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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 8/12/25.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 1, 3-20.
Claim(s) 21 is/are added.
Claim(s) 2 is/are cancelled.
Currently, claim(s) 1, 3-21 is/are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13, 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouse et al. (2012/0109882) in view of Borinik et al. (2006/0121991).
Re Claim 1,
Bouse discloses a system comprising: at least one computer medium that is not a transitory signal and that comprises instructions executable by at least one processor to:
identify a mapping of at least one user-established preference related to a computer system to a corresponding configuration of at least one external online platform (Fig 5, ¶¶0074; the system generates unique identifiers and dataset based on the received profile from the user, in addition, the system uses the associated identifiers to locate and parse profile and preference data, wherein the unique identifiers are used with the available provisioners, i.e., at least one external platform);
provide the mapping to the at least one external online platform to configure the at least one external online platform in accordance with the at least one user-established preference related to the computer game system (Fig 5, ¶0074; the identifiers are provided to the provisioner, wherein provisioner use data to provide user with customized experiences based on user preference).
Bouse does not explicitly disclose a game system. However, Borinik teaches sharing a gaming profile with an external system (¶¶0031-0038). Borinik further teaches such a configuration provides a unique identity that is customizable and engaging, while protecting a player’s privacy (¶0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Borinik into the system of Bouse in order to provide a unique identity that is customizable and engaging, while protecting a player’s privacy.
Re Claims 8, 18,
Claims are substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Claim(s) 3, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouse et al. (2012/0109882) in view of Borinik et al. (2006/0121991), further in view of Lark et al. (2002/0142825).
Re Claim 3,
Bouse as modified by Borinik discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on generating a mapping between account settings of a first user in the computer game system and available settings in the at least one external online platform. However, Lark teaches comparing preference information received from a configuration instrument with functions available on the gaming machine, i.e., generating a mapping between user settings and available settings (Fig 9, ¶¶0136-0137). Lark further teaches such a configuration increases game playing interest and also reduce a frequency of rearrangement of gaming machines (¶0010). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Lark into the gaming system of Bouse as modified by Borinik in order to increase game playing interest and also reduce a frequency of rearrangement of external gaming system.
Re Claim 14,
Bouse as modified by Borinik discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on identifying, for each of the at least one external online platform, at least one configuration for which there is no corresponding user-established preference, receiving a user selection indicating the user-established preference, and creating a mapping between the user-established preference and the at least one configuration. However, Lark teaches identifying, for each of the at least one external online platform, at least one configuration for which there is no corresponding user-established preference, receiving a user selection indicating the user-established preference, and creating a mapping between the user-established preference and the at least one configuration (Fig 9, ¶¶0117, 0125-0126, 0136-0137). See claim 3 for motivation.
Re Claim 16,
Bouse as modified by Borinik discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on at least one identification document. However, Lark teaches at least one identification document (¶¶0137-0138).
Claim(s) 4, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouse et al. (2012/0109882) in view of Borinik et al. (2006/0121991), further in view of Takubo et al. (2023/0233937).
Re Claims 4, 19,
Bouse as modified by Borinik discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on present an indication of the at least one user-established preference related to the computer game system that is not satisfied by the at least one external online platform. However, Takubo teaches displaying a notification of unavailability to the player, i.e., present an indication when a game condition is not satisfied (¶0047). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Takubo into the gaming system of Bouse as modified by Borinik in order to help the player to make better game decisions.
Claim(s) 6-7, 9-12, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouse et al. (2012/0109882) in view of Borinik et al. (2006/0121991), further in view of Onyekwelu et al. (2021/0058402).
Re Claims 6, 10,
Bouse as modified by Borinik discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on a content filter. However, Onyekwelu teaches a content filter (Fig 3, ¶¶0041-0042). Onyekwelu further teaches such a configuration provides filtering access for users of different age groups (¶0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Onyekwelu into the game system of Bouse as modified by Borinik in order to provide filtering access for users of different age groups.
Re Claims 7, 9,
Bouse as modified by Borinik discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on a privacy setting. However, Onyekwelu teaches a privacy setting (Fig 3, 5, ¶¶0041-0042, 0062-0063). See claim 6 for motivation.
Re Claim 11,
Bouse as modified by Borinik discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on at least one account linking asset. However, Onyekwelu teaches at least one account linking asset (Fig 1, ¶0028). See claim 6 for motivation.
Re Claim 12,
Bouse as modified by Borinik discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on controlling access based on user age. However, Onyekwelu teaches controlling access based on user age (Fig 3, 5, ¶¶0041-0042, 0062-0063). See claim 6 for motivation.
Re Claim 20,
Claim is similar to claims 6 and 7. See claims 6 and 7 for rejection.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouse et al. (2012/0109882) in view of Borinik et al. (2006/0121991), further in view Kestell (11458388).
Re Claim 15,
Bouse as modified by Borinik discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on identifying at least one configuration trend and suggesting the at least one configuration trend. However, Kestell teaches identifying game controller configuration and recommending the configuration settings (Fig 3-4, col 1, ln 25-40). Kestell further teaches such a configuration enhances the user experience by optimizing the configuration settings (col 1, ln 15-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Kestell into the game system of Bouse as modified by Borinik in order to enhance the user experience by optimizing the configuration settings.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouse et al. (2012/0109882) in view of Borinik et al. (2006/0121991), further in view Cella et al. (2023/0173395).
Re Claim 17,
Bouse as modified by Borinik discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on storing in a blockchain, the blockchain defining rights and responsibilities pertaining to modifying the at least one external online platform configuration. However, Cella teaches storing in a blockchain, the blockchain defining rights and responsibilities pertaining to modifying the at least one external online platform configuration (¶1049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Cella into the game system of Bouse as modified by Borinik in order to provide enhanced security and improve transaction efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-12, 14-21 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715