DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 2-14, 16, 21-33, 35, and 40-61 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over The Legend of Zelda Phantom Hourglass for Nintendo DS (see instruction manual published 2007, hereinafter Phantom Hourglass; see also description on pages 55-56 within chapter 2 of Swink, Game Feel: A Game Designer's Guide to Virtual Sensation, 2009; see also Sirloin, The Legend of Zelda: Full Game Walkthrough, 30 July 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NZhP2VHiqk) in view of Parker et al (US 20050134524 A1), and further in view of Reyes et al (US 20040204126 A1).
See teachings, findings, and rationale in the non-final rejection mailed 01/14/2026.
Regarding independent claim 2: Phantom Hourglass shows that the second application (one display window managed by The Legend of Zelda Phantom Hourglass) is different from (The two display windows managed by the same program The Legend of Zelda Phantom Hourglass are fairly construed as different applications insofar as “When we refer to "a second application," this includes a second display window managed by the same program or module that is displaying information on the first display.” See Applicant’s SPEC [0051].) the first application (another display window managed by The Legend of Zelda Phantom Hourglass). Phantom Hourglass further shows that the primary display and the secondary display are capable of swapping images (See Sirloin, which shows Link obtaining a Northwestern Sea chart. Upon obtaining the chart, clouds disperse over the Northwestern Sea on the upper screen, which displays a map. Details upon the map are obscured by dust. Link takes the Northwestern Sea chart to Linebeck. The characters appear on the lower screen, and the map appears on the upper screen. Linebeck asks Link to help by cleaning the map. At 54:26, the two displays swap images. The map becomes displayed on the lower screen, and the characters appear on the upper screen. The microphone detects the user blowing on the lower screen. Dust scatters away from the user, revealing a crest. At 54:35, the two displays swap images. The characters become displayed on the lower screen, and the sea chart returns to the upper screen. The sea chart is replaced by an island map. Linebeck reads the sea chart, and invites Link to travel to the location indicated by the crest. The user touches a stylus to the lower screen to indicate a command to “Go now”. The boat ships out. Between 54:42 and 54:43, the two displays swap images. The sea chart becomes displayed on the lower screen, and the boat appears on the upper screen. A touchscreen of the lower display senses the stylus as the user draws a course on the chart. The lower screen presents an interface for the user to confirm or cancel the course. The user touches the stylus to command the ship to “GO!” At 54:49, the two displays swap images. The boat becomes displayed on the lower screen, and the sea chart becomes displayed on the upper screen.).
Regarding independent claim 25: See teachings above for claim 2.
Regarding independent claim 44: See teachings above for claim 2.
Regarding independent claim 49: See teachings above for claim 2.
Regarding independent claim 53: See teachings above for claim 2.
Claims 18 and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over The Legend of Zelda Phantom Hourglass for Nintendo DS (see instruction manual published 2007, hereinafter Phantom Hourglass; see also description on pages 55-56 within chapter 2 of Swink, Game Feel: A Game Designer's Guide to Virtual Sensation, 2009; see also Sirloin, The Legend of Zelda: Full Game Walkthrough, 30 July 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NZhP2VHiqk) in view of Parker et al (US 20050134524 A1) and Reyes et al (US 20040204126 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Senupuku et al (US 20050083642 A1).
See teachings, findings, and rationale in the non-final rejection mailed 01/14/2026.
Claims 15 and 34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over The Legend of Zelda Phantom Hourglass for Nintendo DS (see instruction manual published 2007, hereinafter Phantom Hourglass; see also description on pages 55-56 within chapter 2 of Swink, Game Feel: A Game Designer's Guide to Virtual Sensation, 2009; see also Sirloin, The Legend of Zelda: Full Game Walkthrough, 30 July 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NZhP2VHiqk) in view of Parker et al (US 20050134524 A1) and Reyes et al (US 20040204126 A1) as applied above, and further in view of O’Gorman (US 20070120762 A1).
