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 .
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, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A method comprising: performing by a platform operating service application in a computing device coupled with a mobile game controller: aggregating games available to play, wherein the games comprise at least one game that is locally playable from the computing device and at least one game that is remotely playable; and displaying an integrated dashboard that presents the aggregated games for user selection via the mobile game controller.” (Claim 1) and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising: identifying games that are available to play using the computing device and a mobile game controller in communication with the computing device, wherein at least one game is locally stored in the computing device, and wherein at least one other game is remotely stored external to the computing device; and displaying a user interface that presents the identified games for user selection via the mobile game controller.” (Claim 11); and “A computing device comprising: one or more processors; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising: aggregating content that is available to play locally from the computing device and content that is available to play remotely from a remote content service; and displaying the aggregated content for selection via a handheld controller in communication with the computing device.” (Claim 22). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) for aggregating/identifying games available to play, wherein the games comprise at least one game that is locally playable from the computing device and at least one game that is remotely playable and/or aggregating content that is available to play locally from the computing device and content that is available to play remotely from a remote content service. Such steps pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). In regards to “displaying an integrated dashboard that presents the aggregated games for user selection via the mobile game controller” (Claim 1); “displaying a user interface that presents the identified games for user selection via the mobile game controller” (Claim 18) and/or “displaying the aggregated content for selection via a handheld controller in communication with the computing device” (Claim 22), such limitations pertain to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception e.g. post-solution activity that displays results (the aggregated/identified games or contents).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. The recitations of utilization of a “application”, “game controller”, “computing device”, “dashboard”, “interface”, “medium”, and/or “processors” are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids method, medium, and/or device to which a computer performs/implements the method, medium, and/or device. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 24 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 24 recites the limitation "the recorded content" in line 3; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that applicant intended Claim 24 to depend from Claim 23.
Appropriate correction is herein required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 15-16, 18, 21-22, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winick (US 2018/0369692).
Claims 1, 18, 22, and 26-27: Winick discloses a method comprising: performing by a platform operating service application (“Tabcon” app - ¶ 111, 119, 170-171) in a computing device (40)(smart phone, tablet, smart tv, examiner notes that each of a smart phone, tablet, or smart tv are types of computing devices have one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions thereon that when executed by the one or more processors cause the processors to perform the method herein) coupled and/or in communication with a mobile or handheld game controller (Fig. 2, ¶ 109-113): aggregating/identifying games/content (¶ 175, 177-184, 197-198) available to play via the mobile or handheld game controller (¶ 118-119, 123-125), wherein the games/content comprise at least one game that is locally playable (¶ 173, 175, 177-184, 218) from the computing device and at least one game/content that is remotely playable and/or remotely stored external to the computing device (¶ 174, 176-184, 203, 218-230); and displaying an integrated dashboard or user interface (Figs. 13-15, ¶ 170, 176-184) that presents the aggregated/identified games for user selection via the mobile handheld game controller (¶ 118-119, 123-125, ¶ 175, 176-184 – “initiates game services for the subscriber for iOS, Android and Windows. TABCON™ android app is the client app version of TABCON™ Store Web Interface—user may login, see the available games, saved/purchased games, top games, either download or stream games to play, buy games etc. TABCON™ app is exclusively for TABCON™ enhanced games which are available in the TABCON™ Cloud store. Top 10 Games, New/Updated Games, Popular Games, and Recommended for You, Try a Top Seller, From familiar faces, Adventure Games, New Game Releases categories help users to pick the right game for them. A separate category called ‘Featured’ lists the game advertisements.”).
Claim 2: Winick teaches receiving a user selection of a game that is remotely playable; and launching the game within the platform operating service application (¶ 170, 173-184, 203, 218-230).
Claim 3: Winick teaches wherein the game is launched in a browser opened inside of the platform operating service application (¶ 170-171, 175-184 (games are streamed from the platform operating service application), ¶ 183, 218 (game deployed e.g. played via a website (encompasses browser) with the platform operating service application)).
Claim 15: Winick teaches wherein the at least one game that is remotely playable is remotely playable from at least one external game service (¶ 171, 172-184, 203, 213-215).
Claim 16: Winick teaches wherein the at least one external game service comprises a cloud game streaming service (¶ 171, 172-184, 203, 213-215).
Claim 21: Winick teaches wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising: receiving from a server in communication with the computing device: a recommend game (¶ 119, 181, 196-198, 135), a friend's highlight, a trending highlight, a perk, a reward, active screen sharing, and/or promoted content.
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) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 2018/0369692) in view of How to close out of a game/app on Nintendo Switch OLED (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kZBfjUYiPg ), herein Nintendo.
Claim 4: Winick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting toggling between the game and the integrated dashboard in response to actuation of a user input element on the mobile game controller. However, an analogous art of Nintendo teaches toggling between the game and the integrated dashboard in response to actuation of a user input element (home button) on the mobile game controller (time 0:00-0:22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Winick with the toggle means of Nintendo because such a modification would of yielded predictable results, namely, a means of allowing a user of Winick to return to or access the dashboard thereof. Such a modification allowing a user to easily access the dashboard making the system more user-friendly as seen in Nintendo.
Claim 7: Winick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the integrated dashboard is displayed in response to actuation of a user input element on the mobile game controller. Winick teaches the mobile game controller including actuatable user input elements to provide user input controls to functionality of the computer device (¶ 118-119, 123-125) and a user accessing the integrated dashboard (¶ 118-119, 123-125, ¶ 175-184). Furthermore, an analogous art of Nintendo teaches accesses an integrated dashboard thereof via actuation of a user input element on the mobile controller (time 0:00-0:12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and/or system of Winick with the user input element means of Nintendo because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of accessing an integrated dashboard in which at least Winick is intended (see above). Such a modification allows a user to easily access the dashboard at there convenience; making the overall system more user friendly.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 2018/0369692).
Claim 5: Winick teaches the above, in addition to receiving a user selection of a game that is remotely playable; and launching the game within a browser inside the platform operating service application (see above), but lacks explicitly suggesting launching the game within an application separate from the platform operating service application. However, applicant fails to disclose that launching the game within an application separate from the platform operating service application solve any stated problem, provides an advantage, or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the launching means of Winick, or applicant’s invention, would perform the same function of launching a selected remotely played game, regardless of whether or not the game is launched within the platform operating service application or within an application separate from the platform operating service application. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Winick to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Winick.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 2018/0369692) in view of Nintendo Switch (combination of Nintendo Switch: How to Close a Game (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5FoRvN_5pM ) in view of Control: Ultimate Edition – Cloud Version (Switch) Review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeANr0tSSpw ) both directed towards the Nintendo Switch having an integrated dashboard), herein Switch.
Claim 6: Winick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting identifying a game previously played but not played through the platform operating service application; and displaying a prompt to continue the game. However, an analogous art of Switch teaches identifying a game previously played, but not played through the platform operating service application; and displaying a prompt to continue the game (Nintendo Switch: How to Close a Game - time 0:00-1:01 – teaches identifying a game previously played illustrated in the integrated dashboard, but not played through the platform operating service e.g. locally played game wherein a prompted to continue the game is displayed to the user (displaying press “A” button to continue – emphasis on time 0:30-0:47), Control: Ultimate Edition – Cloud Version (Switch) Review – time 0:00-0:50 – teaches that cloud based games are provided through a platform operating service application are displayed or selectable on the integrated dashboard of the Nintendo Switch as well). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Winick with the continuing means of Switch to allow a user to resume game play. Such a modification making the overall gaming experience more user friendly.
Claim(s) 8, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 2018/0369692) in view of Backbone (combination of Review: Backbone One (https://web.archive.org/web/20211028155054/https://www.wired.com/review/backbone-one-iphone-controller/ ) in view of Backbone One Game Controller for iPhone Review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv8qba1niug ) both directed towards the Backbone One Controller having an integrated dashboard), herein Backbone.
Claim 8: Winick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein at least one of the aggregated games is a game suggested based on a property of the mobile game controller. However, an analogous art of Backbone wherein at least one of the aggregated games is a game suggested based on a property of the mobile game controller (Backbone One Game Controller for iPhone Review – time 4:19 – 4:59 – illustrates providing/displaying aggregated games to a user, Review: Backbone One – pgs. 1-8 -“I trawled through the App Store's controller-friendly recommendations, playing Don't Starve and Transitor.. You also need games. Many games, including most Apple Arcade titles, do have controller compatibility. But a lot of titles still don't, likely because Apple didn't even begin supporting external gaming controllers until 2019. The games on this list are a good place to start. The Backbone app has game recommendations, and you can find compatible downloads within the App Store's gaming tab. Fortnite is infamously missing from the roster right now, but heavy hitters like Minecraft and Roblox are made better with Backbone. If none of the games you play or want to try are controller-compatible, you may want to wait until more are developed.” - discloses that the app can provide game recommendations based on a property of the mobile game controller such as compatibility e.g. which suggests identifying the particular gaming controller). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method/system, particularly, at least one of the games of the aggregated games, of Winick, is a game recommendation based on compatibility as taught by Backbone to ensure that available games to the user are compatible with the mobile gaming controller (see above with respect to Backbone). Such a modification making the overall gaming experience more user friendly.
Claim 10: Winick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the mobile game controller is configured for a particular external game service, and wherein the method further comprises prioritizing a display in the integrated dashboard of a game playable from the particular external game service. However, an analogous art of Backbone wherein the mobile game controller is configured for a particular external game service (the app store), and wherein the method further comprises prioritizing (recommending) a display in the integrated dashboard of a game playable from the particular external game service (Backbone One Game Controller for iPhone Review – time 4:19 – 4:59 – illustrates providing/displaying aggregated games to a user via an integrated dashboard, Review: Backbone One – pgs. 1-8 - “I trawled through the App Store's controller-friendly recommendations, playing Don't Starve and Transitor.. You also need games. Many games, including most Apple Arcade titles, do have controller compatibility. But a lot of titles still don't, likely because Apple didn't even begin supporting external gaming controllers until 2019. The games on this list are a good place to start. The Backbone app has game recommendations, and you can find compatible downloads within the App Store's gaming tab. Fortnite is infamously missing from the roster right now, but heavy hitters like Minecraft and Roblox are made better with Backbone. If none of the games you play or want to try are controller-compatible, you may want to wait until more are developed.” - discloses that the app can provide game recommendations with the app’s store gaming tab (the app store representing a particular external game service) based on a property of the mobile game controller such as compatibility e.g. the integrated dashboard would prioritize display of the recommended games). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method/system, particularly, at least one of the games of the aggregated games, of Winick, is a game recommendation based on compatibility as taught by Backbone to ensure that available games to the user are compatible with the mobile gaming controller (see above with respect to Backbone). Such a modification making the overall gaming experience more user friendly.
Claim 14: Winick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting receiving a share an image or clip via the mobile game controller. However, an analogous art of Backbone teaches receiving a share an image or clip via the mobile gaming controller (Backbone One Game Controller for iPhone Review – time 4:55 – 5:39 - illustrates receiving a share an image or clip via the mobile gaming controller, Review: Backbone One – Pgs. 1-8, “You can press the Capture button twice to take a screenshot, or once to start a screen recording. A light on the controller glows red when you're recording, so you don't need to second-guess whether it's actually working, and it will record audio from your party too. Press the button again to end your recording. When you're done, navigate to the Captures section of the app, where your videos and photos are stored. Backbone One does a great job showing you where the action is within your clips. You can edit footage within the app and share 30-second snippets as Highlights to your Backbone friends within an internal newsfeed. Videos can be saved to your camera roll or shared on Snapchat, Instagram Stories, Messenger, or other social apps—without the typical eyesore mobile touchscreen controls making an appearance.” - discloses that the app can provide game recommendations with the app’s store gaming tab (the app store representing a particular external game service) based on a property of the mobile game controller such as compatibility e.g. the integrated dashboard would prioritize display of the recommended games). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method/system of Winick with the receiving means of Backbone to allow users to share their gaming experiences. Such a modification improves the overall social aspect of gaming.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 2018/0369692) in view of Backbone (combination of Review: Backbone One (https://web.archive.org/web/20211028155054/https://www.wired.com/review/backbone-one-iphone-controller/ ) in view of Backbone One Game Controller for iPhone Review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv8qba1niug ) both directed towards the Backbone One Controller having an integrated dashboard), herein Backbone, and in further view of Smith (US 2018/0345139).
Claim 9: Winick in view of Backbone teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the property comprising a SKU. Examiner notes that in order to provide recommended games based on compatibility such compatibility involves identifying the particular game controller (see above rejection of Claim 8). Furthermore, an analogous art of Smith teaches a serial number (sku) of a game controller used so as to identify a particular controller. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the property means of Winick in view of Backbone to include the sku means of Backbone because such a modification would yielded predictable results, namely, as means to identify a particular controller. Such a modification would help in determining compatibility of games with respect to the particular game controller.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 2018/0369692) in view of Stroud (US 2018/0280802).
Claim 11: Winick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the integrated dashboard presents details of the aggregated games in expandable inline pages. However, an analogous art of Stroud teaches an integrated dashboard presents details of the aggregated games in expandable inline pages (Figs. 3b-3c, 4a-c, ¶ 93-105). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and/or system of Winick with the expandable inline pages of Stroud to provide relevant game hints and game-related options to enable the user to improve game play (Stroud - ¶ 105). Such a modification allows a user to improve his/her game playing skills (Stroud - ¶ 105).
Claim 12: Winick in view of Stroud teaches wherein the integrated dashboard is configured to allow user selection of one of the aggregated games (Stroud – ¶ 62-63, 93).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 2018/0369692) in view of Cyberpunk 2077 Xbox Controller Contains a Neat Easter Egg (https://web.archive.org/web/20220704064405/https://www.ign.com/articles/cyberpunk-2077-controller-soundtrack-qr-code-arg ), herein Cyberpunk.
Claim 13: Winick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting presenting a perk and/or benefit based on a SKU of the mobile game controller. However, an analogous art of Cyberpunk teaches presenting a perk and/or benefit based on a SKU of the mobile gaming controller (pgs. 1-2, “The Cyberpunk 2077 Xbox One controller features a neat little Easter egg, with a QR code that, when scanned, sends you to a track from the upcoming game's soundtrack. As reported by UglyDucklingTaken on Reddit, scanning the code found on the back of the controller now takes you to an unlisted YouTube video of 'The Ballad of Buck Ravers' by in-game band SAMURAI (as performed by real-life band Refused). Two other SAMURAI tracks are available to listen on the Cyberpunk 2077 channel, but this was previously unreleased.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Winick with the sku presenting means of Cyberpunk to provide more entertaining value to the gaming experience. Such a modification would promote or encourage user’s to participate in the gaming environment.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 2018/0369692) in view of Backbone 2 (combination of Backbone One iOS Review - Steam Link, PS Remote Play, and Xcloud tested (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3FfgXogToc ) and THIS Changes PS5 and XBOX Remote Play Backbone One Controller Review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJrDhvy2Ffg ) both directed towards the backbone controller).
Claim 17: Winick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly wherein the at least one game that is remotely playable is remotely playable from a console using a remote play feature. However, an analogous art of Backbone 2 teaches wherein the at least one game that is remotely playable is remotely playable from a console (playstation 5 console) using a remote play feature (PS remote play)( Backbone One iOS Review - Steam Link, PS Remote Play, and Xcloud tested - time 2:56- 4:22, THIS Changes PS5 and XBOX Remote Play Backbone One Controller Review – time 2:24-2:47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one game that is remotely playable of Winick is remotely playable from a console using a remote play feature as taught by Backbone 2 to provide more entertaining value to the gaming experience. Such a modification would promote or encourage user’s to participate in the gaming environment due to the added features.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 2018/0369692) in view of Backbone One iPhone controller users get new features with optional subscription (https://web.archive.org/web/20211104170551/https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/11/04/backbone-one-iphone-controller-users-get-new-features-with-optional-subscription ), herein Backplus.
Claim 19: Winick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising: providing a search function to query a database of games across multiple game services. Winick at least teaches allowing users to play any games cross-platform (e.g. via multiple game services)(¶ 91) and allowing users to search for games (¶ 170, 197-198, 219-230). Furthermore, an analogous art of Backplus teaches providing a search function to query a database (Twitch IGDB) of games across multiple game services (Stadia, Xbox Game Pass)(pgs. 1-4, “Backbone+ is a new service for Backbone One users that enhances how the Backbone app works with the games being played. The app itself is also rebuilt using the Twitch IGDB to highlight where games can be played, like Stadia or Xbox Game Pass.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medium of Winick with the search means of Backplus because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of search games including cross-platform games in which at least Winick is intended. Such a modification allows users to find games that they want to play more easily.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 2018/0369692) in view of Zalewski (US 2013/0274018).
Claim 20: Winick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising: changing a behavior of a user input element on the mobile game controller based on an identification of a game provider associated with a game being played by the computing device. Winick at least teaches allowing users to play any games cross-platform (e.g. via multiple game services)(¶ 170) and allowing users to search for games (¶ 170, 197-198, 219-230). Furthermore, an analogous art of Zalewski teaches a computing devices (Fig. 2a, element (202))(¶ 11-12) including program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising: changing a behavior of a user input element on the mobile game controller based on an identification of a game provider associated with a game being played by the computing device (Abstract, Figs. 2a-b, 34 ¶ 11-12, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36-45, 47, 50-51, emphasis on ¶ 50-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing device of Winick with the behavior means of Zalewski because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of game play for various gaming platforms e.g. cross-platform gaming in which at least Winick is intended (see above). Such a modification reduces the expensive pertaining to platform customizations and allows for alternate devices/controllers to be used in game play (Zalewski - ¶ 6, 10-11, 30).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 2018/0369692) in view of Review: Backbone One (https://web.archive.org/web/20211028155054/https://www.wired.com/review/backbone-one-iphone-controller/ ), herein Backcapture, and in further view of Bruzzo (US 2018/0001216).
