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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 02/06/2026. Presently, claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for displaying operation information of a gamepad by an electronic device, the method comprising: obtaining gamepad manufacturer information of the gamepad connected to the electronic device; obtaining game provider information from a cloud server, which is providing, through a network, a game operating on the electronic device; displaying a game screen corresponding to the game on a display and based on identifying that the gamepad manufacturer information is not associated with the game provider information, identifying mapping information based on the gamepad manufacturer information and the game provider information, wherein the mapping information represents relationship between game operations of the game and key inputs of the gamepad; obtaining a guide screen including a gamepad image, key buttons on the gamepad, first key inputs and first game operations corresponding respectively to the first key inputs based on the mapping information, wherein each of the first key inputs, corresponding to at least one key button among the key buttons, is connected, by a line, to a corresponding key button; displaying the guide screen on an area of the game screen; and executing second gamer operations corresponding respectively to second key inputs received from the gamepad based on the mapping information while operating the game. The above underlined portions of the claim are related to an abstract idea of a mental process because the claims are merely gathering information and then displaying a result based upon the gathered information. In other words, the underlined portions could all be done by a person recognizing that an individual is playing a game made by Sega but using a Sony controller. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional things done with the claim is presenting it on a display, so it is merely data gathering and presenting of the data with the now addition of playing the game with the key inputs which is merely applying the abstract idea to technological environment. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements to the claims are generic computer components and functions. That is a network, an electronic device, and a display are all parts of a generic purpose computer which the Supreme Court in Alice determined is not sufficient to bring an abstract idea into patent eligibility.
All dependent claims have been analyzed but do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claim.
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.
Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 are 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.
With regard to claims 7 and 19, the independent claims associated with these dependent claims require, using claim 1 as an example, “obtaining game pad manufacturer information.” However, these dependent claims require, “based on failing to obtain the gamepad manufacturer information.” This specifically requires that a required step in the independent claim is not actually achieved and thus negates an element of the independent claim. Or in other words how can one obtain information in claim 1 and then fail to obtain it in claim 7?
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected as depending up on a previously rejected claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0086706 to Zalewski in view of Controls Elden Ring Wiki (hereinafter “Controls”).
With regard to claim 1, Zalewski discloses a method for displaying information of a gamepad by an electronic device, the method comprising: obtaining gamepad manufacturer information of the gamepad connected to the electronic device (0044); obtaining game provider information from a cloud server, which is providing, through a network a game operating on the electronic device (0048; 0050); displaying a game screen corresponding to the game on a display (figs. 4, 5) and based on identifying that the game pad manufacturer information is not associated with the game provider information, identifying mapping information based on the gamepad manufacturer information and the game provided information, wherein the mapping information represents relationship between game operations of the game and key inputs of the gamepad (fig. 7; 0042-0051; 0065); and executing second game operations corresponding respectively to second key inputs received from the gamepad based on the mapping information while operating the game (0042-0051).
Zalewski does not appear to be explicitly clear about showing a guide map with lines drawn. However, the combination of Zalewski and Controls teaches obtaining a guide screen including a gamepad image, key buttons on the gamepad, first key inputs and first game operations corresponding respectively to the first key inputs based on the mapping information, wherein each of the first key inputs, corresponding to at least one key button among the key buttons, is connected, b a line, to a corresponding key button (Zalewski at fig. 7; Controls See image with gamepad controller with lines drawn to the actions they perform); and displaying the guide screen on an area of the game screen (Zalewski at figs. 4, 5; Controls image with gamepad shown).
With regard to claim 2, Zalewski discloses wherein the gamepad manufacturer information is identified as being associated with or being not associated with the game provider information based on a compatibility table, and wherein the compatibility table includes information about an association between the gamepad manufacturer information and the game provider information (0042-0051).
With regard to claim 3, Zalewski discloses wherein the displaying the guide screen comprises, based on identifying that the gamepad manufacturer information does not correspond to the game provider information, displaying the guide screen based on the gamepad manufacturer information (0051).
