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 .
Status of Claims
In response to the Amendment filed on December 3rd, 2025, claim 14 has been amended. Claims 1-13 and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 16-34 are newly added. Claims 14 and 16-34 are currently pending.
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) 14, 16-20, 23-28, and 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beltran et al. (US 2019/0366210 A1).
Regarding claims 14, 23, and 31, Beltran discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving (i) one or more input signals from a first input device, and (ii) one or more input signals from a second input device, each input signal corresponding to a selection of a control on a respective input device (see par. [0024], wherein the first command is initiated from activation of the first input device at the single controller device, and wherein the second command is initiated from activation of an input device at a secondary controller device that is operably connected to one of the secondary client devices);
determining that (i) the selected control on the first input device that corresponds to the one or more input signals that are received from the first input device is included in a control subset that is allocated to the first input device, and (ii) the selected control on the second input device that corresponds to the one or more input signals that are received from the second input device is included in a control subset that is allocated to the second input device (see par. [0046], By way of example without limitation, with reference to the illustrated implementation, additional users 114 and 116 are provided with the ability to control portions of the controller device 106. For example, the primary user 112 may control the joysticks 108, whereas the secondary user 114 controls buttons 110, and another secondary user 116 controls the triggers 111); and
in response to determining that (i) the selected control on the first input device that corresponds to the one or more input signals that are received from the first input device is included in the control subset that is allocated to the first input device, and (ii) the selected control on the second input device that corresponds to the one or more input signals that are received from the second input device is included in the control subset that is allocated to the first input device, providing the one or more input signals that are received from the first input device and the one or more input signals that are received from the second input device as input signals from a same single input device (see par. [0048], Broadly speaking, each of the secondary users 114 and 116 may operate their own respective controller devices, and inputs from each of the users 114 and 116 can be transmitted and aggregated with inputs from the user 112 operating the controller device 106, to provide a combined input stream that is transmitted to the executing video game as if the combined input stream originated from the controller device 106 only).
Regarding claims 16, 24, and 32, Beltran discloses wherein the control subset that is allocated to the first input device and the control subset that is allocated to the second input device together comprise all controls associated with a single input device (see par. [0046], For example, the primary user 112 may control the joysticks 108, whereas the secondary user 114 controls buttons 110, and another secondary user 116 controls the triggers 111).
Regarding claims 17, 25, and 33, Beltran discloses accessing a predetermined control subset sharing scheme that designates which controls from among all controls that are associated with a single input device are allocated to the first input device and which controls from among all controls that are associated with the single input device are allocated to the second input device (see par. [0053], In further implementations, there can be templates for a given game that define how buttons or other input devices and commands are allocated).
Regarding claims 18, 26, and 34, Beltran discloses accessing a user specified control subset sharing scheme that designates which controls from among all controls that are associated with a single input device a user has dynamically allocated to the first input device and which controls from among all controls that are associated with the single input device the user has dynamically allocated to the second input device (see par. [0102], In some implementations, the controller sharing interface provides options for sharing the controller, such as sharing the entire controller (handing control over to the secondary user) or sharing a portion of the controller).
Regarding claims 19, 27, Beltran discloses wherein one or more of the first input device and the second input device are virtual input devices (see par. [0119], Input devices of Clients 1610 may include, for example, a one-hand game controller, a two-hand game controller, a gesture recognition system, a gaze recognition system, a voice recognition system, a keyboard, a joystick, a pointing device, a force feedback device, a motion and/or location sensing device, a mouse, a touch screen, a neural interface, a camera, input devices yet to be developed, and/or the like).
Regarding claims 20, 28, Beltran discloses providing, for output, a visual representation of the single input device depicting the selected control from the first input device and the selected control from the second input device as selected (see par. [0098], For example, in a bifurcated control scenario as described herein, a graphic of a controller device can be displayed and further can be configured to graphically illustrate when users initiate various control inputs corresponding to the input devices of the controller device).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltran et al. (US 2019/0366210 A1) in view of Somers et al. (US 2019/0354759 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 29, Beltran discloses the system as discussed above. However, Beltran does not explicitly disclose wherein providing the one or more input signals as input signals from the same single input device comprises providing features of the one or more input signals to a machine learning model.
Somers teaches an AI model for video games wherein providing the one or more input signals as input signals from the same single input device comprises providing features of the one or more input signals to a machine learning model (see par. [0064], A plurality of model inputs 142 are provided to a machine learning system 144. The machine learning system trains 144 using the model inputs 142 to generate the trained AI model 202; also see par. [0069], Other model inputs include the human control inputs 208. The control inputs 208 can be collected for each state of a video game while a person plays the video game. The human control inputs 208 can include, for example, directional inputs along a first axis (such as up/down) or provided to a first joystick (such as a left joystick), second directional inputs provided along a second axis (such as left/right) or provided to a second joystick (such as a right joystick), whether buttons (such as A, B, X, Y, Z, Δ, , O, left bumper, right bumper, start, select, turbo, mouse clicks, finger taps, and the like) are pressed to cause a unit in the video game to perform an action (such as pass, shoot, deke, speed up, block, check, spin, and the like)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Beltran with the AI model of Somers in order to control the actions of NPCs to make the NPCs act as though controlled by human players (see Somers, par. [0022]).
Claim(s) 22 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltran et al. (US 2019/0366210 A1) in view of Colenbrander (US 2016/0184712 A1).
Regarding claims 22 and 30, Beltran discloses the method as discussed above including wherein the control subsets are allocated by a user via a sharing scheme selection interface (see par. [0102], At method operation 508, the primary user initiates a request to share their controller with the secondary user, for example, by activating a controller sharing interface).
However, Beltran does not explicitly disclose the control subsets are allocated by a user while a game is paused.
Colenbrander teaches a system and method of pausing a game in a cloud gaming system where various functions can be performed while a game is paused (see par. [0026], As an example, a first user pauses game play, passes (e.g., shares) game state data to a second user, the second user completes a difficult fight for the first user and then pauses the game once again and passes the new game state data back to the first user. In one implementation, the user can select a share button or option on a controller or other user interface to share the saved game state). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Beltran with the pause function of Colenbrander in order to allow the user to take a break for many different reasons (see Colenbrander, par. [0024]) such as to allocate control functions as described by Beltran.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 3rd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the applied combination of references does not disclose, teach, or suggest the features of claim 14, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s only argument is “it is self-evident” (see Remarks, pg. 8) and does not provide any arguments or evidence as to how the amended claim differentiates from the prior art. It is not apparent to the Examiner how the amended claim overcomes the prior art and thus, claim 14 remains rejected in view of Beltran.
Conclusion
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 ALLEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM EST.
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.
/ALLEN CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 3/7/2026