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.
(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 1-3, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2011/0314381 Fuller et al. (hereinafter Fuller).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11 Fuller teaches:
A data processing apparatus, a computer implemented-data processing method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program configured to:
receive data indicating an audio sample captured in a physical environment of a player of a video game (Paragraph 0007 discloses a system for creating a 3D, interactive story that has interactive gaming elements by way of an audiovisual device and a capture device that captures voice input. Further, Paragraph 0115 discloses an aspect to add game mechanics wherein the application may keep a user’s score);
determine a classification of the audio sample (Paragraph 0076 discloses determining whether one of more of the sounds is a human voice, and steps 450, 454, and 456 in Fig. 6 disclose a method in which a voice can be classified as a narrative to progress the story or an instruction command. Paragraph 0084 discloses that sounds recognized as an instruction commands can further be classified as instructions to the story application or to the operation of the system);
determine an in-game occurrence associated with the determined classification of the audio sample (Step 456, Fig. 6 discloses that a sound that is recognized as an instruction triggers an associated act, and Step 454 discloses that a voice correlated to a narrative can advance the story); and
control the determined in-game occurrence to be executed in the game (Paragraph 0087 discloses that a voice gesture can trigger character movement or object investigation within a virtual scene).
Regarding claim 2, Fuller teaches: wherein if the classification of the audio sample indicates there is no detectable sound in the physical environment of the payer, the circuitry is configured to control a default in-game occurrence to be executed (Paragraph 0005 discloses a default set of images and/or narrative that is presented to a user if a user does not interact with the story).
Regarding claim 3, Fuller teaches: wherein the circuitry is configured to control filtering to be performed to suppress a presence of audio generated by the video game in the audio sample prior to classification of the audio sample (Paragraph 0043 recites a “microphone may be used to reduce feedback between the capture device and the computing environment”).
Regarding claim 7, Fuller teaches: wherein the in-game occurrence relates to behavior of one or more non-player characters in the video game (Paragraph 0118 discloses a user interrogating an in-game character).
Regarding claim 8, Fuller teaches: wherein the in-game occurrence relates to simulated weather conditions in the video-game. (Paragraph 0032 discloses an interaction in which a user moves clouds together to cause it to rain).
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2019/0217198 Clark et al. (hereinafter Clark).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Clark teaches:
A data processing apparatus comprising circuitry configured to:
receive data indicating an audio sample captured in a physical environment of a player of a video game (Paragraph 0029 discloses a virtual reality environment within a virtual reality game, and Paragraph 0098 discloses generating models within a virtual reality environment based only on sound data);
determine a classification of the audio sample (Paragraph 0098 discloses determining the type of sound, for example, a bird or a plane);
determine an in-game occurrence associated with the determined classification of the audio sample;
control the determined in-game occurrence to be executed in the game (Paragraph 0098 discloses presenting objects in the virtual reality environment that correspond to the determined sound); and
said data processing apparatus, wherein:
the classification of the audio sample is associated with a plurality of selectable in-game occurrences (Paragraph 0075 discloses the VR application’s ability to receive data from a single sensor and identify virtual objects that satisfy the specific criteria, and Paragraph 0085 discloses the ability to vary the virtual object); and
the determined in-game occurrence selected is based on information associated with the player of the video game (Paragraph 0075 discloses player location as a criterion for object selection).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller in view of US 2004/0032964 Liang (hereinafter Liang).
Fuller teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 3 but lacks:
wherein the circuitry is configured to skip controlling the filtering to be performed if it is determined the audio generated by the video game is to be output to personal audio speakers.
However, Liang teaches a wireless headphone (Paragraph 0022) with an attached microphone (claim 8) and discloses its application for game systems (Paragraph 0004). Liang teaches that listening to audio through speakers, as opposed to headphones, restricts someone from moving around freely without losing audio fidelity (Paragraph 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, to have modified Fuller’s invention to support compatibility with the wireless headphones disclosed by Liang to allow a user to move around freely while maintaining audio fidelity. As a result of this modification, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, to deactivate the filtering of the game noise when the headphones are in use. When headphones are in use, the capture device of Fuller’s invention would not need to filter out game noise because the speakers are not in use, and deactivating the filtering function would reduce the system’s power consumption and computational requirements.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark, in view of US 2020/0206631 Sumant et al. (hereinafter Sumant).
Regarding claim 6, Clark teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 5 but lacks:
wherein:
the information associated with the player is emotional state information indicating an emotional state of the player; and
each of the plurality of selectable in-game occurrences is associated with a different emotional state of the player.
However, Sumant teaches:
selection of an in-game occurrence being associated with a player’s emotional state, and each of the plurality of selectable in-game occurrences being associated with a different emotional state of the player (Claim 11 discloses a plurality of video-game modifications, with each modification corresponding to a desired change in emotional state).
Sumant teaches that dynamically adjusting a game based on a player’s emotional state can improve positive feelings and reduce negative feelings that occur in response to the video game (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Clark’s invention by associating each in-game occurrence generated by a sound with an emotional state of the player. One would be motivated do so, so that the player of his or her game would be more likely to have positive feelings towards the game.
Regarding claim 9, Clark teaches the data processing apparatus according to claim 1 but lacks:
wherein the circuitry is configured to determine a relationship between contexts of speech included in previous captured audio samples and previous interactions between the player and the video game occurring in response to the speech of the previous audio samples; and control output of a suggestion to the player based on the determined relationship.
However, Sumant teaches:
circuitry configured to:
determine a relationship between contexts of speech included in previous captured audio samples and previous interactions between the player and the video game occurring in response to the speech of the previous audio samples (Paragraph 0059 discloses sensory data captured over one or more gaming sessions that is stored in a user depository, and Paragraph 0005 discloses audio data as sensory data comprising speech for use in determining a tone of the speech); and
control output of a suggestion to the player based on the determined relationship (Paragraph 0094 discloses an emotion prediction model whose output is a suggested game change and Paragraph 0092 discloses that the resulting change to a game, could include game events, numbers or types of non-playable characters, or in-game items dropped or made available).
Sumant teaches that dynamically adjusting a game based on a player’s emotional state can improve positive feelings and reduce negative feelings that occur in response to the video game (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Clark’s invention by further associating each in-game occurrence generated by a sound with an emotional state of the player and then suggest an in-game occurrence according to the emotional state of the player. One would be motivated do so, so that a player of his or her game would be more likely to have positive feelings towards the game, as expressly taught by Sumant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LEE GARLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-0810. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571)272-7147. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights