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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,794,094 B2. A review of the claimed subject matter is provided in the claim chart below.
Claims 1-2 of the Instant application
Claim 1 of the ‘094 Patent
Similarities and Differences
A cloud-based gaming system, comprising:
A cloud-based gaming system, comprising:
The same
a plurality of control devices each having motion sensors and a touch screen;
a plurality of control devices each having motion sensors and a touch screen;
The same
a gaming server including a gaming rules engine; and
a gaming server including a gaming rules engine; and
The same
a plurality of display devices;
a plurality of display devices;
The same
wherein the plurality of control devices and display devices are connected via a network to the gaming server;
wherein the plurality of control devices and display devices are connected via a network to the gaming server;
The same
wherein the gaming rules engine manages game play for a plurality of users,
wherein the gaming rules engine manages game play for a plurality of users for a plurality of games being concurrently played,
Similarities – Both claims recite the gaming rules engine managers game play for a plurality of users;
Differences – Claim 1 of the instant invention recites a broader embodiment.
each user using one of the control devices to control play in a game by tilting the control device to generate tilt gestures;
each user using one of the control devices to control play in a respective game by holding the control device in one hand with the touch screen facing the user and using thumb motions upon the touch screen using the one hand holding the device to control the motions and animations of an avatar displayed on the touch screen or an external display device and to tilt the control device to generate tilt gestures;
Similarities – Both claims recite using the control device to control play in a game by tiling the control device to generate tilt gestures;
Differences – the ‘094 patent recites a narrower embodiment which requires holding the control device in one hand with the touch screen facing the user and using thumb motions upon the touch screen using the one hand holding the device to control the motions and animations of an avatar displayed on the touch screen or an external display device and to tilt the control device to generate tilt gestures;
wherein motion sensor data relating to the tilt gestures from each of the control devices are used to trigger events of the game being played;
wherein motion sensor data relating to the tilt gestures from each of the control devices are used to trigger events of the games being played;
The same
wherein the motion sensor data from each of the control devices includes gravity sensor data, the gravity sensor data used to define the orientation of each of the control devices relative to the center of the earth, each of the tilt gestures for each of the respective control devices determined to have occurred when the defined orientation and a computed maximum angular velocity of the tilting exceeds a predetermined threshold; and
wherein the motion sensor data from each of the control devices includes gravity sensor data, the gravity sensor data used to define the orientation of each of the control devices relative to the center of the earth, each of the tilt gestures for each of the respective control devices determined to have occurred when the control device is held with the screen facing the user and moved by thumb action into a sloping position at an angle relative to the defined orientation and a computed maximum angular velocity of the tilting exceeds a predetermined threshold; and
Similarities – Substantially the same but the instant application recites a broader embodiment using the motion sensor data including gravity sensor data used to define the orientation relative to the center of the earth and a computed maximum angular velocity of the tilting exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Differences – The ‘094 recites a narrower embodiment which requires elements in which the position of the control device is held with the screen facing the user and moved by thumb action into a sloping position at an angle relative to the defined orientation.
wherein the tilt gestures are gestures that trigger specific discrete game events that occur to control the game play.
wherein the tilt gestures are gestures that trigger specific discrete game events that occur in succession to control the game play.
Substantially the same
Claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the control devices are used by participants of an event together to play the game simultaneously.
Claim 2 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 which recites that the participants of the event to play concurrently/simultaneously.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentable distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the more generic or broader claims now pending (instant Claims 1-12). That is, the rationale of In re Goodman applies here in that once Applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, Applicant is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent.
Regarding claim 3 of the instant application, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as recited in Claim 2 of the ‘094 patent.
Regarding claim 4 of the instant application, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as recited in Claim 3 of the ‘094 patent.
Regarding claim 5 of the instant application, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as recited in Claim 4 of the ‘094 patent.
Regarding claim 6 of the instant application, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as recited in Claim 5 of the ‘094 patent.
Regarding claim 7 of the instant application, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as recited in Claim 6 of the ‘094 patent.
Regarding claim 8 of the instant application, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as recited in Claim 7 of the ‘094 patent.
Regarding claim 9 of the instant application, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as recited in Claim 8 of the ‘094 patent.
Regarding claim 10 of the instant application, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as recited in Claim 9 of the ‘094 patent.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as recited in Claim 10 of the ‘094 patent.
Regarding claim 12 of the instant application, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as recited in Claim 11 of the ‘094 patent.
For at least the reasons provided above, claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,794,094 B2 for not being patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jeffrey (US 2013/0296048 A1) and Rosenzweig (US 2016/0179218 A1) or in the alternative, Jeffrey in view of MacGougan (US 8,892,390) and Rosenzweig (US 2016/0179218 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeffery disclose a cloud-based gaming system (see Jeffrey, Fig. 1, 0050, wherein gaming server 110 is a cloud-based gaming system), comprising:
a plurality of control devices each having motion sensors and a touch screen (see Jeffrey, Fig. 1-2, 0039, wherein the mobile device 10 is an Apple iPhone which has motions sensors and a touch screen; 0049-0050, wherein in Fig. 2, each plurality of users has a mobile device 10 which is a plurality of control devices);
a gaming server including a gaming rules engine (see Jeffrey, gaming server 110 including a gaming rule engine 115 of Fig. 2, 0049); and
a plurality of display devices (see Jeffrey, display devices 20 of Fig. 2);
wherein the plurality of control devices and display devices are connected via a network to the gaming server (see Jeffrey, Fig. 2, 0049-0051);
wherein the gaming rules engine manages game play for a plurality of users (see Jeffrey, game rules engine 115, 0049-0051, wherein the gaming rules engine 115 manages a plurality of games being played for each user), each user using one of the control devices to control play in a respective game (see Jeffrey, 0050-0051);
wherein motion sensor data sensor data relating to tilt gestures from each of the control devices are used to trigger events of the games being played (see Jeffrey, 0048, 0057, 0098, wherein the motion analyzer 130 uses data indicating X, Y, Z movement of the mobile device of the control device to trigger instantaneous display of the ball flight of the ball using the swing data in the game); and
wherein the motion sensor data from each of the control devices includes gravity sensor data, the gravity sensor data used to define the orientation of each of the control devices relative to the center of the earth (see Jeffrey, Fig. 1, 0048, 0172, wherein the accelerometer measures the motion data of the accelerometer in G’s for each axis which is a measurement of gravity, as the mobile device is used on earth the measurements would be defined for each of the control devices relative to the center of the earth), each of the tilt gestures for each of the respective control devices determined to have occurred when the control device is held with the screen facing the user and moved by thumb action into a sloping position at angle relative to the defined orientation and a computed maximum angular velocity of the control device with respect to the center of the earth exceeds a predetermined threshold (see Jeffrey, Fig. 1, Fig. 9b, 0048, wherein the gyroscope measures in radians in a particular direction which is the unit of angular movement of velocity of the device on earth so it inherently is oriented relative to the center of earth; 0066, wherein the Apple iPhone with CoreMotion, when used is held with the screen facing the user and moved by thumb action, has built-in sensors such as an accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer; 0091-0092, 0096-0103, 0127-0133, wherein the game rules engine select a game event such as key events when the yaw crosses the calibration point (e.g., zero) which is a predetermined threshold; 0172, wherein the set-up position of the mobile device is perpendicular to the ground on earth which is in the orientation of the control device relative to the center of the earth); and
wherein the tilt gestures are gestures that trigger specific discrete game events that occur in succession to control the game play (see Jeffrey, 0057, 0070-0072, wherein tilt gestures for a swing triggers different input points in succession to create the motion sensor data to trigger the rendering of the ball flight in the gaming environment associated with the swing data; 0098, wherein the tilt gestures may include other controls such as throwing a ball, aiming to shoot, or casting a rod). Moreover, Jeffrey inherently includes gravity sensor data used to define the orientation of each of the control devices relative to the center of the earth collected from the accelerometers as it utilizes a mobile device operated on Earth (see Jeffrey, 0066, wherein the Apple iPhone includes a built-in magnetometer).
If the gravity sensor data from the accelerometers disclosed in Jeffrey is found not to satisfy data used to define the orientation relative to the center of earth, in the alternative, MacGougan teaches a method and system for determining a motion state of a mobile device using accelerometer data onboard the mobile device (see abstract). Specifically, MacGougan teaches that the acceleration detected from the accelerometer data to compute motion data identifies the acceleration due to gravity (e.g., in relation to the center of the earth) on a mobile device (see MacGougan, abstract, Fig. 2, col. 1: ln 31-col 2: ln 23, col. 2: ln 52- col. 3: ln 14). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of MacGougan to use known techniques with similar devices to yield predictable results. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine tilt gestures of the control device to define the orientation of each of the control devices relative to the center of the earth. However, the Jeffrey and MacGougan are silent as to the tilt gestures trigger specific discrete game events without using the control device to simulate actual sports motions.