See teachings, findings, and rationale in the non-final rejection mailed 01/14/2026.
Claims 17, 19-20, 36, and 38-39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over The Legend of Zelda Phantom Hourglass for Nintendo DS (see instruction manual published 2007, hereinafter Phantom Hourglass; see also description on pages 55-56 within chapter 2 of Swink, Game Feel: A Game Designer's Guide to Virtual Sensation, 2009; see also Sirloin, The Legend of Zelda: Full Game Walkthrough, 30 July 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NZhP2VHiqk) in view of Parker et al (US 20050134524 A1) and Reyes et al (US 20040204126 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al (US 20060101354 A1).
See teachings, findings, and rationale in non-final rejection mailed 01/14/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The indefiniteness rejections mailed 01/14/2026 have been overcome by amendment.
Newly claimed features have been rendered obvious by the prior art of record as described above.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (BRI) as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant’s SPEC recites at [051] “When we refer to a "second application," this includes a second display window managed by the same program or module that is displaying information on the first display.” Clearly, multiple different display windows managed by a single program must be construed as falling within the BRI of the limitation “different … application” within the recitation “the second application is different from the first application” of each independent claim. Any narrower interpretation would not be the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (BRI).
On page 23, Applicant argues “each of Phantom Hourglass, Swink, Game Feel: A Game Designer’s Guide to Virtual Sensation, 2009, Reyes, Parker, O’Gorman, Hashimoto and Senupuku, fails to teach or suggest each and every feature of the present invention as recited in the claims”. The Examiner has considered this argument thoroughly and notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the instant rejection is an obviousness rejection, rather than an anticipation rejection. Furthermore, the instant obviousness rejection is based upon a combination of references; thus, no single individual reference needs to teach each and every claimed feature.
Furthermore, a prima facie obviousness rejection need not rely upon any teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM). The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified various rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. See MPEP 2143(I) for a non-exhaustive listing of available rationales, wherein TSM is merely one of a plethora of available rationales for obviousness.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of claims 6-7 and 28, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., part of a non-same instance of a non-same non-ongoing game session) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that “claims 8 and 9 recite, "wherein: the secondary display screen includes two display screen portions" and "wherein the two display screen portions are viewable at the same time by said user operating the portable device" respectively. The Examiner has used several arbitrary interpretations, without providing any evidence as where those interpretations have support in the cited references. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that nowhere do the cited references teach or even suggest the features claimed in claims 8 and 9” (emphasis in original), the Examiner notes that the claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (BRI) as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Oxford English Dictionary Online defines “portion” as “3.a. A part of any whole; a section, a division; a proportion, a fraction.” See Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Portion, n., 3.a. In Oxford English dictionary (Retrieved June 8, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1146857170). Furthermore, Applicant’s SPEC recites at [052] “a key feature of a system and method in accordance with the present invention is that the information shown on the first display is not "disrupted." What is meant by this is that first of all the image on the first screen in not covered up by a new window. … Secondly, we mean that the first display is not disrupted by making it smaller, or by "borrowing" a portion of the first display”. Clearly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “two display screen portions” consistent with the specification refers to any two parts of one display, such as any two arbitrary fractions thereof. Details pertaining to any less arbitrary, more specific portions are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, neither Applicant’s originally filed drawings nor originally filed specification delineate any more specific “display screen portions” of “the secondary display screen”. See Applicant’s Fig. 3C, for example, in which no display screen portion is labeled, and no other display screen portion is labeled.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Similar arguments pertaining to claims 30 and 31 are similarly non-persuasive.
No obviousness rejection has been overcome by argument. All obviousness rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oxford English Dictionary Online defines “portion” as “3.a. A part of any whole; a section, a division; a proportion, a fraction.” See Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Portion, n., 3.a. In Oxford English dictionary (Retrieved June 8, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1146857170).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
06/08/2026
Prosecution Insights