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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 4/7/2025.
Claims 2-21 are pending.
Signed copies of the IDS’ are attached.
The Drawings filed 2/26/2025 are noted.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saucedo (U.S. Patent No.: 10,661,169 B1) in view of Chimes et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2019/0255440 A1).
Regarding Claims 2, 9 & 16: Saucedo discloses a system (Abstract), comprising: one or more processors, (Fig. 1); and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions (Fig. 2, 200 and related descriptions), that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, (Fig. 2, 200 and related descriptions).
Saucedo discloses receiving simulation state data of a video game previously rendered as one or more rendered views, (Fig. 3, 302-310); receiving a request to generate a replay, (Fig. 3, 310); generating simulation state data; generating replay data based on the simulation state data; rendering, based on the replay data, one or more replay views of the replay; and outputting the one or more replay views to a display of a computing device, (Fig. 4.)
Saucedo discloses the replay mechanisms substantially as claimed but does not make explicit, the request including at least one modification to the simulation state data from which the replay view is generated. However, in a related invention, Chimes teaches a replay system permitting a viewer to modify simulation state data, (Chimes, e.g., Fig. 2, 202-208 and related descriptions). Further, Chimes makes explicit a user interface for supplying replay modification requests, (Chimes, e.g., Fig. 6 and related descriptions.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Chimes’ replay modification components in Saucedo’s system for the purpose of expanding access to game state data while making replaying easier via a convenient GUI. (Chimes, e.g., ¶¶ 10-12.)
Regarding Claims 3, 4, 10, 11 & 17: Saucedo discloses wherein the simulation state data includes at least object data of an object in the simulation state data, the object data of the object includes at least one of a model of the object, a position of the object, or a pose of the object, (Saucedo, e.g., Col. 5. Lines 18-37, Fig. 5 and related descriptions
Regarding Claims 5-7, 12-14 & 18-20: Saucedo discloses: wherein at least one replay view of the one or more replay views at least partially differs from a corresponding one of the one or more rendered views, wherein the at least one modification to the simulation state data includes at least one of: a modification to or addition of a camera in the simulation state data; or an addition of a visualization in the simulation state data, the visualization having a position relative to an object in the replay data, wherein the simulation state data is a subset of full game state data generated based on a location of a player during gameplay, (Saucedo, Fig. 3, 314-316 and related descriptions, Col. 5. Lines 18-37, Fig. 5 and related descriptions).
Regarding Claims 8, 15 & 21: Saucedo in view of Chimes teaches: the operations further comprising: receiving additional simulation state data of a previously rendered view in one or more of a different video game or during a different time period from the simulation state data; wherein the modifying the simulation state data to generate the modified simulation state data further includes at least partially merging the additional simulation state data with the simulation state data, (Chimes, e.g., Fig. 2, 202-208 and related descriptions, Fig. 6.).
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, generally 9am-5:30 pm.
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 on 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.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
