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 .
In the response to this Office action, the Office respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Office in prosecuting this application.
The Office has cited particular figures, elements, paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider each of the cited references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage disclosed by the Office.
Status of Claims
- Applicant’s Amendment filed September 3, 2025 is acknowledged.
- Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19 is/are amended
- Claim(s) 2 is/are canceled
- Claim(s) 1, 3-20 is/are pending in the application.
This action is FINAL
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 10, 2025 and August 5, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner, except as noted below.
Items numbered N10 and N11 on the IDS dated June 10, 2025 have been lined through because the document numbers provided are not valid patent publication numbers.
Drawings
The drawings were received on September 3, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Examiner respectfully withdraws the rejection under 35 USC 112. Applicant’s amendment has rendered the rejection moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120284302 in view of Erikawa et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 6736724 and Perry et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130162680.
Consider claim 1, Takagi teaches a mobile game controller comprising: a user input element (see Takagi figure 13, element 416, 440, 438, 420, 416, 418 and paragraphs 0076-0089 specifically for example paragraphs 0076-0077);
one or more processors (see Takagi figure 14, element 551, 540, 550, 560, 570);
a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see Takagi figure 14, element 426, 545, 543 and paragraph 0014, 0033, 0076, 0092-0093); and
program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium (see Takagi paragraph 0014, 0033, 0076, 0092-0093 where program may be stored in information storage medium which is capable of computer readable) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising:
detecting user actuation of the user input element of the mobile game controller, (see Takagi paragraph 0077 where game machine 400 includes a selection button 440, a start button 438. The start button 438 is a button for the user to give instructions such as starting a game),
informing a computing device in communication with the mobile game controller of the user actuation of the user input element, wherein a default action associated with the user actuation of the user input element is to cause a game application to open on the computing device (see Takagi paragraph 0077 where game machine 400 includes a selection button 440, a start button 438. The start button 438 is a button for the user to give instructions such as starting a game).
Takagi does not explicitly illustrate a steps of detecting user input and starting a game. In the same field of endeavor, Erikawa teaches that it is known in the prior art for a game to start by pressing a certain button on an input device (see Erikawa column 1, lines 30-33 where the game starts by pressing a certain button on the input device 3. Then it is possible to play the game by operating buttons on the input device 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Takagi to have started a game in response to a user pressing a certain button using known techniques with predictable results.
Takagi is silent regarding wherein the mobile game controller is customized for a particular gaming platform.
In the same field of endeavor, Perry teaches that a given video game may be developed for a specific platform and a specific associated controller device so as to provide a video game with controller inputs tailored to play a game of a specific platform (see Perry paragraphs 0080-0091, 0126)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have modified Takagi to have a mobile game controller is customized for a particular gaming platform so as to provide controller inputs tailored to play a game of a specific platform using known techniques with predictable results.
Claim 2 canceled
Consider claim 3, Takagi as modified by Erikawa and Perry teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the user input element is dedicated to the default action (see Takagi paragraph 0077 where game machine 400 includes a selection button 440, a start button 438. The start button 438 is a button for the user to give instructions such as starting a game).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2120284302, Erikawa et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 6736724 and Perry et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130162680 in view of Bear et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20040225502.
Consider claim 4, Takagi as modified by Erikawa and Perry teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Takagi is silent regarding wherein the default action is one of a plurality of actions of the user input element, and wherein action(s) other than the default action are triggered by different actuation(s) of the user input element.
In a related field of endeavor, Bear teaches using a single button to respond to different actuation method so as to perform different actions/modes so as to facilitate performing different actions/modes via button actuations such as single press/double press (see Bear figure 7, element 710, 720, 730, 732, 722, 724).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have modified Takagi with the teachings of Bear to have different actions triggered by different actuation of a user input so as to facilitated performing different actions via button actuation such as single press/double press using known techniques with predictable results.
Consider claim 5, Takagi as modified by Erikawa, Perry and Bear teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Takagi teaches that a menu screen is display by the crystal display but is silent regarding how disclosed menu screen is invoked to be displayed (see Takagi paragraph 0077). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have modified Takagi to have one of the plurality of actions display a home menu so as to facilitate a user entering a command to display a home menu using known techniques with predictable results.
Consider claim 6, Takagi as modified by Erikawa, Perry and Bear teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and further teaches wherein the user input element comprises a button, wherein a single press of the button causes the default action (see Takagi paragraph 0077 where game machine 400 includes a selection button 440, a start button 438. The start button 438 is a button for the user to give instructions such as starting a game), and wherein holding down the button and/or pressing the button multiple times triggers action(s) other than the default action (see Bear figure 7, element 710, 720, 730, 732, 722, 724, 702, 704, 712, 714).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2120284302, Erikawa et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 6736724, Perry et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130162680 and Bear et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20040225502 in view of Lemke et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170239468.
Consider claim 7, Takagi as modified by Erikawa, Perry and Bear teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Takagi/Erikawa/Perry/Bear is silent regarding wherein a button state buffer is maintained whose length matches a double-press window
In a related field of endeavor, Lemke teaches a button is sampled into a circular buffer so as to identify a valid button state (see Lemke paragraph 0473 where button is sampled into a circular buffer that holds eight samples. The six most recent samples are used by the debounce algorithm to determine the state of the button. All six samples must be the same to identify a valid button state. If the buffer contains a mix of low and high sample values, the button is determined to be in a bouncing or transition state. The Button driver keeps track of the state of the button from the previous time the debounce algorithm was applied and can thus identify transitions. A function is provided to check for a button release. It can be called approximately every 50 ms by tasks reading the button to provide acceptable user responsiveness to inputs. A release transition requires at least six samples with the button depressed, followed by at least six samples with it released. Therefore approximately 100 ms of sampling is required to identify a button press). Further, Lemke teaches a button timer that counts down the time window for a button double-press (see Lemke paragraph 0467). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have further modified Takagi with the teachings of Lemke to have a circular buffer to sample button state so as to identify valid button state and determine a button double press action using know techniques with predictable results.
Consider claim 8, Takagi as modified by Erikawa, Perry, Bear and Lemke teaches all the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches wherein once a double-press button gesture has been ruled out, the button state buffer is replayed and the button state buffer operates in a circular fashion (see Lemke paragraph 0467, 0473 where button is sampled into a circular buffer).
Claim(s) 9-10, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230048793 in view of Schembri et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240009564 and Perry et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130162680.
Consider claim 9, Lee teaches a method comprising: performing by a computing device in communication with a mobile game controller (see Lee figure 13, element 210, GAME HUB, CLOUD SOURCE and paragraphs 0198-0236):
receiving, from the mobile game controller, information that indicates that the mobile game controller is
Lee is silent regarding a mobile game controller is customized for a particular gaming platform. Further, Lee is silent regarding selecting a graphical representation of the mobile game controller that is specific to the particular gaming platform, wherein the selected graphical representation of the mobile game controller is different from a default graphical representation of the mobile game controller; and displaying the selected graphical representation of the mobile game controller on a display of the computing device.
In the same field of endeavor, Perry teaches that a given video game may be developed for a specific platform and a specific associated controller device so as to provide a video game with controller inputs tailored to play a game of a specific platform (see Perry paragraphs 0080-0091, 0126). Further, Perry discusses mapping different controller types to function with platform games having a specific associated controller so as to facilitate a user playing a game with a controller that may not be originally developed for the platform games.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have modified Lee to have a mobile game controller customized for a particular gaming platform so as to provide controller inputs tailored to play a game of a specific platform using known techniques with predictable results. Further, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have modified Lee to have a customized controller mapped to function with an alternative platform so as to extend the useability of the controller to function with other platform games such as game consoles and cloud-based versions of games.
In a related field of endeavor, Schembri teaches displaying a representation of a mobile game controller so as to instruct a user regarding how controller input components control the game progress (see Schembri figures 4-5 and paragraphs 0032-0037). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Lee with the teachings of Schembri to display a representation of a mobile game controller so as to instruct a user regarding how controller input components control the game progress using known techniques with predictable results.
Further, in view of modifying Lee to have a customized controller mapped to function with an alternative platform as disclosed by Perry, when a user playing a game that has a default (customized) controller with an alternative controller would result in displaying a game controller different from a default (customized) graphical representation of a mobile game controller having controls of the game the user is playing mapped to the alternative controller the user is using.
Consider claim 10, Lee as modified by Schembri and Perry teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and further teaches wherein the selected graphical representation is specific to the particular gaming platform in terms of glyphs of user input elements of the mobile gaming device (see Schembri figures 4-5 and paragraphs 0032-0037 specifically for example controller (such as that exemplified in FIGS. 3A and 3B) may be used for interacting with different content. This means the controls will be associated with different functions for different content. For example, in one video game such as a racing game, a given button (e.g. second shoulder button 306R) may perform a function such as causing a vehicle in the game to accelerate. However, in another video game such as an action-adventure game, the same button may perform a completely different function such as causing a weapon to fire. And Perry paragraphs 0080-0091, 0126).
