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 16-18 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. 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 controller, 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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikenaga (U.S. PGPUB 2014/0317285).
Re claim 1, 10, 18: Ikenaga discloses a display apparatus comprising:
a display (see paragraph [0019]: “a display unit 204;”);
a communication interface (see paragraph [0019]: “a communication unit 202”);
a memory configured to store at least one instruction (see paragraph [0019]: “The storage unit 203 also serves as a work memory for the control unit 201.”);
a processor (see paragraph [0019]: “The control unit 201 may typically be a CPU or an MPU that operates in accordance with programs stored in the storage unit 203”) configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory to:
receive, from an input device, an input instructing execution of a game launcher providing at least one game application (see paragraph [0025]: start button, wherein the terminal has a mechanism for turning on the device),
identify a type of the input device (see paragraph [0005]: “(6) The information processing system described in paragraph (1) or (5) above may further include controller information acquisition means for acquiring controller information representing the type of a controller of the terminal.”),
transmit information about the type of the input device to a game server corresponding to the game launcher (see paragraph [0047]: controller information is transmitted to the controller acquisition unit at the cloud server from the game machine wherein a virtual machine is used as an intermediary.),
receive, from the game server, information about the at least one game application that is controllable based on the type of the input device (see claim 6: “wherein said display information generation means generates the display information for displaying part or all of the content of said multiple applications in accordance with said controller information”), and
configure a user interface screen provided by the game launcher based on the information about the at least one game application that is controllable based on the type of the input device, and display the user interface screen (see paragraph [0036] & Fig. 7: showing a selection screen with four games that are selected based upon the gathered controller information).
Re claims 2 and 11: Ikenaga discloses with respect to the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
configure the user interface screen to comprise a game list comprising the information about the at least one game application (see Fig. 7, that shows a game application list that are arranged based upon suitability), and
arrange the at least one game application that are controllable based on the type of the input device to be distinguished from other game applications in the game list (see Fig, 7: games are distinguished from most suitable to least suitable).
Re claim 9: Ikenaga discloses with respect to the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the input device comprises a remote controller (see paragraph [0047]: TV remote control).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga in view of Official Notice.
Re claims 5 and 14: Ikenaga fails to disclose with respect to the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
identify an input device having a history of pairing with the display apparatus from the at least one input device capable of controlling a game application, and display information indicating the history of pairing with respect to the input device having the history of pairing.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is common in operating systems to identify Bluetooth input devices that have a pervious history of being connected to a display device, in the form of a computer, and said list is displayed showing this history of previous pairings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the computer system of Ikenaga with the list of previously paired devices in light of Official Notice, for the purpose of allowing users to view when devices are and are not connected.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Perry (U.S. PGPUB 20170087475) teaches sending to the user a list of games based upon a detected game controllers, and providing specific configurations of game inputs based upon said game controllers (see paragraph [0055]).
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