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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/13/26 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 13 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 13 recites the limitation "the plurality of controls" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. 20010016519 to Choe, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious by US Pub. 20010016519 to Choe in view of US Pat. 7240093 to Danieli et al (Danieli).
Claims 1 and 9. Choe discloses a method, comprising:
(as required claim 9) a processor configured to:
receiving, by circuitry of an application system configured to communicate with a plurality of network-connected client devices (¶¶7-10 “video gaming machines”), a first request from a first network-connected client device to initiate an application session (¶¶19, 27 “a game room creation module 410 that creates… a game room, i.e., virtual gaming space, as requested by one of the multiple users so that the user can have access to other users to play the video game simultaneously”);
conveying, by the application system, at least one of application code or launch instructions to a second network-connected client device, different from the first network-connected client device, to initiate local execution of the application session on the second network-connected client device, responsive to the first request (¶19 “allowing multiple users to play the game simultaneously”, ¶¶21, 28 “individual users joining the game”, “user B wants to join the game, he/she marks the web page displayed on his/her TV 120 to request entrance to the game room”, i.e., the game crated by user A also is being played on a second video gaming machine by user B); and
conveying, by the application system, data to the first network-connected client device that enables the first network-connected client device to control the application session executing on the second network-connected client device (¶27 “the user A sets the attributes of the game room”, ¶29 “the user A who created the game room chooses a game start button on the screen”, ¶32 “user A determines in step 260 whether to discontinue play, and decides whether to close the game room”).
However, if it is later deemed that Choe fails to disclose conveying, by the application system, data to the first network-connected client device that enables the first network-connected client device to control the application session executing on the second network-connected client device, see Danieli (col. 1, 23-30 “Host services… generally concern controlling overall aspects of the game”, col. 16, 23-43, “Another option available to the host (but not to any of the other players) is the ability to "eject" players from the chat session”). The gaming system of Choe would have motivation to use the teachings of Danieli in order to give a game host control over which people are allow to participate in the game in doing so would enable the game host to penalize those people whom break the game rules.
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 Choe with the teachings of Danieli in order to provide a game host with more control of which people are allow to participate in the game.
Claims 3 and 11. Choe discloses further comprising:
responsive to a termination request to terminate execution of the application session, extracting application data generated during the execution of the application session (¶¶19, 21 “game statistic database 520 that stores game result information of the individual users concerned during the game or after the termination of the game”), from the second network-connected client device; and
saving the application data in a database (¶¶9, 16 “database server”).
Claim 5. Choe view of Danieli teaches further comprising causing, by the application system, the first network-connected client device to host an application session for a third network-connected client device, responsive to a request from the third network-connected client device (see Danieli abstract and col. 3, 8-24, in this case, a first PC is the host for a multiplayer game, and a third person requested to join the multiplayer using a third PC).
Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20010016519 to Choe in view of US Pat. 7240093 to Danieli et al (Danieli) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20170312626 to Colenbrander.
Claims 2 and 10. Choe fails to explicitly disclose claims 2 and 10 limitations.
Colenbrander teaches wherein the second network-connected client device is identified, by the application system, to serve as a host (¶50 the device handover is interpreted as the new host) for the first network-connected client device based at least in part on computing resources available at the second network-connected client device (¶¶48, 64, and 84). The gaming system of Choe would have motivation to use the teachings of Colenbrander in order to allow one gaming device to handover control of a gaming session to different gaming devices, handing over a gaming session provides the opportunity for a better gaming experience because the new gaming device taking over control of the gaming session would presumably have better computing capabilities which is better equipped to operate and process the gaming session.
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 Choe with the teachings of Colenbrander in order to allow a new gaming device to take over a gaming session that has stronger computing capabilities.
Claims 4 and 12. Choe fails to explicitly disclose claims 4 and 12 limitations.
Colenbrander teaches further comprising:
receiving a second request, distinct from the first request, from the first network-connected client device, the second request comprising a request to restore the application session;
identifying a third network-connected client device to fulfill the second request; and
restoring, based at least in part on the (as required by claim 12) saved application data, execution of the application session on the third network-connected client device (¶¶23, 40, 84-87, a first computing device hands over a game session to a third computing device). The gaming system of Choe would have motivation to use the teachings of Colenbrander in order to allow one gaming device to handover control of a gaming session to a different gaming device, handing over a gaming session provides the opportunity for a better gaming experience because the new gaming device taking over control of the gaming session would presumably have better computing capabilities.
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 Choe with the teachings of Colenbrander in order to allow a new gaming device to take over a gaming session that has stronger computing capabilities.
Claim 8. Choe discloses further comprising enabling the first network-connected client device to communicate with the second-network connected client device (Fig. 2).
However, Choe fails to explicitly disclose a peer-to-peer manner.
Colenbrander teaches a peer-to-peer manner (20170312626 ¶123 “peer-to-peer arrangement”). The gaming system of Choe would have motivation to use the teachings of Colenbrander in order to provide faster data transfer through direct connections and greater user control over shared data often provided in peer-to-peer networks.
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 Choe with the teachings of Colenbrander in order to provide faster data transfer through direct connections and greater user control over shared data often provided in peer-to-peer networks.
Claim 13. Choe fails to explicitly disclose claim 13 limitations.
Colenbrander teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate an interface at the second network-connected client device, such that the interface renders the plurality of controls to control the application session executing on the second network-connected client device (¶48 “input”, “touch screen”). The gaming system of Choe would have motivation to use the teachings of Colenbrander in order to enable the user participating in the game at the second computing device to enter game commands during the game play.
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 Choe with the teachings of Colenbrander in order to enable the user participating in the game at the second computing device to enter game commands during the game play.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 8-13 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
Claims 6, 7, and 14-16 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.
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
Prosecution Insights