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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 has been amended to state that the “game directory comprises a device manifest associated with one or more residences.” The specification as originally filed does not provide support for this feature. While the specification describes at least one device in a room/home (e.g., ¶ 65), the specification does not use the term “manifest,” and there is no clear support for a directory covering multiple homes. As such, these features are new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
It is noted that the specification also does not use the term “residence,” but this term appears to be reasonably synonymous with “house” and “home,” which appear in the specification as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “‘[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
As summarized in the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
In step 1, it must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1-20 are directed to methods, which are one of the statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, the invention relates to distributed game play incorporating smart devices, wherein one or more device capabilities may be associated with one or more smart devices or tasks associated with game actions (see abstract). Exemplary claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
1. A method comprising:
querying, by a computing device, at least one smart device to determine at least one real world device capability associated with the at least one smart device;
determining an association between at least one virtual game action and the at least one real world device capability; and
generating, by a computing device, a game directory comprising the association between the at least one virtual game action and the at least one real world device capability; and
causing output of a virtual game configured according to the game directory.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions of the exemplary claim, with substantially similar features found in independent claims 8 and 17. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-26, and 18-20 further define the abstract idea (e.g., by providing indications of tasks being completed, providing a plurality of tasks and game actions, determining that devices are not available, etc.) or relate to implementation of the abstract idea (such as on a computing device, network device, television, etc.). The abstract idea may be viewed, for example as:
Real-time monitoring of an electric power grid, as in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Device profiles for use in a digital image processing system, as in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014);
An interface providing user display access of customized information, as in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Recording, transmitting and administering digital images, as in TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
A method of organizing human activities, as discussed in Alice and Bilski.
The claimed abstract idea reproduced above is effectively an algorithm or set of instructions directed to prioritizing smart devices based on their capabilities to perform tasks relative to game actions. Such steps amount to observation, judgment, and collection of information that could be carried out mentally or with the use of pen and paper. The claims also include carrying out game actions played by human players, which suggests that the invention is directed to organizing human activities as discussed in Alice and Bilski.
In Electric Power Group, the Federal Circuit found that merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas. The claims at issue were directed to gathering information to identify problems in an electric grid and to output that information to a user. The court found that such steps constitute an abstract idea based upon several previous court decisions, including Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Content Extraction &Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Digitech Image Techs. LLC v. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. The Court also relied upon TLI Communications, Digitech, Bancorp Servs. LLC v. Sun Life, among others, to state that analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds are essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
The abstract idea in the present case is similar in that it gathers information about smart devices and creates a directory of information about the smart devices relative to their ability to perform certain tasks. There is no asserted inventive concept in the improvement of computers as tools, but instead upon certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Such a finding suggests that the decisions in Enfish v. Microsoft, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America do not apply here. Therefore, under Step 2A prong 2, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims encompass the following additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se: an internet of things (IoT) device, a smart phone, a smart appliance, a camera, a sensor, a computing device, a network device, a television, or an audio device. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These features do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they encompass generic computer implementation (e.g., a computing device or a network device) as well as other well-understood, routine and conventional devices (e.g., smart phone, camera, audio device, etc.).
The Supreme Court in Alice found that claim recitations of a “data processing system” with a “communications controller” and “data storage unit” are purely functional and generic. The Court further stated, “Put another way, the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance...The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea.” The Court concluded that “[b]ecause petitioner's system and media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea, we hold that they too are patent ineligible under §101.” The same conclusion is reached with respect to the claims of the instant invention. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0043255 to Savolainen (hereinafter Savolainen).