With regard to claim 4, Zalewski discloses wherein the obtaining the gamepad manufacturer information comprises, based on identifying an electrical connection between the gamepad and the electronic device, receiving the gamepad manufacturer information from the gamepad (0044).
With regard to claim 9¸Zalewski discloses wherein the guide screen includes a first guide screen and a second guide screen, wherein the first guide screen includes guide information associated with an operating game and the gamepad (0051), wherein the second guide screen includes guide information associated with the gamepad regardless of the operating game (0042), and wherein the first guide screen is configured based on the mapping information between the operating game and the gamepad, and the second guide screen is configured based on default information about the gamepad (0042-0051).
With regard to claim 10, Zalewski discloses that the mapping information is received from the cloud server, configured based on at least part of the game provided from the cloud server, or is pre-stored in a memory of the electronic device (0042-0051).
With regard to claim 11¸Zalewski discloses wherein the mapping information includes identification information for identifying gamepads, a key input list provided for each of the gamepads, and game operation information mapped to each key input included in the key input list, and wherein the mapping information is databased based on a type of the gamepad and the game (0042-0051).
With regard to claim 12, Zalewski discloses wherein the electronic device is a display device (fig. 1 where a display can be seen in element 108 and 120, additionally 0051).
With regard to claim 13¸Zalewski discloses an electronic device comprising: a display (fig. 1); at least one processor (0117); at least one memory configured to store at least one instruction (0117); and at least one transceiver (fig. 1; 0029; as understood to connect to the network/server), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to: obtain gamepad manufacturer information of a gamepad connected to the electronic device (0044); obtain game provider information from a cloud server which is providing, through a network, a game operating on the electronic device (0048; 0050); display a game screen corresponding to the game on the display (figs. 4, 5); and based on identifying that the gamepad manufacturer information is not associated with the game provider information: identify mapping information based on the gamepad manufacturer information and the game provider information, wherein the mapping information represents relationship between game operations of the game and key inputs of the gamepad (0042-0051) and execute second game operations corresponding respectively to second key inputs received from the gamepad based on the mapping information while operating the game (0042-0051).
Zalewski does not appear to be explicitly clear about showing a guide map with lines drawn. However, the combination of Zalewski and Controls teaches obtaining a guide screen including a gamepad image, key buttons on the gamepad, first key inputs and first game operations corresponding respectively to the first key inputs based on the mapping information, wherein each of the first key inputs, corresponding to at least one key button among the key buttons, is connected, b a line, to a corresponding key button (Zalewski at fig. 7; Controls See image with gamepad controller with lines drawn to the actions they perform); and displaying the guide screen on an area of the game screen (Zalewski at figs. 4, 5; Controls image with gamepad shown)..
Claim 14 mirrors claim 2 and is rejected in like manner.
With regard to claim 15¸Zalewski discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: based on identifying that the gamepad manufacturer information does not correspond to the game provider information, control the display to display the guide screen based on the gamepad manufacturer information (0041-0051).
With regard to claim 16¸Zalewski discloses an electronic device comprising: a display (fig. 1); at least one transceiver (fig. 1; 0029; as understood to connect to the network/server); at least one memory configured to store at least one instruction (0117); at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction to (0117): obtain gamepad manufacturer information of a gamepad connected to the electronic device (0044); obtain game provider information from a cloud server which is providing, through a network, a game operating on the electronic device (0048; 0050); display a game screen corresponding to the game on the display (figs. 4, 5) and based on identifying that the gamepad manufacturer information is not associated with the game provider information identify mapping information based on the game pad manufacturer information and the game provider information, wherein the mapping information represents relationship between game operations of the game and key inputs of the gamepad (0042-0051) and guide, using the guide screen, game operations associated with key inputs of the game pad (0042-0051) and execute second game operations corresponding respectively to second key inputs received from the gamepad based on the mapping information while operating the game (0042-0051).
