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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Applicant discusses relevance such as any player who is aware of a winner may want to also be a winner such that the winning event is relevant to them ([0025]). Applicant also discloses a relevant parameter but doesn’t elaborate on what the parameter is or how it is utilized the system as a selection criterion ([0088]). To advance prosecution, Examiner construes Claim 16 in-part as “wherein the selection of the subset of players is further based on their interest in the game as evidenced by their joining the game.” Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0360823 to Cahill in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0028703 to Anderson and U.S. Pat. No. 11,440,189 to Bond.
In Reference to Claims 1, 2, 14, 17, 19, and 20
Cahill discloses a system 100 and wearable gaming device (HMD [0021], comprising:
a processor circuit (Fig. 13 1320); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit (Fig. 13 1330), the memory comprising machine readable instructions that ([0102]), when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
provide a real-time environmental model of a shared virtual environment (SVE) (Fig. 7 710 shared coordinate space) comprising a plurality of virtual persons and a plurality of virtual gaming devices (Fig. 7 virtual users and game devices 720);
transmit display data corresponding to the SVE to a plurality of player devices worn by a plurality of players ((HMD [0021], Fig. 6 receiving a map indicating location data and game data Fig. 7 720, see also shared game data [0023]), the display data for each player device comprising user display data that causes a display device of the player device to provide a portion of the SVE based on a virtual orientation of the player device and a virtual location of the player in the SVE ([0059-0064] display map based on geolocation data, Fig. 6 display of portion of virtual space of virtual environment), and
determine that a celebration condition has been met for a first player of the plurality of players (Cahill discloses that a virtual item 630 e.g., fireworks (Fig. 6 630 [0068]);
select a subset of players of the plurality of players base on the celebration trigger condition and a celebration parameter value associated with each player of the subset of players (Fig. 6 only local users within a predetermined physical threshold distance ([0003, 0061, 0064]) based on an action on a first device 510 {first player} ([0068]); and
transmit celebration display data corresponding to the celebration trigger condition to a subset of player devices associated with the subset of players (Fig. 6 where the celebration virtual item 630 indication to local users within the physical distance threshold). Lastly, Cahill only describes features of the game to disclose that of game play actions have consequences (Fig. 7 730).
However, Cahill does not explicitly causing each display device of the subset of player devices to render celebration content associated with the celebration trigger condition. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Anderson.
Anderson determines that a celebration trigger condition has been met for a first player of the plurality of players (Fig. 5 516 lucky player, [0068]) and selects a subset of players (players at a virtual bank [0068]) of the plurality of players based on the celebration trigger condition (outcome of lucky player game [0068]) and a celebration viewing parameter associated with each player of the subset of players (players who requested to joining a virtual bank after the game session has been initiated [0019] by the lucky player up to a predetermined limit e.g., 8 players [0023]) and transmits celebration display data causing each display device of the subset of player devices to render celebration content associated with the celebration trigger condition (celebration indicates virtual bank will receive 10 free spins with an exploding wild feature [0068]).
Cahill s also silent wherein the player device renders the content. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of U.S. Pat. No. 11,449,189 of Bond.
According to Bond, an HMD display of a user has a rendering engine to render VR content (Abstr., Fig. 1A, 2A, 3B rendering engine 72) to render 3D images such as New Year’s Eve fireworks (Col. 5 LL. 10-15, Col. 9, LL. 47-55). Bond invents this system and method in order to provide users a fully immersive augmented reality development framework in that generates and renders display elements (Col. 4, LL. 20-25).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, one of skill in the art would amplify aspects of the gameplay consequences and HMD viewing of Cahill with the celebration content which indicates virtual bank will receive 10 free spins with an exploding wild feature of Anderson and the HMD rendering of Bond to achieve the predictable result of describing an example of what a gaming consequence foreshadowed by Cahill could be when celebration content is rendered in the HMD. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claim 3
Cahill discloses the virtual location of each player of the subset of players comprises an active play area in the SVE associated with a wagering game being played by the player (Fig. 2 users at gaming machine 210 and 220 in the area are in the shared game network), and wherein the celebration content for each player of the subset of players is rendered in SVE outside the active play area for the player (Examiner construes outside of the active play area as the rendering is performed in the HMD and not in the gaming machine as taught by Bond).
In Reference to Claim 4
Cahill discloses a plurality of graphical elements rendered in a three-dimensional area in the SVE around the virtual location of the player (Fig. 6 630 virtual fireworks, [0022, 0034]).
In Reference to Claims 5 and 6
Cahill discloses virtual fireworks and 3D (Fig. 6 630, [0022, 0034]). See also Bond Fig. 1A). Examiner also notes that the content of fireworks or other content is non-functional graphical matter as what is displayed or not displayed has no operational impact on the balance of the claim.
In Reference to Claims 7 and 8
Cahill’s trigger condition as modified by Anderson comprises a winning result in a
wagering game being played by the first player (celebration indicates virtual bank will receive 10 free spins with an exploding wild feature [0068]), and wherein the plurality of graphical elements comprises graphical representations of game elements associated with the wagering game (exploding wild feature [0068]). Examiner also notes that the content of the wild feature or other content is non-functional graphical matter as what is displayed or not displayed has no operational impact on the balance of the claim.
In Reference to Claim 9
Anderson teaches in addition to the wagering game graphical element, live video of the lucky player ([0068]).
In Reference to Claim 10
Examiner deems the celebration content for each player of the subset of players further comprises a plurality of graphical elements rendered in a three- dimensional area in the SVE around the live video image of the first player as non-functional descriptive matter. None the less Cahill, Anderson, and Bond teach these elements, see rejection of Claims 4-8).
In Reference to Claims 11-13
Anderson discloses that the graphical elements under the control at each gaming device for each player include a customizable avatar [0024]. Examiner notes that the avatar be based on a live video image of a player or to show a reaction to the game content to be non-functional graphical matter as what is displayed or not displayed has no operational impact on the balance of the claim.
In Reference to Claim 15
Anderson teaches a winning result in a first wagering game being played by the first
player, the first wagering game comprising a first game characteristic ([0068, 10 free games and a exploding wild feature) and wherein the selection of the subset of players is further based on each player of the subset of players playing a second wagering game different from the first wagering game, the second wagering game comprising the first game characteristic (Examiner construes the limitation to be achieved where the second wagers games play any one of the free games which are not the first game but share the same game characteristic of being free).
In Reference to Claim 16
Cahill selects a subset of players based on their relevance as evidenced by their joining the game (Fig. 2 Join Share game).
In Reference to Claim 18
Cahill discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to virtually move the first player through a plurality of virtual locations in the SVE, each of the plurality of virtual locations in the SVE being within a proximity of a virtual location of a player of the subset of the plurality of players where Cahill discloses the system comprises movement of a virtual object representing the location of the first user gaming device [0100], in the shared area (Fig. 6, where to player can indicate his location [0063]).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
10. 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.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715