Claim 23: Winick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting instructions further comprising starting or stopping recording in the computing device in response to a user interface element on the handheld controller being pressed for a first duration (first short press); and saving a last N seconds of recorded content (30 seconds) in response to the user interface element on the handheld controller being pressed for a second duration. However, an analogous art of Backcapture teaches programming or instructions including starting or stopping recording in the computing device in response to a user interface element on the handheld controller being pressed for a first duration; and saving a last N seconds of recorded content in response to the user interface element on the handheld controller being pressed for a second duration (a second short press)(Review: Backbone One – pgs. 1-8 – “You can press the Capture button twice to take a screenshot, or once to start a screen recording. A light on the controller glows red when you're recording, so you don't need to second-guess whether it's actually working, and it will record audio from your party too. Press the button again to end your recording. When you're done, navigate to the Captures section of the app, where your videos and photos are stored.
Backbone One does a great job showing you where the action is within your clips. You can edit footage within the app and share 30-second snippets as Highlights to your Backbone friends within an internal newsfeed. Videos can be saved to your camera roll or shared on Snapchat, Instagram Stories, Messenger, or other social apps—without the typical eyesore mobile touchscreen controls making an appearance.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing device of Winick with the recording means of Backcapture to provide a more social gaming experience (see above with respect to Backcapture). Such a modification allows for users to share gaming experiences with friends (see above with respect to Backcapture) making the overall gaming experience more enjoyable.
Winick in view of Backcapture teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the recording occurring in and/or derived from a circular buffer of the computing device. Bruzzo teaches starting or stopping recordings of gameplay in a circular buffer in the computing device and save recording content from the circular buffer (¶ 32, 35, 53-54, 62, 80-85, 126, 141-144, emphasis on ¶ 126, 141-144). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing device of Winick in view of Backcapture with the circular buffer means of Bruzzo because such a modification allows a user to generate a playback event based on game events that occurred within a captured time period (Bruzzo - ¶ 126, 141-144). Such a modification yielding predictable results, namely, a means of allowing users to capture game play in which Winick in view Backcapture is intended.
Claim 24: Winick in view of Backcapture in view of Bruzzo teaches wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising: editing the recorded content (Backcapture (Review: Backbone One – pgs. 1-8 – “You can press the Capture button twice to take a screenshot, or once to start a screen recording. A light on the controller glows red when you're recording, so you don't need to second-guess whether it's actually working, and it will record audio from your party too. Press the button again to end your recording. When you're done, navigate to the Captures section of the app, where your videos and photos are stored.
Backbone One does a great job showing you where the action is within your clips. You can edit footage within the app and share 30-second snippets as Highlights to your Backbone friends within an internal newsfeed. Videos can be saved to your camera roll or shared on Snapchat, Instagram Stories, Messenger, or other social apps—without the typical eyesore mobile touchscreen controls making an appearance.”)).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 2018/0369692) in view of Lu (US 11,369,869), and in further view of Lum (US 2005/0170889).
Claim 25: Winick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting a physical coupling of the computing device and the handheld controller. However, an analogous art of Lu teaches a physical coupling of the computing device and the handheld controller for communication purposes and charging purposes (Col. 3:16-Col. 4:10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing device of Winick with the physical coupling means of Lu because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of allowing the computing device to communicate with the handheld controller in which at least Winick is intended (¶ 18, 34, 109, 119, 130-131). Such a modification providing an alternative or additionally means of communication and allows for charging of the handheld controller (Lu - Col. 3:16-Col. 4:10).
Winick in view of Lu teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting providing a suggestion to improve a physical coupling of the computing device and the handheld controller. However, an analogous art of Lum teaches the computing device (console) providing a suggestion to improve a physical coupling of the computing device and the handheld controller (¶ 14, 36-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing device of Winick in view of Lu with the suggestion means of Lum to provide a warning to the user of low battery (Lum -¶ 37). Such modification allows a user to continue game play while charging the handheld controller (Lum - ¶ 37); thereby making the overall computing device more user friendly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see PTO-892.
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