Regarding claim 1, Savolainen teaches a method comprising:
querying, by a computing device, at least one smart device to determine at least one real world device capability associated with the at least one smart device (e.g., performing an IoT node discovery, such as by a CoAP Resource Directory in ¶¶ 20 and 30);
determining an association between at least one virtual game action and the at least one real world device capability (e.g., selecting those IoT nodes that can be accessed by the virtual reality gaming device 190 in ¶¶ 23 and 31); and
generating, by the computing device, a game directory comprising the association between the at least one virtual game action and the at least one real world device capability (e.g., publishing an association between a virtual sensor and a real world device in ¶ 29); and
causing output of a virtual game (e.g., a virtual reality game as discussed in at least ¶¶ 5, 39, and 40) configured according to the game directory (e.g., the user equipment may present a user interface including one or more icons corresponding to the scanned one or more virtual devices and one or more other icons corresponding to one or more real internet of things devices in ¶ 5; such interconnectivity allows for real world IoT devices to cause changes in the virtual world and vice versa as discussed in ¶¶ 39-40).
Regarding claim 2, Savolainen teaches wherein the at least one smart device comprises at least one of: an internet of things (IoT) device, a smart phone, a smart appliance, a camera, a sensor, a computing device, a network device, a television, or an audio device (e.g., IoT nodes in par 20, along with gaming devices such as Xbox, personal computer, smart phone, tablet, etc. in ¶ 22).
Regarding claim 3, Savolainen teaches wherein the game directory comprises a device manifest associated with one or more residences (e.g., publishing an association between a virtual sensor and a real world device located in a real world home in ¶ 29; see also interactions between real world devices and game world devices in ¶¶ 38-40).
Regarding claim 4, Savolainen teaches receiving, from the at least one smart device, a signal comprising an indication that at least one real world task associated with the at least one smart device has been executed (e.g., when a real world doorbell rings, the doorbell may send a notification to the virtual control device via a gaming device in ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 5, Savolainen teaches determining, based on the at least one real world device capability and the at least one task, that no smart device at a residence is configured to execute the at least one real world task (e.g., by limiting the scope of the search, inappropriate IoT nodes may be filtered from results, such as those causing a loss of privacy in ¶ 32); and determining at least one user device configured to execute the at least one real world task (e.g., allowing selection of a device that has not been removed from results as discussed in ¶ 32).
Regarding claim 6, Savolainen teaches wherein the at least one real world device capability is associated with at least one real world task (e.g., a doorbell ringing in ¶ 40), and wherein the at least one real world task comprises a user interaction with an internet of things (IoT) device (e.g., IoT nodes in ¶ 30), a security device, an image capture device, an audio capture device, a smart home device, a smart appliance, or a utility.
Regarding claim 8, Savolainen teaches a method comprising:
determining in a game directory associated with a virtual game, at least one device capability associated with at least one smart device and at least one virtual game action associated with at least one real world task associated with the at least one smart device (e.g., a real world heater may be bound to a temperature sensor in the virtual world such that a play may feel an actual temperature change based on the game situation in ¶ 39);
sending a message configured to activate the at least one smart device (e.g., the gaming device 190 controls the heater to activate, as discussed with respect to ¶ 39);
receiving, from the at least one smart device, a signal comprising an indication that the at least one real world task has been completed (e.g., the controller may read the state of the real IoT nodes in ¶ 33, which indicates whether a task has been completed or is in progress); and
based on receiving the signal comprising the indication that the at least one real world task has been completed, executing the at least one virtual game action in the virtual game (e.g., the temperature sensor in the game world is activated as discussed in ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 9, Savolainen teaches wherein the at least one smart device comprises at least one of: an internet of things (IoT) device (e.g., IoT nodes in ¶ 30), a smart phone, a camera, a sensor, a computing device, a network device, a television, or an audio device.
Regarding claim 10, Savolainen teaches updating, based on the indication that the at least one real world task has been completed, graphics data; and sending, to at least one user device associated with the at least one smart device, the updated graphics data (e.g., sending a notification to display in the game world the state of real world sensors, such as the doorbell in ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 11, Savolainen teaches wherein the at least one task comprises a user interaction with an internet of things (IoT) device (e.g., IoT nodes in ¶ 30), a security device, an image capture device, an audio capture device, a smart home device, a smart appliance, or a utility.