Consider claim 13, Lee as modified by Schembri and Perry teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and further teaches further comprising: providing the information that indicates that the mobile game controller is customized for the particular gaming platform to a backend server (see Lee figure 16, element 210, 100, 1610, 1630, 1640, and paragraphs 0214-0219 specifically for example paragraph 0214-0215 where display apparatus 100 may recognize the first device by obtaining identification information of the first device based on information transmitted and received in operation 1610, paragraph 0121 where a control signal is received from the first device controller 310 after the control signal conversion configuration information 1500 is set as described above, the display apparatus 100 may convert the control signal corresponding to a button from the first device controller 310 into a code recognizable by the first cloud, based on the conversion table 713 set in the control signal conversion configuration information 1500, and provide the code to the server computer, which corresponds to the first cloud. And Perry paragraphs 0080-0091, 0126);
receiving, from the backend server, an identification of games associated with the particular gaming platform (see Lee figure 15, CLOUD GAME 1, CLOUD GAME 2, CLOUD GAME 3, CLOUD GAME4); and
displaying representations of the games for user selection (see Lee figure 15, CLOUD GAME 1, CLOUD GAME 2, CLOUD GAME 3, CLOUD GAME4).
Consider claim 14, Lee as modified by Schembri and Perry teaches all the limitations of claim 13and further teaches wherein the representations of the games are displayed in a dedicated row (see Lee figure 15, CLOUD GAME 1, CLOUD GAME 2, CLOUD GAME 3, CLOUD GAME4).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230048793, Schembri et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240009564 and Perry et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130162680 in view of Smith et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018035139.
Consider claim 11, Lee as modified by Schembri and Perry teaches all the limitations of claim 9. Lee/Schembri is silent regarding wherein the information comprises a stock keeping unit (SKU) number of the mobile game controller.
In a related field of endeavor, Smith teaches an serial number (SKU) of a controller used so as to identify a particular controller (see Smith paragraph 0038). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Lee with the teachings of Smith to have a serial number (SKU) so as to identify a particular controller using known techniques with predictable results.
Consider claim 12, Lee as modified by Schembri, Perry and Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and further teaches wherein the information comprises a protocol string (see Smith paragraph 0038 where driver-compatible game controller 206 may transmit a “hello” message that includes a unique device identifier, such as a serial number for the driver-compatible game controller 206).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The claimed invention (claim 15 as representative of the independent claims) recites “ 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: receiving, from a mobile game controller of a user, information that indicates that the mobile game controller is customized for a particular gaming platform; sending the information to a server, wherein the server segments, based on the information, one or more games for the particular gaming platform that are remotely playable from a user's game console from other games; receiving, from the server, an identification of the one or more games remotely playable from the user's game console; automatically displaying the identification of the one or more games remotely playable from the user's game console; receiving a selection of a game from the one or more games; and streaming the selected game from the user's game console to the computing device for remote play “.
The prior arts cited fails to fairly teach or suggest the combined features of the invention including receiving, from a mobile game controller of a user, information that indicates that the mobile game controller is customized for a particular gaming platform; sending the information to a server, wherein the server segments, based on the information, one or more games for the particular gaming platform that are remotely playable from a user's game console from other games; receiving, from the server, an identification of the one or more games remotely playable from the user's game console; automatically displaying the identification of the one or more games remotely playable from the user's game console; receiving a selection of a game from the one or more games; and streaming the selected game from the user's game console to the computing device for remote play.
Applicant has argued these features in the interview conducted on August 19, 2025. These features find support at least at figure 3 of Applicant’s original specification.
As such, modification of the prior art of record can only be motivated by hindsight reasoning, or by changing the intended use and function of the prior art themselves. Therefore, it is not clear that one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the necessary modifications to the prior art of record to encompass the limitations set forth in the present application. Moreover, none of the prior arts of record, taken either alone or in combination, anticipate nor render obvious the claimed inventions. Hence, claims 15-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wei et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 12074946 (automatic content capability detection), Walker et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 8568238 (system for remote game access), Boegli, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20250032901 game controller and method for connecting to a wireless audio device), Benedetto et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170354884 (game play companion application).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dorothy H Harris whose telephone number is (571)270-7539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/Dorothy Harris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625