Zalewski does not appear to be explicitly clear about showing a guide map with lines drawn. However, the combination of Zalewski and Controls teaches obtaining a guide screen including a gamepad image, key buttons on the gamepad, first key inputs and first game operations corresponding respectively to the first key inputs based on the mapping information, wherein each of the first key inputs, corresponding to at least one key button among the key buttons, is connected, b a line, to a corresponding key button (Zalewski at fig. 7; Controls See image with gamepad controller with lines drawn to the actions they perform); and displaying the guide screen on an area of the game screen (Zalewski at figs. 4, 5; Controls image with gamepad shown)..
Claim 17 mirrors claim 4 and is rejected in like manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Controls with the disclosure of Zalewski in order to provide a clear guide to a user as to what inputs to use based on the controller they have and present that in a clear fashion to the player.
Claims 5, 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalewski in view of “Controls” as applied to claims 1 and 16 above and further in view of “Popup after user has been idle” hereinafter “Popup”.
With regard to claims 5 and 18, Zalewski does not appear to be explicitly clear about failing to receive a control signal. However, the combination of Zalewski and Popup teaches based on failing to receive a control signal from the gamepad for a predetermined time displaying, on the display, the guide screen (Zalewski at 0051; Popup the first question and then the first comment related thereto); wherein the control signal includes the second key inputs selected with replacement from the first key inputs (Zalewski at 0042-0051).
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Zalewski and Popup teaches based on the control signal being received from the gamepad: identifying the second key inputs in the control signal (0042-0051); identifying whether the second game operations corresponding respectively to the second key inputs are identified (0042-0051); based on the second game operations corresponding respectively to the second key inputs being identified, executing the identified second game operations (0042-0051); and based on the second game operations corresponding to the second key inputs being not identified, increasing a count value, and based on the count value exceeding a predetermined threshold, displaying, on the display, the guide screen (Popup the first question and then the first comment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teaching of Popup with the disclosure of Zalewski such that if a player is idle for too long a help screen pop-ups as being idle too long is often an indication of not understanding how to proceed, thus this would allow the player to understand how the game functions.
Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalewski in view of Controls as applied to claims 1 and 16 above and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0021269 to Wolff-Peterson.
With regard to claims 7 and 19, Zalewski does not appear to explicitly disclose a gamepad list. However, Wolff-Peterson teaches based on failing to obtaining the gamepad manufacturer information, receiving a gamepad list from an external server; and displaying the gamepad list on the display (fig. 1; 0030).
With regard to claims 8 and 20, the combination of Zalewski and Wolff-Peterson teaches based on any item in the displayed gamepad list being selected, displaying, on the display, the guide screen corresponding to the selected item (Zalewski at 0051; Wolff-Peterson at fig. 1; 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of application to combine the teachings of Wolff-Peterson and Zalewski such that a user that already knows what input product they have to select it from a list to aid in the conversion of native inputs to non-native inputs to aid the process of playing the game in a timely fashion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asked that the foreign priority be acknowledge and that the priority documents have been received. It is noted that such is the case and it has been noted on the 326 form.
With regard to the rejection based upon 35 USC 101, Applicant has presented no actual argument to the rejection above. Rather, Applicant has only restated the claims and then the relevant issue per step, but no actual application/argument as to why the analysis above is incorrect. Rather, Applicant only provides a conclusory statement such as “Applicant submits the amended features are not directed to mathematical concepts, methods or organizing human activity, or mental process,” (Arguments, page 13) but provides no reasons as to why they have come to that conclusion. Similar “arguments” are presented to Steps 2A and 2B of the patent eligibility guidance test that the Office set forth. But again, in each of these instances Applicant only provides a conclusory statement with no actual argument as to why their claims should be deemed to be eligible for a patent. Or in other words, Applicant has not explained why their amended claim limitations should weigh towards patent eligibility. Therefore, merely stating the rule and providing a conclusory statement is not found to be convincing and the rejection is maintained.
With regard to the rejection based upon 35 USC 112, Applicant argues that the claims have been amended and thus there is no longer confusion present. This is true for claims 5 and 18 and the rejection has been withdrawn. However, claims 7 and 19 have no amendments to the claims and there are no arguments presented as why they are not unclear. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments in relation to the prior art are answered in the updated rejection above.
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 Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715