Regarding claim 12, Savolainen teaches wherein executing the at least one virtual game action comprises causing at least one of: a character movement (e.g., by the sensor worn by the avatar moving to a warmer or cooler game environment in ¶ 39), a scene movement, achieving a task, opening a game object, closing a game object, wielding a game object.
Regarding claim 13, Savolainen teaches wherein the message configured to activate the at least one smart is configured to cause the at least one smart device to at least one of: open a communication session, activate a piece of hardware (e.g., activate a heater in ¶ 39), or activate a piece of software.
Regarding claim 14, Savolainen teaches updating, based on the indication that the at least one real world task has been completed, game progress data; and
sending, to at least one user device associated with the at least one smart device, the updated game progress data (e.g., sending a notification to display in the game world the state of real world sensors, such as the doorbell in ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 15, Savolainen teaches determining at least one second real world task; determining the at least one smart device is not configured to execute the at least one second real world task; and designating at least one second smart device to execute the at least one second real world task (e.g., accepting input from a different one of the plurality of real world sensors discussed in ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 16, Savolainen teaches based on receiving the indication that the at least one real world task has been completed, determining a second virtual game action associated with a second real world task, wherein the second real world task is associated with a second smart device; and based on an association between the second smart device and a user device, sending, to the user device a message associated with the second virtual game action (e.g., receiving state data in ¶ 33 from a second real world sensor or IoT device of the plurality of such devices discussed in at least ¶¶ 31 and 39-40).
Regarding claim 17, Savolainen teaches a method comprising:
sending, based on a game directory comprising one or more associations between one or more virtual game actions and one or more real world tasks, and one or more smart devices associated with the one or more real world tasks (e.g., the IoT nodes available to the gaming device 190, as described in ¶ 31), to a first user device indicated in the game directory a first message indicating a virtual game action of the one or more virtual game actions (e.g., the IoT nodes available to the gaming device 190, as described in ¶ 31, based on state data as described in ¶ 33), a first message indicating a virtual game action of the one or more virtual game actions (e.g., sending a command to activate a heater in ¶ 39 or any other function in ¶¶ 39-40);
sending, based on the game directory, to a second user device indicated in the game directory, a second message indicating a real world task of the one or more real world tasks (e.g., activating a different in-game function and/or IoT device from the plurality of functions and IoT devices; see at least ¶¶ 39-40)
Regarding claim 18, Savolainen teaches wherein sending the first message to the first user device comprises determining, in the game directory, an association between the first user device and a first smart device of the one or more smart devices (e.g., publishing an association between a virtual sensor and a real world device in ¶ 29; see also interactions between real world devices and game world devices in ¶¶ 38-40).
Regarding claim 19, Savolainen teaches wherein the one or more of smart devices comprises at least one of: an internet of things (IoT) device (e.g., an IoT node in ¶ 31), a smart phone, a smart appliance, a camera, a sensor, a computing device, a network device, a television, or an audio device.
Regarding claim 20, Savolainen teaches causing, based on receiving a signal comprising an indication the real world task has been completed, output of an updated graphic (e.g., sending a notification to display in the game world the state of real world sensors, such as the doorbell in ¶ 40).
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.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savolainen in view of US 2016/0098687 to Lamons et al. (hereinafter Lamons).
Regarding claim 7, Savolainen teaches the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching receiving, from the at least one smart device, a signal comprising an indication that the at least one smart device is not configured for at least one real world task. In a related disclosure, Lamons discusses the capabilities of Internet of Things (IoT) devices. More particularly, Lamons teaches that when a device, such as a smoke detector, is part of an Internet of Things system, it has some level of network connectivity, and even when it is in a malfunctioning state, that state can be detected by the system’s server (¶ 148). This allows the IoT system to determine the states of individual network nodes within a profile, and can update the profile to indicate when those nodes are unavailable (¶ 148). Therefore, Lamons teaches that a smart device may provide a signal on the IoT network indicating that the device is not configured for a given real world task. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of Savolainen to receive, from the at least one smart device, a signal comprising an indication that the at least one smart device is not configured for at least one real world task, as taught or suggested by Lamons, in order to allow for status checks and troubleshooting of the devices on the IoT network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As an initial matter, claim 7 is now rejected as obvious over Savolainen in view of Lamons. Claim 7 is not argued separately by the Remarks, but the Examiner notes for ease of understanding that the rejection of claim 7 differs from previous Office actions.
Applicant addresses the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on pages 7-15 of the Remarks section. More particularly, Applicant contends that the claims do not recite a mental activity because the human mind allegedly cannot query a smart device to determine at least one real world device capability or cause output of a game directory comprising an association between at least one smart device and at least one game action. Remarks, 7-8. Similarly, Applicant asserts that the human mind cannot send a message configured to cause at least one smart device to execute a task or perform other similar tasks relating to the smart devices. Id. at 7-9. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A human can clearly inquire about (‘query’) the types of capabilities a device has, as well as create a directory describing associations between devices and game actions, as this requires merely looking up information and providing a printed matter description of device and game information. Indeed, this is performed every time a new game device is marketed to the public describing the device’s gaming capabilities, such as its storage capacity or graphics processing abilities. Given the broad language of the claim, the steps recited could be carried out by humans using, for instance, smart phones, wherein one human uses his smart phone to ask a friend about the gaming capabilities of the friend’s smart phone. The user may simply make a note of the friend’s smart phone and what its gaming capabilities are to meet the limitation of outputting a directory comprising an association between the at least one smart device and the at least one virtual game action.
To the extent that a message must be sent to a smart device to execute a task, the use of a computer to send a message does not remove it from the mental activities category of abstract ideas. According to the October 2019 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, claims may recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. October 2019 Update, 8. The guidance recognizes that if the concept that is performed in the human mind is merely claimed as being performed on a generic computer environment, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. Id. Relevant to the present case, a human is clearly capable of entering commands into a computer, including a command for a given device (which may be a smartphone) to carry out a game activity or to check the capability or other qualities of the devices. Neither of claims 8 or 17 (or claim 1) require any more a generic computing device to indicate a game action or request for other information. As such, the claims recite a mental process.
Applicant further contends that the claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity because the claims do not manage personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by virtue of reciting rules for a game. Remarks, 10-11. The Examiner respectfully notes that this is not commensurate with the grounds of rejection. As stated above, the Examiner’s position is that the claims include carrying out game actions played by human players, which indicates that the invention is directed to organizing human activities as discussed in Alice and Bilski. As such, Applicant’s “rules for a game” argument is not persuasive. Moreover, the discussions of In re Smith and In re Marco Guldenaar are not pertinent to the rejection. First, the grounds of rejection do not invoke either precedent. Second, Applicant’s apparent assertion that claims must include determining a winner and loser of a game, or must provide some exchange of money, in order to be considered abstract is inconsistent with case law, including Smith itself.
Applicant’s statement that the recitation of “virtual game action” does not mean the claims recite rules for a game is unpersuasive because the plain and ordinary meaning of “game” is an activity played by at least one human according to a set of rules. Applicant fails to explain what type of game actions beyond rules are encompassed by the claimed invention. For example, while it is conceivable that the virtual game action might relate to displaying game content, Applicant fails to explain why game rules are excluded from the broadest reasonable interpretation of “virtual game actions.”
Applicant’s conclusion (see Remarks, 11) that the present claims do not govern the actions of people is inconsistent with the written description. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 20 (“The user may be prompted to execute the task by receiving a message on a computing device (e.g., a smart phone, computer, gaming console) associated with the user. For example, in order to complete the task, a user may ring the doorbell and/or open or close the door in order to complete the task. The doorbell may send an open/close indication to the game server 104, the application manager 106 may mark the task complete, and in response, may execute the game action of entering (e.g., moving an avatar into) the virtual house.”).
Finally, Applicant alleges that the claimed invention improves gaming technology by overcoming “geographic disparity, social distancing, or other concerns may make it difficult for players to participate together in a fully immersive game.” Remarks, 15. The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims requires only generic computer components used in conventional ways. For instance, claim 1 recites at least one smart device, but provides no particular definition for what the device might be. Dependent claim 2 defines the smart device as comprising at least one of a variety of electronic devices, including a generic “computing device.” Taken together, claims 1 and 2 require merely playing a game on a computing device that has adequate capabilities to conduct said game. This is a clear illustration of using a generic computing device in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way that does not provide any of the alleged technological improvements in “fully immersive” gaming.
For the reasons above, the claims fail to demonstrate patent eligibility.
Applicant addresses the rejection of claims as anticipated by, or obvious over, Savolainen on pages 15-21 of the Remarks.
At Parts (A)(i) and (A)(ii), Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach “generating, by the computing device, a game directory comprising the association between the at least one virtual game action and the at least one real world device capability; and causing output of a virtual game configured according to the game directory” and “generating, by the computing device, a game directory comprising the association between the at least one virtual game action and the at least one real world device capability; and causing output of a virtual game configured according to the game directory” as claimed in claims 1, 8, and 17. Remarks, 16-18. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Savolainen teaches the claimed determining at least one virtual game action associated with the at least one real world device capability because the prior art teaches selecting IoT nodes that can be accessed by the virtual reality gaming device 190 in paragraphs 23 and 31. More particularly, paragraph 23 describes the variety of ways that real-world devices may discover virtual nodes, such as by using a CoAP protocol, Universal Plug and Play protocol, etc. Paragraph 31 describes how a gaming device 190 may initiate a scan for real-world IoT nodes by sending out multicast discovery messages, such as requests for CoAP well-known URI, sending UPnP service discovery messages, issuing AllJoyn find-name requests, using MQTT to subscribe to publisher(s), accessing directories such as CoAP Resource Directory, or the like. This illustrates that a gaming device may find real-world IoT devices that are capable of communicating with the gaming device for use in the game according to, for instance, a resource directory.
Moreover, the reference teaches a step of publishing an association between a virtual sensor and a real world device, which may be advertised for other devices to also access, in paragraph 29. This illustrates causing an output of a game directory comprising an association between the at least one smart device and the at least one virtual game action. (It is noted that the reference teaches other similar associations such as the doorbell example in ¶¶ 39-40.) Furthermore, this outputting of a game directory in Savolainen meets the claim limitation of being “based on the association between the at least one task and the at least one device capability” because it allows for electronic association between IoT nodes and respective virtual devices (see ¶ 29). As a result, the prior art teaches the claimed invention.
At Part (B)(i), Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach “receiving, from the at least one smart device, a signal comprising an indication that the at least one real world task has been completed; and based on receiving the signal comprising the indication that the at least one real world task has been completed, executing the at least one virtual game action in the virtual game” as claimed in claim 8. Remarks, 19. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Savolainen expressly teaches receiving, from the at least one smart device, a signal comprising an indication that the at least one real world task has been completed. More particularly, Savolainen teaches that the controller may read the state of the real IoT nodes in ¶ 33, which indicates whether a task has been completed or is in progress. Furthermore, Savolainen expressly teaches based on receiving the signal comprising the indication that the at least one real world task has been completed, executing the at least one virtual game action in the virtual game because the temperature sensor in the game world is activated as discussed in ¶ 39, discussing how a real world heater may be bound to a temperature sensor in the virtual world such that a play may feel an actual temperature change based on the game situation. As such, the prior art anticipates claim 8.
At Parts (C)(i) and (C)(ii), Applicant contends that the prior art does not teach various aspects of claim 17. Remarks, 20-21. Claim 17 is substantially similar to claims 1 and 8, except that it focuses on the sending portions of the communication rather than the receiving portions. The Examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed in Parts A and B, addressed hereinabove. Savolainen clearly provides these limitations, as the reference expressly discusses receiving signals from a variety of real world IoT devices, including sensors, heaters, and doorbells, along with their virtual world counterparts and their respective virtual and real world functions.
For at least these reasons, the claimed invention fails to demonstrate patentability over the cited prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights