with the actuation of the “A” button by the first player 110(A). This compensates for latency of the video game platform and is due to the machine-learned prediction of the first player 110(A) selecting the “A” button, which is predicted in advance of the first player 110(A) actually selecting the “A” button.”); and
causing the modified one or more frames to be broadcast in the stream ([0042], particularly, “In any case, a player 110, such as the second player 110(B), can perceive video game content that exhibits something related to player action(s) (e.g., an action(s) of the first player 110(A)) very close in time to a time when the player 110 (e.g., the first player 110(A)) provided the user input to the game controller 106(A) (i.e., without a noticeable delay that may degrade play quality of the video game 120). For instance, when the first player 110(A) selects the “A” button of the game controller 106(A), the second player 110(B) perceives a video game character 130 being controlled by the first player 110(A) as jumping in close synchronization with the actuation of the “A” button by the first player 110(A). This compensates for latency of the video game platform and is due to the machine-learned prediction of the first player 110(A) selecting the “A” button, which is predicted in advance of the first player 110(A) actually selecting the “A” button.”).
Nonstatutory 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of US Pat. 12,388,889. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar methods, systems, and media. For example, contrast instant claim 1 and claim 1 of ‘889:
‘889 Claim 1
Instant claim 1
A method, comprising:
A method, comprising:
obtaining data associated with a streaming session;
predicting an interval of time during which an in-game highlight event is predicted to occur in the streaming session by analyzing user inputs associated with the streaming session;
predicting an interval of time based at least in part on user activity data associated with subject matter of a stream;
based at least in part on the prediction, causing the streaming session to be modified to generate a modified streaming session by at least applying an effect to one or more frames corresponding to the streaming session and the predicted interval of time;
modifying one or more frames of the stream that correspond to the interval of time;
and causing the modified streaming session to be broadcast after the in-game highlight event occurs within the streaming session.
and causing the modified one or more frames to be broadcast in the stream.
Further, remaining instant claims 2-24 correspond with subject matter disclosed by claims 2-27 of ‘889. Therefore, if a patent were to be granted, it may result in an improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” of the subject matter and may lead to possible harassment by multiple assignees.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Bleasdale-Shepherd et al (US Pub. No. 2021/0146241), hereafter, “Bleasdale.”
As to claim 1, Bleasdale discloses a method comprising:
predicting an interval of time based at least in part on user activity data associated with subject matter of a stream session ([0040], particularly, “In this scenario, the score 128 (as illustrated in FIG. 1) may relate to the probability that the first player 110(A) will actuate the “A” button of the game controller 106(A) to cause corresponding game control data 116 to be received from a first client machine 112(A) within a time period since the receiving of the new game state data 126. The time period (or time in the future when the user input is predicted to occur) may vary, and the trained machine learning model(s) 104 may be trained to predict user input that will be provided at any suitable time after receiving the input data”);
modifying one or more frames of the stream that correspond to the interval of time ([0042], particularly, “Based at least in part on the machine-learned score(s) 128 determined for a type(s) of user input, the computing system 102 may generate game control data 108 that corresponds to the type of user input, provide the game control data 108 to the video game 120 as input, receive video game data 122 as output from the video game…In any case, a player 110, such as the second player 110(B), can perceive video game content that exhibits something related to player action(s) (e.g., an action(s) of the first player 110(A)) very close in time to a time when the player 110 (e.g., the first player 110(A)) provided the user input to the game controller 106(A) (i.e., without a noticeable delay that may degrade play quality of the video game 120). For instance, when the first player 110(A) selects the “A” button of the game controller 106(A), the second player 110(B) perceives a video game character 130 being controlled by the first player 110(A) as jumping in close synchronization with the actuation of the “A” button by the first player 110(A). This compensates for latency of the video game platform and is due to the machine-learned prediction of the first player 110(A) selecting the “A” button, which is predicted in advance of the first player 110(A) actually selecting the “A” button.”); and
causing the modified one or more frames to be broadcast in the stream ([0042], particularly, “In any case, a player 110, such as the second player 110(B), can perceive video game content that exhibits something related to player action(s) (e.g., an action(s) of the first player 110(A)) very close in time to a time when the player 110 (e.g., the first player 110(A)) provided the user input to the game controller 106(A) (i.e., without a noticeable delay that may degrade play quality of the video game 120). For instance, when the first player 110(A) selects the “A” button of the game controller 106(A), the second player 110(B) perceives a video game character 130 being controlled by the first player 110(A) as jumping in close synchronization with the actuation of the “A” button by the first player 110(A). This compensates for latency of the video game platform and is due to the machine-learned prediction of the first player 110(A) selecting the “A” button, which is predicted in advance of the first player 110(A) actually selecting the “A” button.”).
As to claim 10, Bleasdale discloses a processor comprising: one or more circuits to at least:
predict that an event will occur within an interval of time based at least in part on user activity data ([0040], particularly, “In this scenario, the score 128 (as illustrated in FIG. 1) may relate to the probability that the first player 110(A) will actuate the “A” button of the game controller 106(A) to cause corresponding game control data 116 to be received from a first client machine 112(A) within a time period since the receiving of the new game state data 126. The time period (or time in the future when the user input is predicted to occur) may vary, and the trained machine learning model(s) 104 may be trained to predict user input that will be provided at any suitable time after receiving the input data”);
modify a stream by at least applying an effect to one or more frames of the stream corresponding the interval of time ([0042], particularly, “Based at least in part on the machine-learned score(s) 128 determined for a type(s) of user input, the computing system 102 may generate game control data 108 that corresponds to the type of user input, provide the game control data 108 to the video game 120 as input, receive video game data 122 as output from the video game…In any case, a player 110, such as the second player 110(B), can perceive video game content that exhibits something related to player action(s) (e.g., an action(s) of the first player 110(A)) very close in time to a time when the player 110 (e.g., the first player 110(A)) provided the user input to the game controller 106(A) (i.e., without a noticeable delay that may degrade play quality of the video game 120). For instance, when the first player 110(A) selects the “A” button of the game controller 106(A), the second player 110(B) perceives a video game character 130 being controlled by the first player 110(A) as jumping in close synchronization with the actuation of the “A” button by the first player 110(A). This compensates for latency of the video game platform and is due to the machine-learned prediction of the first player 110(A) selecting the “A” button, which is predicted in advance of the first player 110(A) actually selecting the “A” button.”); and
cause the one or more frames with the applied effect to be broadcast in the stream ([0042], particularly, “In any case, a player 110, such as the second player 110(B), can perceive video game content that exhibits something related to player action(s) (e.g., an action(s) of the first player 110(A)) very close in time to a time when the player 110 (e.g., the first player 110(A)) provided the user input to the game controller 106(A) (i.e., without a noticeable delay that may degrade play quality of the video game 120). For instance, when the first player 110(A) selects the “A” button of the game controller 106(A), the second player 110(B) perceives a video game character 130 being controlled by the first player 110(A) as jumping in close synchronization with the actuation of the “A” button by the first player 110(A). This compensates for latency of the video game platform and is due to the machine-learned prediction of the first player 110(A) selecting the “A” button, which is predicted in advance of the first player 110(A) actually selecting the “A” button.”).
As to claim 18, it is rejected by a similar rationale to that set forth in claim 1 and 10’s rejection.
As to claim 2 and 24, Bleasdale discloses the subject matter of the stream comprises a game, and the interval of time is a prediction of an occurrence of at least one in-game event ([0040]).
As to claim 3, Bleasdale discloses the user activity data includes at least one of video data, audio data, device data, or biometric data ([0040]).
As to claims 4 and 16, Bleasdale discloses the subject matter of the stream comprises a game, and the user activity data comprises at least one input obtained from a controller device associated with the game ([0040]).
As to claim 5, Bleasdale discloses the controller device includes at least one of: a gaming console controller, a track pad, a mouse, a keyboard, or a motion controller ([0040]).
As to claim 6, Bleasdale discloses modifying the one or more frames comprises applying an effect to the one or more frames that is not applied to one or more other frames of the stream ([0042]).
As to claim 9, Bleasdale discloses modifying the one or more frames comprises including an audio cue in the one or more frames ([0040] and [0045]).
As to claim 11, Bleasdale discloses the one or more circuits are to at least: generate an asset; and cause a state of the asset to be modified after the event is determined to have occurred ([0040]).
As to claim 12, Bleasdale discloses the event is to be predicted to occur within the interval of time based, at least in part, on an event type associated with the event and a type associated with the asset ([0040]).
As to claim 13, Bleasdale discloses the one or more circuits are to at least: apply another effect corresponding to the asset to at least one frame of the stream ([0042]).
As to claim 14, Bleasdale discloses the other effect adds a delay between two or more successive frames of the at least one frame of the stream ([0042]).
As to claim 17, Bleasdale discloses the event is an in-game event ([0040]).
As to claim 19, Bleasdale discloses the memory further stores instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: during the predicted interval of time, obtain a set of images of the streaming session; and generate a determination that the event occurred prior to an expiration of the predicted interval of time ([0040]).
As to claim 20, Bleasdale discloses the memory further stores instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: cause the effect to no longer be applied to the streaming session in response to an expiration of the predicted interval of time ([0040] and [0042]).
As to claim 21, Bleasdale discloses the user inputs associated with the streaming session includes keystroke data obtained from a remote client ([0040]).
As to claim 22, Bleasdale discloses the instructions further include instructions that cause the system to: cause a machine learning model to generate the predicted interval of time ([0040]).
As to claim 23, Bleasdale discloses the memory further stores instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: continue causing the effect to be applied beyond expiration of the predicted interval of time as a result of a determination that the event has occurred ([0040] and [0042]).
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.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleasdale in view Lucey et al (US Pub. No. 2015/0347918), hereafter, “Lucey..
As to claim 8, Bleasdale discloses the parent claim but does not disclose modifying the one or more frames comprises displaying an overlay in the one or more frames. However, Lucey discloses modifying one or more frames comprises displaying an overlay in the one or more frames (Lucey, [0047], particularly, “Similarly, knowing the position or identity of the next player to own the ball in a soccer game may be used to insert graphical highlights into a video stream capturing the game activities. Such highlights may include graphical overlays containing information related to the future owner of the ball (i.e. the predicted future event).”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Bleasdale with Lucey in order add different effects to media streams that could enhance viewer experiences.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J DAILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1246. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached on 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS J DAILEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