Rosenzweig teach a mobile device which includes a remote motion sensor device to provide user input to a software application on the mobile device (see abstract). Specifically, Rosenzweig teaches that motion sensor technologies for mobile devices provide user input in the form of movement of the handheld device (e.g., a user may tilt, turn, rotate, or shake a mobile device) to control actions or movement of a character in a video game (see Rosenzweig, 0014). Stated differently, Rosenzweig teach utilizing tilt gestures to trigger specific discrete game events and display the triggered game events without using the control device to simulate actual sports motions (see Rosenzweig, Fig. 3A, 0023). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Rosenzweig’ s control device to yield the predictable result to control actions or movements of a character when a user tilts the handheld computer or mobile device without using the control device to simulate actual sports motions. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the tilt gestures of Jeffrey that trigger discrete game events that occur in succession to control the game play, without using the control device to simulate actual sports motions but to control actions or movements such as a character in a video game.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jeffery, MacGougan, and Rosenzweig teach the system of claim 1. The combination further teach wherein the control devices are used by participants of an event together to play the game simultaneously (see Jeffrey, Fig. 10, 12, game rules engine 115, 0049-0051, wherein the gaming rules engine 115 manages a plurality of games being played for each user; wherein Figs. 10 and 12 illustrate a multiplayer sports game played with multiple users’ game inputs simultaneously).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jeffery, MacGougan, and Rosenzweig teach the system of claim 1, wherein the motion sensor data further includes data from a gyroscope and an accelerometer (see Jeffrey, 0048, 0066, 0098).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jeffery, MacGougan, and Rosenzweig teach the system of claim 1, wherein control of the respective game includes animation of one of shooting a basketball, throwing an American football, and bowling a bowling ball (see Jeffrey, 0048, 0062-0063, 0149-0151, wherein control of the game imparts a spin rate to the display of a bowled ball; Jeffrey, 0163-0164 wherein control data is a motion gesture to trigger the throwing of a ball).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jeffery, MacGougan, and Rosenzweig teach the system of claim 5, wherein control of the respective game by the gaming server includes rendering a virtual object trajectory with initial velocity proportional to the maximum computed angular velocity (see Jeffrey, Fig. 10, 0138, wherein rendered virtual object trajectory is a ball flight rendered in the simulated golf game which is a simulation of the ball flight from an initial velocity to the maximum computer angular velocity to achieve the specific distance).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jeffery, MacGougan, and Rosenzweig teach the system of claim 1, wherein control of the respective game includes animation of one of hitting a tennis ball, pitching a baseball, hitting a baseball, hitting a hockey puck, kicking a soccer ball, casting a fishing rod, and a boxing punch (see Jeffrey, 0147, 0153-0156, wherein an embodiment of tennis the motion sensor data triggers animation of lob shots based on a swing hitting a tennis ball).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jeffery, MacGougan, and Rosenzweig teach the system of claim 1, wherein control of the respective game includes rendering a graphic providing visual feedback to the user to regarding strength of a gesture (see Jeffrey, Fig. 10, 0138, wherein the rendering graphic is a flight path which shows the distance (e.g., a strength) of the gesture).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jeffery, MacGougan, and Rosenzweig teach the system of claim 8, wherein the rendered graphic is displayed on one of the control devices (see Jeffrey, Fig. 10, 0138, wherein the rendered graphic is the flight path of the ball in the simulated golf game; Rosenzweig, Fig. 3A, 0023, wherein the control device is used tilted to control and display the rendered game graphic on the control device).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jeffery, MacGougan, and Rosenzweig teach the system of claim 1, wherein the respective game is a virtual reality game (see Fig. 10, 0138, wherein the game is a virtual reality golf game).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jeffery, MacGougan, and Rosenzweig teach the system of claim 1, wherein the respective game is a virtual reality game (see Fig. 10, 0138, wherein the game is a virtual reality golf game).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Jeffrey and Rosenzweig, or in the alternative, Jeffrey, MacGougan, and Rosenzweig as applied to claim 64 above, and further in view of Lalancette et al. (US 2012/0165100 A1).
Regarding claims 11, Jeffery and Rosenzweig, or in the alternative, Jeffrey, MacGougan, and Rosenzweig teach the system of claim 1, wherein the system provides a plurality of control devices and at least one display (see Jeffrey, 0039, 0049). Jeffery further teach the gaming server may facilitate display of gaming media at a display to any suitable Web-enabled display device (see Jeffrey, 0040-0041). However, the claimed invention differs from Jeffery merely by the intended use of the plurality of control devices such as “are in a stadium” and the at least one display “is a digital board in a stadium”.
In a related gaming patent, Lalancette et al. teach a system for providing a game display system for a stadium or arena environment with a plurality of mobile communication devices (see abstract). Specifically, Lalancette teach a system and method for providing in an interactive game in public venue such as an entertainment stadium to use a plurality of control devices and teaches at least one large digital board is a known display device in a stadium or arena (see 0002, 0027-0030). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lalancette’s large stadium display in a known entertainment environment (e.g., arena or stadium) to yield predictable results of presenting information to a large audience. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the game system of Jeffery in a known location wherein the display device is a large digital board in a stadium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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 on (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.
/RYAN HSU/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights