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 receipt of amendments/arguments filed 3/2/26. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19-28 remain pending, Claims 21-28 are newly added, Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, and 19 are currently amended, and Claims 3-4, 6, 10-11, 13, and 17-18 are canceled.
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) 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 19-21, 24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 2016/0250550) in view of Share Play (combination of A Step By Step Guide to Share Play Exclusive to PS4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJKfc-Caku0 ) and Testing Out PS4 Share Play for First Time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJctDZbkR6Y ) which are disclosure to the same feature), and in further view of Osman (US 2016/0361658).
Claims 1, 8, and 15: Nomura discloses a computer system (Figs 1-2) comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor and having stored therein instructions that, if executed by the computer system (¶ 29-36), cause the computer system to execute a method comprising: pairing a first device (10b) of a user and a second device (10a) for communication over a wireless network, wherein the second device is configured to render a first view of a gaming environment of a game play of a player playing a video game; displaying the first view of the gaming environment on a display (¶ 21-23, 37-43, 58-60, when the user of the first device joins the share play the first device is paired to the second device).
Nomura teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting receiving over the wireless network at the first device a user interface that is streamed from the second device; receiving over the wireless network at the first device the first view of the gaming environment that is streamed from the second device; and displaying the first view of the gaming environment in the user interface; and adjusting at the second device the first view of the gaming environment based on input of the user delivered by the first device, wherein the adjusted view is a second view of the gaming environment. Nomura at least teaches that various modification can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the claimed invention (¶ 79). Furthermore, an analogous art of Share Play teaches a streaming means that includes receiving over the wireless network at the first device (visitor) a user interface that is streamed from the second device (host); receiving over the wireless network at the first device the first view of the gaming environment that is streamed from the second device; and displaying the first view of the gaming environment in the user interface (A Step By Step Guide to Share Play – time 0:00-3:09, Testing Out PS4 Share Play for First Time – time 0:49-4:16, illustrates receiving over the wireless network at the first device a user interface that is streamed from the second device; receiving over the wireless network at the first device the first view of the gaming environment that is streamed from the second device; and displaying the first view of the gaming environment in the user interface); and adjusting at the second device the first view of the gaming environment based on input of the user delivered by the first device, wherein the adjusted view is a second view of the gaming environment (A Step By Step Guide to Share Play – time 1:28-1:52, illustrates adjusting at the second device the first view of the gaming environment based on input of the user delivered by the first device, wherein the adjusted view is a second view of the gaming environment). 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 method, system, and medium of Nomura with the streaming means of Share Play because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of streaming a game to a user in which Nomura is intended (21, 37-43, 58-59). Such a modification allows a user to enjoy a game with another user without having to actually download the game (A Step By Step Guide to Share Play – time 0:00-3:09).
Nomura in view of Share Play teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the second view of the gaming environment is different from the first view of the gaming environment; wherein the first view of the gaming environment is shown from a first location in the gaming environment, and wherein the first location defines a zone of interactivity; wherein the second view of the gaming environment is shown from a second location in the gaming environment, and wherein the second view is limited to the zone of interactivity; and tethering the second location to the first location, wherein the second location in the gaming environment is restricted to a predetermined range from the first location. Normua at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the game (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Osman teaches adjusting the first view (414, 506 which represents the characters view of the player or wide fov ¶ 77-80) of the gaming environment based on input of the user delivered by the first (spectator) device (¶ 84), wherein the adjusted view is a second view (¶ 78, element (508)) of the gaming environment, wherein the second view of the gaming environment is different from the first view of the gaming environment (¶ 80-83); wherein the first view of the gaming environment is shown from a first location in the gaming environment (first player character/viewpoint), and wherein the first location defines a zone of interactivity; wherein the second view of the gaming environment is shown from a second location in the gaming environment, and wherein the second view is limited to the zone of interactivity; and tethering the second location to the first location, wherein the second location in the gaming environment is restricted to a predetermined range from the first location (¶ 75-84, emphasis on ¶ 77-80). 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 method, system, and medium, particularly, at pertains to the first view and/or second view adjustment means of Normura in view of Share Play with the adjusting/tethering means of Osman because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing a shared game to a user in which Normua in view of Share Play is intended (see above). Such a modification allows for game play to be enhanced by providing new view points for the spectator of the game (Osman - ¶ 79).
Claims 2, 9, and 16: Share Play teaches generating at the second device (host) the first view of the gaming environment based on input of the player for presentation in the display for viewing by the player; and incorporating at the second device the view of the gaming environment into the second view of the gaming environment that is streamed to the first device (A Step by Step Guide to Share Play Exclusive to PS4 – 1:00-1:23).
Claims 7, 14, and 20: Normura teaches wherein the pairing the first device and the second device includes: receiving at the first device a broadcast of a network identifier (username) from the second device, wherein the network identifier identifies the second device; and receiving at the first device selection of the network identifier (username) for pairing the first device and the second device (see above, ¶ 46-50, 56-57, 58-59).
Claims 5, 12, and 19: Osman teaches wherein the second view of the gaming environment displayed in the user interface is rotated to a first orientation into the gaming environment; and wherein the first view of the gaming environment is rotated to a second orientation into the gaming environment (see above, Fig. 5, ¶ 81-84).
Claims 21, 24, and 27: Osman teaches wherein the zone of interactivity comprises a bounded area around the first location (location of the first player’s character is the player field of view), wherein the zone of interactivity defines an interactable area within the gaming environment (see above, ¶ 77-80, emphasis on ¶ 80).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23, 25-26, and 28 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
The double patenting rejection
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn due to the claimed amendments filed 3/2/26.
Prior art rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19-28 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.
The examiner notes that the claimed amendments as it pertains to at least independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are different from what was indicated as allowable within the non-final rejection filed 12/2/25 and given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation are herein rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
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 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
Prosecution Insights