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 .
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims disclose an abstract idea that lack practical application, and significantly more.
Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of mental steps.
The disclosed system of the instant application receives game controller data reflective of a type of game controller, wherein the system analyzes stored game applications to determine if said applications are compatible with the game controller. Afterwards, information regarding the compatible game applications is outputted a display device that is visible to the user. This embodies the holding of Electric Power Grid, which determined that collecting information, analyzing information, and outputting said information presented the abstract idea of mental process (see MPEP 2106). Here, the same conclusion has been reached regarding the independent claims and their dependent claims, wherein the claims present a mental process and thus, the claims are determined to be an abstract idea. Additional claims present further mental steps as part of the larger mental process. For example, claims 2 and 11 teach presenting a list of the game applications. This is only a matter of displaying the information, and thus further performing the output section of Electric Power Grid. Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 also disclose collecting information in the form of identifying compatible and non-compatible applications and displaying messages based on whether the application has been deemed compatible. The additional steps of receiving a command for executing a game and displaying a message or executing said game in response to the game being a compatible, further reflect an abstract idea. These steps, reflects a mental process wherein a person can determine the compatibility of the game and initiate a process, wherein the computer is only used as a tool for initiating said process including displaying messages and initiating games.
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 follow this same holding in that the system collects game controller information and provides displayed output in the form of visual effects and information, based on an analysis of said information. Thus, said claims also present mental steps. Lastly, claims 5 and 14 also collect data regarding controller pairings, determine if said controller has a history with the display, and display said results to the display device. Therefore, claims 5 and 14 also follow the holding of Electric Power Grid. For these reasons, the aforementioned claims are abstract ideas.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims focus on identifying game applications that are compatible with an identified controller and displaying the game applications to the player. This is not a longstanding problem in computer technology. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more as the claim language only recites only a game controllers, a computer device with a display, processor, memory, a game server, and pairing capabilities. Examiner takes Official Notice that all of those components are well-understood, routine, and common in the technology wherein it is routine for video game consoles to communicate with game servers. While, the claimed invention incorporates functions for the various hardware elements, said functions are operating within their normal usage including displaying messages and operating a game. The functions regarding the compatibility of the games with the particular controller is directed towards the abstract idea, and not part of the inventive concept which is reviewed here. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible. Therefore, the abstract idea lacks significantly more to make the claims eligible patent subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to recite the additional steps of receiving a command for executing a game and displaying a message or executing said game in response to the game being a compatible, further reflect an abstract idea. However, these steps, reflects a mental process wherein a person can determine the compatibility of the game and initiate a process, wherein the computer is only used as a tool for initiating said process including displaying messages and initiating games. Additionally, Applicant argues “Claim 1 addresses a technical problem of inconvenience of executing a game application when a user of the display apparatus chooses the game application with a wrong control device.” However, such is not a longstanding problem in computer history, and is only a problem that becomes apparent within the construction of the system of the claimed invention. Additionally, the functions regarding the compatibility of the games with the particular controller is directed towards the abstract idea, and not part of the inventive concept which is reviewed here. For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
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 REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights