Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/635,845

INFORMATION PROVIDING SERVER, INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 16, 2022
Examiner
TILLERY, RASHAWN N
Art Unit
2174
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
394 granted / 611 resolved
+9.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
643
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§103
61.3%
+21.3% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 611 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 1. This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed 1/15/2026. 2. Claims 1, 3 and 5-14 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 5-6 are independent claims. In the instant Amendment, claims 1 and 5-6 were amended, claim 2 was canceled and claims 9-14 were added. This is a Non-Final action on the RCE filed 1/15/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3. 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. 4. Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5-6, 8-9, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al (“Miura” US 2017/0354880) in view of Yong et al (“Yong” US 2014/0243097) and further in view of George et al (“George” US 10,617,945). Regarding claim 1, Miura discloses an information providing server comprising: acquire data regarding a plurality of different types of activities from a plurality of different kinds of activity servers for managing an activity of a user, including activities related to on-line gaming activities of the user (see paragraphs [0073]-[0077]; e.g., “The cloud gaming servers 104 execute the various video games which are being played by the users, defining a given video game's game state from moment to moment”), wherein data regarding activities of a first type of the plurality of different types of activities is acquired from a first activity server of the plurality of different kinds of activity servers and data regarding activities of a second type of the plurality of different types of activities is acquired from a second activity server of the plurality of different kinds of activity servers (see fig 12 and paragraphs [0136]-[0138]; e.g., data regarding social networking activities acquired from server 1216 and data regarding gaming activities is acquired from server 1200); receive an acquisition request for a plurality of different types of activity information from a client device of the user, where the acquisition request includes data element information for specifying a plurality of data elements constituting the plurality of different types of activities (see paragraphs [0077]-[0081]; e.g., request game title and update specific game as game state changes); acquire the plurality of data elements from among the data regarding the plurality of different types of activities (see paragraphs [0073]-[0074] and [0077]-[0081]; e.g., request game title and update specific game as game state changes); create a plurality of pieces of activity information of different types by adding respective different identification information to a set of the plurality of data elements thereby constituting each of the plurality of pieces of activity information (see paragraphs [0073]-[0074], [0077] and [0081]-[0083]; e.g., “at the time of login, the client device may send information to the cloud gaming server identifying itself as well as a connected controller device (e.g. in response to a request from the cloud gaming server). Based on this information, the cloud gaming server may determine an appropriate video game output configuration”); provide the plurality of pieces of activity information of different types to the client device of the user (see paragraphs [0073]-[0074] and [0077]; e.g., cloud gaming server provides video/audio data for rendering); and manage the plurality of pieces of activity information of different types to which identification information is added and stores a history of the activity information of different types in a storage device (fig 10, 1012 and paragraph [0126]; e.g., game history). Miura does not expressly disclose generating corresponding graphical representations of the plurality of pieces of activity information of different types in a common format having a predetermined shape; and superimpose the graphical representations of the plurality of pieces of activity information of different types in the common format on a game image on a display screen of the client device. However, Yong discloses generating corresponding graphical representations of the plurality of pieces of activity information of different types in a common format having a predetermined shape (see fig 1; also see paragraphs [0019] and [0054]-[0061]; e.g., aggregate/view multiple activity feeds simultaneously on a single screen). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include Yong’s teachings in Miura’s user interface in an effort to provide a more user-friendly interface that enables user to view content from multiple feeds on a single screen. Moreover, George discloses generating graphical representations of information of different types in a common format having a predetermined shape (see 13B-13E where graphical representations of information are shown as overlays on a game session); and superimpose the graphical representations of the plurality of pieces of activity information of different types in the common format on a game image on a display screen of the client device (see col. 6, lines 16-48; e.g., “the same game scenario or game level may be played differently and may thus include different combinations or views of content in different game sessions, …the information about content that is presented (e.g., as overlays on the game video and/or as or in user interface elements presented via a user interface)”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include George’s teachings in Miura’s user interface in an effort to provide a more user-friendly interface that enables user to view content from multiple feeds on a single screen. Regarding claim 3, Miura discloses wherein when a given data element among the plurality of data elements constituting the plurality of pieces of activity information is updated, the circuitry is further configured to store the given data element as being updated in the storage device as part of an update history in a time-series manner (see paragraph [0093]; e.g., gameplay timeline; also see fig 10, 1012 and paragraph [0126]; e.g., “game history information…such as the most recent games played, the duration of gameplay sessions”). Claim 5 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Claim 6 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Regarding claim 8, the modified Miura discloses wherein each activity server of the plurality of different kinds of activity servers is dedicated exclusively to managing a specific type of activity, such that the activity servers independently acquire and process data related to their respective types of activities without interference or overlap with other activity servers (see claim 1 above). Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 8 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 8 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Allowable Subject Matter 5. Claims 7, 10 and 13 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. Response to Arguments 6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Luu (US 2013/0332523). 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAWN N TILLERY whose telephone number is (571)272-6480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p. 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, William L Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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. /RASHAWN N TILLERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 16, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 28, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 11, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 25, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 25, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 02, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 05, 2026
Interview Requested
Jan 12, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 12, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 15, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 22, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602701
INTERACTIVE MAP INTERFACE INCORPORATING CUSTOMIZABLE GEOSPATIAL DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12547302
PAGE PRESENTATION METHOD, DISPLAY SYSTEM AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12542871
DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, DEVICE, AND READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12536219
DIGITAL CONTAINER FILE FOR MULTIMEDIA PRESENTATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12524138
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ADJUSTING POSITION OF VIRTUAL BUTTON, DEVICE, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND PROGRAM PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+11.6%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 611 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month