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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the Request for Continued Examination and receipt of amendments/arguments filed 10/1/25. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 8-18 remain pending, Claims 1-7 are canceled, Claims 8 and 12 are currently amended, and Claims 13-18 are newly added.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilboa (US 5,853,327) in view of Zuniga (US 2014/0179446).
Claim 8: Gilboa discloses a method for providing for aspects of video game play, comprising: reading information from a plurality of spaced apart physical objects (10) on an upper surface of a detection device (8)(Col. 7:1-35), the detection device including the upper surface and at least one frequency identification reader, at least some of the physical objects including frequency identification tags (Col. 7:36, Col. 10:16-Col. 12:11); determining a set of structures identified by the information (Col. 9:55-Col. 11:15); determining a relative arrangement of structures of the set of structures based on a plurality of zones (cells) arranged in a plane of the upper surface of the detection device detecting locations and orientations of the spaced apart physical objects (Col. 3:55-Col. 4:14, Col. 8:36- Col. 9:65); placing the structures arranged in the relative arrangement in a predefined area of a virtual world of videogame play; and determining actions of virtual characters in the virtual world (Col. 7:54-Col. 9:65).
Gilboa teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the frequency identification reader or frequency identification tags being radio signal/wave based. Gilboa at least teaches the readers/tags being frequency electromagnetic wave based (Col. 10:16-45). Furthermore, an analogous art of Zuniga teaches that a form of frequency electromagnetic signals used with frequency identification readers and/or tags include radio frequency (¶ 31-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the readers/tags of Gilboa to be radio frequency based because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing a frequency electromagnetic identification means for identifying and/or locating tags of physical objects in which at least Gilboa is intended (see above). Such a modification would have been considered mere routine to one of ordinary skill in the art in terms of the form/type of electromagnetic signal employed in the readers/tags of Gilboa.
Claim 9: Gilboa teaches wherein the relative arrangement of the structures is based on a relative arrangement of the structures on the detection device (Col. 7:54-Col. 9:65).
Claim 10: Gilboa teaches wherein the relative arrangement of the structures is based on the set of structures identified by the information (see above, Col. 7:54-Col. 9:65).
Claim 11: Gilboa teaches wherein the predefined area of the virtual world is a base area for a first game player, and at least one of the virtual characters is a virtual character controlled by the game player (Col. 7:54-Col. 9:65, in this example the fox at his home in the virtual world).
Claim 12: Gilboa teaches a method for providing for aspects of videogame play, comprising: reading information sequentially over time from a first plurality of physical objects on an upper surface of a first detection device (Col. 4:4-14, Col. 7:54-Col. 9:65, Col. 11:43-50), the detection device including at least one frequency identification reader, at least some of the physical objects including frequency identification tags (Col. 7:36, Col. 10:16-Col. 12:11); determining an action of a virtual character in a virtual world of videogame play based on the sequence of information read based on a plurality of zones (cells) arranged in a plane of the upper surface of the detection device detecting locations and orientations of the physical objects (Col. 3:55-Col. 4:14, Col. 7:54- Col. 9:65).
Gilboa teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the frequency identification reader or frequency identification tags being radio signal/wave based. Gilboa at least teaches the readers/tags being frequency electromagnetic wave based (Col. 10:16-45). Furthermore, an analogous art of Zuniga teaches that a form of frequency electromagnetic signals used with frequency identification readers and/or tags include radio frequency (¶ 31-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the readers/tags of Gilboa to be radio frequency based because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing a frequency electromagnetic identification means for identifying and/or locating tags of physical objects in which at least Gilboa is intended (see above). Such a modification would have been considered mere routine to one of ordinary skill in the art in terms of the form/type of electromagnetic signal employed in the readers/tags of Gilboa.
Claim 13: Gilboa teaches wherein the plurality of zones includes a square grid (Fig. 11, Col. 12:29-Col. 13:19).
Claim 14: Gilboa teaches determining a relative movement of the plurality of physical objects on the upper surface of the detection device (Col. 8:36-Col. 9:25).
Claim 15: Gilboa in view of Zuniga teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the information from the plurality of spaced apart physical objects includes a numerical identifier. Gilboa teaches the information provided by transponders or tags being representative of coded signals that uniquely identify the physical objects (Col. 9:65-Col. 10:45). Additionally, Zuniga teaches that identification tags can include information representative of a numerical identifier to uniquely identify physical objects (¶ 30-33, emphasis on ¶ 30, 32). It would have been obvious Gilboa in view of Zuniga with the numerical identifier means of Zuniga because such as modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of uniquely identifying physical objects in which at least Gilboa is intended (see above). Such a modification allows for the game processor to distinguish one physical object from another (Zuniga - ¶ 30).
Claims 16-18: Gilboa teaches the information from the plurality of space apart physical objects includes game character (status) information (Col. 4:40-52, Col. 7:54-Col. 9:65) or game item information (plug-in members such as replaceable hats) (Col. 7:54-Col. 9:65, Col. 10:45-65).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715