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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges Request for Continued Examination and receipt of amendments/arguments filed 6/9/26. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-17 and 20-22 remain pending, Claims 18-19 are canceled, and Claims 1, 11, 20, and 22 are currently amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (WO 2020/226229 A1)(please refer to Patent Translation WO 2020/226229 A1 found at https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=WO&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2020226229&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=ko&TRGLANG=en , and attached herein as a PDF) in view of Takahashi (US 2015/0011318).
Claims 1, 11, and 20: Jeon discloses a system comprising: at least one physical processor; and physical memory (non-transitory computer-readable medium)(¶ 116, 123-127, 165-166) comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one physical processor (¶ 116, 124-127, 165, 167), cause the at least one physical processor to perform acts (computer-implemented method) (¶ 116, 124-127, 165) comprising: in response to a detected selection of a video game via a first screen device (250), converting a second screen device (151) to a game controller with a first control layout (Figs. 9a-10c, 13a-c, ¶ 342-353, 396-401); receiving, from the second screen device and via the first control layout, one or more control inputs associated with the video game displayed on the first screen device (Figs. 11a-d, 12a-d, ¶ 355-389, 390-395); detecting a trigger event associated with game play data of (the detection of the selection of another control layout or game pad, wherein the game play data is the data corresponding to which game pad was selected) the video game that necessitates a second control layout for the second screen device; and causing the second screen device to replace the first control layout with the second control layout in response to the trigger event (Figs. 12a-d, ¶ 390-395).
Jeon teaches the above, but lacks the suggesting the at least one processor and, physical memory/non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions, being incorporated in a server, that, when executed by the at least one physical processor perform above the processes or method via the server communicatively coupled to the first screen device and the second device. Jeon at least teaches that the first and second communication devices can be in communication with an external server (¶ 117, 123, 129-130, 135). Takahashi discloses a server, communicatively coupled to a first screen and a second screen device, having at least one physical processor and physical memory/non-transitory computer readable medium (Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67) comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one physical processor performs processes or a method pertaining to game play and/or game control layouts (Abstract, ¶ 40-41, 45, 61-67, 81-54, 89-108, 113-120, 148-149, emphasis on ¶ 104-108, 113-120). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, system, and/or medium as it pertains to processes or steps of gaming and/or control of Jeon such that it is performed via a server in communication with the first screen device and the second screen device because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing game play and/or game controls via a first and second display screen device in which at least Jeon is intended. Such a modification provides a control system that allows a variety of types or forms of games by use of a plurality of communication terminals (Takahashi - ¶ 6).
Claims 2 and 12: Jeon discloses wherein the first screen device is physically separate from the second screen device (Figs. 2a, 9a-10c ¶ 83, 342-353).
Claims 3 and 13: Jeon discloses wherein receiving, from the second screen device and via the first control layout, the one or more control inputs associated with the video game displayed on the first screen device comprises receiving one or more of tap touch gesture inputs, press-and-hold touch gesture inputs, press-and-slide touch gesture inputs, multi-finger touch gesture inputs, variable pressure touch gesture inputs, sound inputs, or gyroscopic inputs (Figs. 11a-d, 12-d, ¶ 355-389, 390-395).
Claims 4 and 14: Jeon discloses wherein detecting the trigger event associated with the video game that necessitates the second control layout for the second screen device comprises: determining a type associated with the trigger event; and determining that the type of trigger event necessitates a control layout that is different from the first control layout. For example, dragging and selecting a different type of control layout (processor checks for the selection type) results in display of a control layout that is different from the first control layout (Figs. 12a-d, ¶ 390-395).
Claims 5 and 15: Jeon discloses wherein detecting the trigger event associated with the video game that necessitates the second control layout for the second screen device comprises detecting at least one of: a predetermined point in the video game, a predetermined level in the video game, a predetermined character in the video game, a predetermined object in the video game, a preference request associated with a user of the second screen device, or an accessibility selection received via the first control layout (Figs. 12a-d, ¶ 390-395).
Claim 6: Jeon discloses wherein detecting the trigger event associated with the video game that necessitates the second control layout for the second screen device comprises detecting an interaction with a specific video game control within the first control layout (Figs. 12a-d, ¶ 390-395).
Claims 7 and 16: Jeon discloses, further comprising, in response to detecting the trigger event, generating the second control layout for the second screen device based on the trigger event (Figs. 12a-d, ¶ 390-395).
Claims 8 and 17: Jeon discloses wherein generating the second control layout for the second screen device based on the trigger event comprises: determining, based on the video game (Figs. 12a-d, ¶ 338-339, 390-395), one or more video game controls correlated with the trigger event (Figs. 12a-d, ¶ 338-339, 390-395, a determination is made in regards to what control layouts (game pads) and corresponding one or more video game controls are available for the specific game played upon selection of icon 1211); and assembling the one or more video game controls into the second control layout (Figs. 12a-d illustrates assembled one or more video game controls with corresponding layouts, ¶ 390-395).
Claim 9: Jeon discloses wherein causing the second screen device to replace the first control layout with the second control layout comprises: generating display instructions comprising instructions for removing the first control layout from the second screen device and instructions for displaying the one or more video game controls in the second control layout; and providing the display instructions to the second screen device (Figs. 12a-d, ¶ 390-395).
Claim 10: Jeon discloses the acts comprising receiving, during ongoing game play of the video game and via the second control layout on the second screen device, additional control inputs associated with the video game displayed on the first screen device; detecting an additional trigger event associated with the video game that necessitates the first control layout for the second screen device; and causing the second screen device to replace the second control layout with the first control layout (Figs. 12a-d, ¶ 390-395). In reference to Fig. 12d menu 1210 remains available during game play; thereof, a player could select icon 1211 and change the second control layout back the first control layout (Figs. 12a-d, ¶ 390-395).
Claim 21: Jeon discloses wherein the first screen device (250) comprises a television (see above, ¶ 3, 18, 236, as best understood given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation a television is any device that display video or games for multimedia or entertainment purposes) and the second screen device (151) comprises a smartphone (¶ 45, 63).
Claim 22: Jeon in view of Takahashi teaches initiating, by the server, the video game for display on the first screen device (Jeon - Figs. 9a-10c, 13a-c, ¶ 342-353, 396-401, Takahashi – see above, ¶ 104-108, 113-120). Jeon teaches the initiating of the video game for display on the first screen device, wherein via the modification of Jeon with Takahashi results in the process being done via the server.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20
Applicant argues that:
“the Office alleges that Jeon discloses "a first screen device (150)" and "a second screen device (151)," citing to Jeon's FIGS. 9A-1OC, 13A-C, and paragraphs [0342]-[0353], [0396]-[0401]. See Non-Final Office Action, p. 3. Applicant disagrees. First, elements 150 and 151 do not refer to "a first screen device (150)" and "a second screen device (151)"- they refer to a "first display unit 151" and a "second display unit 150." Indeed, these elements are only display unit(s), not separate "screen device(s)" as recited by the Office Action. More specifically, the first display unit 151 and second display unit 150 are clearly two screens of the same phone, or of the same "one electronic device 300." Looking at Jeon's FIG. lA, the one electronic device 300 includes (via the brackets in the lower regions of FIG. lA) the "mobile terminal 100" and the "case 200," wherein the case 200 itself further includes the "first body 210" and the "second body 220." Jeon elsewhere describes these two screens are a part of the same device, e.g., how "[t]he second display unit 250 provided in the second body 220 may be configured to operate based on power supplied from the mobile terminal 100." See Jeon, corresponding description of FIG. lA. Even further, Jeon's FIGS. 2A- 2D clearly illustrates how the first display unit 151 and second display unit 150 are mechanically and electronically part of the same whole. Thus, Jeon only discloses a single device with two screens, not "a first screen device" and "a second screen device" as recited in claim 1. The very fact that claim 1 recites "a first screen device" and "a second screen device" means that these two devices are separate. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that interpreting "a first screen device" and "a second screen device" as merely two screens on the same device is impermissible hindsight bias. For at least these reasons, Jeon does not disclose these elements of claim 1.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The first display unit 151 and the second display unit 150 are first and second separate screen devices. Even though Jeon does not refer to the display units (150-151) as screen “devices” one of ordinary skill in the art given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation understands that display units are screen devices. Nothing in the claims distinguishes a screen device as something different from a display unit. Jeon may disclose that "[t]he second display unit 250 provided in the second body 220 may be configured to operate based on power supplied from the mobile terminal 100."; however, such disclosure does not suggest the first and second display units not being separate first and second screen devices as defined by the claims. Even if first and second display units share a wired connection for power, etc it does not make them integral in on device or one of the same device. Furthermore, ¶ 51 suggests that the mobile terminal (100) can be detachably coupled to the first body (210) which suggests the display units as separate from each other. At least based on the above, the first and second display units of Jeon meets the bounds or scope defined in the claims regarding the first and second screen devices.
In regards to the newly added limitations, Jeon teaches detecting a trigger event associated with game play data of (the detection of the selection of another control layout or game pad, wherein the game play data is the data corresponding to which game pad was selected) the video game that necessitates a second control layout for the second screen device; and causing the second screen device to replace the first control layout with the second control layout in response to the trigger event (Figs. 12a-d, ¶ 390-395). Particularly, Jeon teaches the detection of the selection of another control layout or game pad (¶ 390, detection of a touch input applied to an execution icon (1211) for changing the game pad included in one area of the game pad, for example, the top menu area (1210)). It is agreed that Jeon fails to disclose a server implementing the claimed processes, steps, and/or method thereof. However, Takahashi, replied upon in the above rejection, discloses a server, communicatively coupled to a first screen and a second screen device, having at least one physical processor and physical memory/non-transitory computer readable medium (Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67) comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one physical processor performs processes or a method pertaining to game play and/or game control layouts (Abstract, ¶ 40-41, 45, 61-67, 81-54, 89-108, 113-120, 148-149, emphasis on ¶ 104-108, 113-120). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, system, and/or medium as it pertains to processes or steps of gaming and/or control of Jeon such that it is performed via a server in communication with the first screen device and the second screen device because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing game play and/or game controls via a first and second display screen device in which at least Jeon is intended. Such a modification provides a control system that allows a variety of types or forms of games by use of a plurality of communication terminals (Takahashi - ¶ 6).
At least based on the above, the rejection is maintained and clarified to reflect the claimed amendments.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, 21, and 22
Claims 2-10, 12-17, 21, and 22 each depend, directly or indirectly, from one of claims 1, 11, and 20; therefore, the above response to arguments apply herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see PTO-892.
For example, Evans (US 7369117) teaches changing controller mapping based on game play data associated with the game application (Abstract, Col. 7:19-35).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights