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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitations “the video game control composition is rendered with a consistent size irrespective of the display size”, “causing… position of the video game control elements relative to an edge of a display… based at least in part on the display size…”, and “causing… scale the plurality of video game control elements relative to the display size”, is unclear. These appears some contradiction within these limitations. It is unclear how the video game control composition sizing is presented irrespective to the display size, yet, the positioning and scaling of the control elements within the video game control composition are related to the display size of a screen device, thus, deemed indefinite.
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 1-15 and19-23 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 claims are directed to selecting and determining a user interface layout (mental processes and organizing methods of human activity) involving:
request for a video game control composition;
identifying the video game control composition that comprises a plurality of video game control elements, positioning instructions for the plurality of video game control elements, and scaling instructions for the plurality of video game control elements (mental process of observation and using pen and paper to create desired layout);
determining the hardware feature of the display on the second screen device based at least in part on the data received (mental process of person reviewing device settings, specification, listing of device components, or the like)
Claims 1, 10, and 19 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of providing a user interface layout.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claim 1 recites “server”; claim 10 recite “processor”, “memory”; claim 19 recites “non-transitory computer-readable medium”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (game controller, video game, first screen device) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use 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).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (server, processor, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable medium) performing data receiving and sending are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic servers, processors, memories, and data receiving/sending as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-15 and19-23 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mental process and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of selecting and determining a user interface layout, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
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.
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 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 1-5, 7-14, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DroidJoy Server as evidence provided in website “DroidJoy Server Tutorial” - https://github.com/grill2010/DroidJoy_Server/wiki/DroidJoy-Server-Tutorial to Grill, and YouTube video titled “How To Emulate Or Use Android Device As A Gamepad For Windows | DroidJoy Tutorial | Easy Method” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd6ErGFy0Js to Multiverse Tv in view of US Pub. 20210113927 to Zimring et al (Zimring), US Pub. 20220291822 to Wheeler et al (Wheeler), and US Pub. 20190149637 to Howell et al (Howell).
Claims 1, 10, and 19. DroidJoy Server discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
(as required by claim 10) at least one physical processor; and
(as required by claim 10) physical memory comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one physical processor (note, DroidJoy Server requires a personal computer and smartphone which contains processors, memories, and computer-executable instructions to run game programs), cause the at least one physical processor to perform acts comprising:
detecting, by a server, a request for a video game control composition to be rendered on a second screen device that serves as a game controller for a video game displayed on a first screen device (see Multiverse Tv at 0:55-2:36 where a person uses a personal computer and smartphone to download and execute DroidJoy applications which allow a smartphone to be used a gamepad to control video games played on other computing devices, note, the first screen device is the monitor used with the personal computer, and the second screen device is the smartphone);
identifying, by the server, the video game control composition that comprises a plurality of video game control elements, positioning instructions for the plurality of video game control elements for the plurality of video game control elements (see Grill “How can I change the button mapping?”, and see Multiverse Tv at 4:11-5:17 where the user can modify the mapping of buttons for the gamepad presented on the smartphone); and
causing, by the server, the plurality of video game control elements from the video game control composition to be rendered on the second screen device based at least in part on the positioning instructions (see Multiverse Tv at 4:11-5:17 where the user can modify the mapping of buttons for the gamepad presented on the smartphone).
PNG
media_image1.png
1042
1336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1058
1344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1056
1340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, DroidJoy Server fails to explicitly disclose:
receiving, by the server from the second screen device, data indicative of a hardware feature of a display on the second screen device;
determining, by the server, one or more characteristics of the second screen device based at least in part on data received from second screen device; and
causing, by the server, the plurality of video game control elements from the video game control composition to be rendered on the second screen device based at least in part on the positioning instructions, the scaling instructions, and the one or more characteristics of the second screen device (emphasis added).
Zimring teaches receiving, by the server, data from the second screen device; and determining, by the server, feature of the second screen device based at least in part on data received from second screen device (¶¶64 and 79, “server system 114 assessing whether the electronic device 104 has the needed resources for the controller”). The gaming system of DroidJoy Server would have motivation to use the teachings of Zimring in order to recognize particular smartphone capabilities and configurations in order to tailor gamepad presentations according to the capabilities and configurations of different smartphones in doing so would enhance the gameplay experience because different smartphone models would provide a gamepad display in dimensions, colors, and/or features compatible with each respective device.
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 DroidJoy Server with the teachings of Zimring in order to tailor gamepad presentations according to the capabilities and configurations of different smartphones in doing so would enhance the gameplay experience.
Wheeler data indicative of a feature of the second screen device (¶¶54 and 66, “type of display device”; also see ¶70, “Controls may have different sizes that may be suitable for one or more sizes of sockets, for example, based on an ability for a user and/or device to reliably distinguish between controls”); and causing the plurality of video game control elements from the video game control composition to be rendered on the second screen device based at least in part on the positioning instructions, the scaling instructions (¶¶38, 61, 64, and 70; also see claim 21 “user interface… layout modification… particular movement or resizing…”), and feature of the display (¶¶54 and 66, “Template socket design (e.g., configuration or layout) may be based on, for example, type of UI application, type of controls, type of display device, type of interaction (e.g., handheld finger touch, pointing device), etc”; also see ¶¶76, 87, and 107). The gaming system of DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring would have motivation to use the teachings of Wheeler in order to further modify gamepad presentations in doing so would enhance the gameplay experience because the flexible to change gamepad elements to different dimensions and sizes to accommodate users’ respective preferences.
It would have been further 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 DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring with the teachings of Wheeler in order to further modify gamepad presentations in doing so would enhance the gameplay experience because the flexible to change gamepad elements to different dimensions and sizes to accommodate users’ respective preferences.
Howell teaches receiving, by the server from a screen device, data indicative of a hardware feature of a display on a screen device; determining the hardware feature of the display on the screen device; and the hardware feature of the display (Figs. 2-4, and ¶¶4 and 11 “device profiles”, “adjustable game features”, and “capability parameters”; also see ¶¶38-39, 48-49, and 51-53). The gaming system of DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring and Wheeler would have motivation to use the teachings of Howell in order to further modify gamepad presentations according to respective devices’ capabilities in doing so would enhance the gameplay experience because the dynamic game implementation on different users’ devices.
It would have been further 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 DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring and Wheeler with the teachings of Howell in order to further modify gamepad presentations according to respective devices’ capabilities in doing so would enhance the gameplay experience because the dynamic game implementation on different users’ devices.
Claims 2 and 11. DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring and Wheeler teaches wherein detecting the request for the video game control composition is in response to a programming call within the video game, or a system request as part of initiating the video game (see Wheeler ¶¶46, 67, and 141).
Claims 3, 12, and 20. DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring and Wheeler teaches wherein the request for the video game control composition to be rendered on the second screen device comprises a request for the plurality of video game control elements from the video game control composition to be rendered in a first area of the second screen device (see Wheeler ¶¶37, 70, and 84).
Claims 4 and 13. DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring and Wheeler teaches further comprising:
detecting a request for an additional video game control composition to be rendered in a second area of the second screen device simultaneously with the plurality of video game control elements from the video game control composition in the first area of the second screen device; and
causing video game control elements from the additional video game control composition to be rendered in the second area of the second screen device (see Wheeler ¶¶37 and 70, a plurality of inputs in different locations).
Claims 5 and 14. DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring, Wheeler, and Howell teaches wherein determining the hardware feature of the display comprises determining one or more of a make of the second screen device or a display size of the second screen device (see Wheeler ¶54 “type of display device”, and ¶70 “size”; and see Howell Figs. 3 and 4, and ¶¶38-39).
Claim 7. DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring, Wheeler, and Howell teaches wherein:
the hardware feature indicated by the data comprises a display size of the display (see Howell Figs. 3 and 4, and ¶¶38-39) on the second screen device; and
the scaling instructions comprise instructions for rendering a video game control element within the video game control composition based at least in part on the display size of the display on the second screen device (see Wheeler ¶70, “Controls may have different sizes that may be suitable for one or more sizes of sockets, for example, based on an ability for a user and/or device to reliably distinguish between controls”; and see Howell Figs. 3 and 4, and ¶¶38-39).
Claim 8. DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring and Wheeler teaches wherein causing the plurality of video game control elements from the video game control composition to be rendered on the second screen device further comprises causing the plurality of video game control elements from the video game control composition to be rendered on the second screen device according to display preferences associated with the second screen device (see Wheeler ¶¶64 and 149).
Claim 9. DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring and Wheeler teaches wherein identifying the video game control composition comprises identifying the video game control composition within a repository of pre-validated video game control compositions (see Wheeler ¶59 “UI layout library”).
Claim 21. DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring, Wheeler, and Howell teaches wherein causing the plurality of video game control elements from the video game control composition to be rendered on the second screen device (see Multiverse TV at 2:54 and 3:04) comprises:
identifying, based at least in part on the positioning instructions, an area of the second screen at which one of the video game control elements is to be rendered (in relation to DroidJoy Server see Grill “How can I change the button mapping?”, and see Multiverse Tv at 4:11-5:17 where the user can modify the mapping of buttons for the gamepad presented on the smartphone); and
modifying, by the server (in relation to DroidJoy Server see Multiverse TV at 0:56 and 1:40-141 explicitly discloses DroidJoy Server), a size of the one of the video game control elements within the area of the second screen based at least in part on the scaling instructions and the hardware feature of the display (See Howell Figs. 3 and 4, and ¶¶38-39) on the second screen device (see Wheeler ¶¶54 and 66, “type of display device”; also see ¶70, “Controls may have different sizes that may be suitable for one or more sizes of sockets, for example, based on an ability for a user and/or device to reliably distinguish between controls”).
Claim 22. DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring, Wheeler, and Howell teaches wherein causing the plurality of video game control elements from the video game control composition to be rendered on the second screen device comprises sending, by the server (in relation to DroidJoy Server see Multiverse TV at 0:56 and 1:40-141 explicitly discloses DroidJoy Server), the video game control composition to the second screen device such that the second screen device is able to render the plurality of video game control elements from the video game control composition (in relation to DroidJoy Server see Multiverse TV at 2:54 and 3:04) based at least in part on the positioning instructions, the scaling instructions, and the hardware feature of the display (See Howell Figs. 3 and 4, and ¶¶38-39) on the second screen device (see Wheeler ¶¶54 and 66, “type of display device”; also see ¶70, “Controls may have different sizes that may be suitable for one or more sizes of sockets, for example, based on an ability for a user and/or device to reliably distinguish between controls”).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DroidJoy Server in view of US Pub. 20210113927 to Zimring et al (Zimring), US Pub. 20220291822 to Wheeler et al (Wheeler), and US Pub. 20190149637 to Howell et al (Howell) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20190212916 to Wang.
Claims 6 and 15. DroidJoy Server fails to explicitly disclose an edge of the display, and within the video game control composition relative to the edge.
Note, display devices such as display screens, monitors, or the like commonly has edges located around video presentation area. Wang teaches an edge (Figs. 2a+b, and ¶¶12, 65, and 68). The gaming system of DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring, Wheeler, and Howell would have motivation to use the teachings of Wang in order to further modify gamepad presentations according to respective dimensions including the edges of display screens in doing so would ensure control elements are properly placed within respective display screens for easy and smooth player recognition and use.
It would have been further 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 DroidJoy Server in view of Zimring, Wheeler, and Howell with the teachings of Wang in order to further modify gamepad presentations according to respective dimensions including the edges of display screens in doing so would ensure control elements are properly placed within respective display screens for easy and smooth player recognition and use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 and 19-23 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