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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/21/25 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 3-4 recite “the the first application adapted to cause…” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim is directed to communication processing involving:
Receiving and transmitting data and information.
These steps, when viewed in their entirety, describe organizing and managing interaction instructions for exchanging data, which is a form of managing human activity and following rules for allowing communication between people.
The recited “receiving… information”; and “receiving… data” steps are mental processes (e.g., talking with others, exchanging written notes, visually reviewing properties) that could be performed in the human mind and using pen and paper.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea: instructions for communicating data and information.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recited “non-transitory computer storage media”, “console identification processor”, and “communication processor” are generic computer components performing generic functions (storing instructions, executing instructions).
The claims do not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of communicating data and information according to instructions.
The additional elements (portable communication devices, videogame console) are conventional in video game implementations and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The use of generic computer-readable media, generic processors, and generic applications to implement communication rules is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of computer gaming.
The “first application”, “second application”, and “third application” are merely different generic tools used in the abstract communication process; they do not constitute an unconventional technical solution or improvement in computer functionality.
The “identifying… a videogame console” step is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of computer gaming, commonly, used in connecting a first computing device to a second computing device, e.g., connecting a game controller to a game console.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, the claim as a whole amounts to no more than the abstract idea of communicating data and information according to rules, implemented on a generic computer.
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 1-4, 7-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. 20130318247 to Liu et al (Liu).
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 15. Liu discloses a videogame console input system, comprising:
a first portable communication device (Fig. 1, element 104) adapted to communicate with a videogame console (Fig. 1, element 102) using a first application (¶¶16 and 19), the first portable communication device including:
a console identification processor (Fig, 7, elements 710 and 712) adapted to identify the videogame console operating a second application (¶¶28 and 37-38), wherein the videogame console is associated with a user of the first portable communication device (¶50);
a communication processor (Figs. 7, elements 708, 710, and/or 712) adapted to receive, from the videogame console, information of the second application operating on the videogame console (¶¶19, 26, and 58); and
one or more other portable communication devices operable to communicate with the first portable communication device using a third application, different from the second application operating on the videogame console, wherein the communication processor is adapted to communicate with the one or more portable communication devices by receiving data generated using the third application operating on the one or more other portable communication devices (Fig. 6, and ¶¶225-230 “multiple devices are interconnected”; note, the applications as claimed can be interpreted as but not limited to one or more of the following: game, driver, program, code, network communication protocol, widget, interface, tool, logic, software, firmware, API, function, module, media, title, content, or the like).
Claims 2 and 10. Liu discloses which the first applicaton is adapted to cause the first portable communication device to carry out the steps of:
associating the one or more other portable communication devices with respective inputs to the videogame console; and
communicating with the videogame console to relay respective input data received from the one or more other portable communication devices as respective inputs (¶226 “multiple devices” uses inputs disclosed in ¶¶20-22).
Claims 3 and 11. Liu discloses in which data generated using the third application includes data corresponding to at least one of:
a short range wireless messaging protocol; and
a text or multimedia messaging service protocol (¶32 “messaging service”).
Claims 4, 7, and 14. Liu discloses in which the first application is adapted to cause the first portable communication device to carry out the steps of:
parsing the received data generated using the third application from the one or more portable communication devices into a format appropriate to transmit to the videogame console, and associating the received data with a respective input to the videogame console; and
transmitting the parsed data, associated with the respective input, to the videogame console (¶226 “multiple devices” uses inputs disclosed in ¶¶20-22).
Claim 16. Liu discloses comprising:
transmitting, using the first application, a version of the received data, generated using the third application, to the videogame console to control the second application operating on the videogame console (¶226 “multiple devices” uses inputs disclosed in ¶¶20-22).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20130318247 to Liu et al (Liu) in view of US Pub. 20190036989 to Eirinberg et al (Eirinberg)
Claims 5 and 12. Liu fails to explicitly disclose claims 5 and 12 limitations.
Eirinberg discloses in which the third application is a video chat application configured to generate data corresponding to a video chat protocol (¶¶12-14). The gaming system of Liu would have motivation to use the teachings of Eirinberg in order to provide additional ways that players can communicate with each other in doing so would provide an enhanced gaming experience.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Liu with the teachings of Eirinberg in order to provide additional ways that players can communicate with each other in doing so would provide an enhanced gaming experience.
Claims 6 and 13. Liu fails to explicitly disclose claims 6 and 13limitations.
Eirinberg teaches transmitting, to the one or more portable communication devices operating the third application graphics data (¶¶19-21). The gaming system of Liu would have motivation to use the teachings of Eirinberg in order to share additional visual data that others may find interesting in doing so would make communicating among a plurality of communication devices more fun.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Liu with the teachings of Eirinberg in order to share additional visual data that others may find interesting in doing so would make communicating among a plurality of communication devices more fun.
Claim 17. Liu in view of Eirinberg teaches wherein receiving the data using the third application comprises:
receiving data generated using a video chat application (see Eirinberg ¶¶12-14)
Claim 18. Liu in view of Eirinberg teaches wherein receiving the data generated using the video chat application comprises:
receiving audio data from a user of the one or more portable communication devices operating the video chat application (see Eirinberg ¶¶29 and 53 “audio”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715