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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Claims 13-18, in the reply filed on 4/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-18, 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 13-18, 21-34 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 13 recites:
A processor system comprising:
at least one processor; and
computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the processor system to:
present a video game on a mobile device in view-only mode;
switch to enabling play of the video game on the mobile device; and
enable sharing the video game from the mobile device to another computer.
Claim 21 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable information storage medium for storing a program which, when executed by one or more processors, causes a system to perform operations comprising:
presenting a video game on a mobile device in view-only mode;
switching to enabling play of the video game on the mobile device; and
enabling sharing the video game from the mobile device to another computer.
Claim 28 recites:
A method comprising:
presenting a video game on a mobile device in view-only mode;
switching to enabling play of the video game on the mobile device; and
enabling sharing the video game from the mobile device to another computer.[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: presenting a video game, enabling play of the video game on the mobile device; and enabling sharing the video game to another computer.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 13, 21 and 28 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: processor.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Rance US 20090325712, discloses that mobile devices are well known for presenting gaming (paragraph 25);
Schlicher et al., US 20250022052 discloses that machine-learning is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 150);
Shaw, US 20240104816 also discloses that machine-learning is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 325).
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 14-17, 22-27, 29-34 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
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.
Claims 13, 15-16, 21, 24-25, 28-29, 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youtube video “Steam Deck: First Hands-On With Valve’s Handheld Gaming PC” (Youtube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLtiRGTZvGM) in view of Youtube video of “How To Buy Games on Steam Deck!” (Youtube 2) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB3IePeKICU)
Regarding Claims 13, 21, 28. Youtube discloses a processor system/non-transitory computer-readable information storage medium/method comprising:
at least one processor (2:52-8:30. The video explains how the Steam Deck is comparable to a PC which means it has a processor); and
computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the processor system to:
switch to enabling play of the video game on the mobile device (0:53-8:30. The video depicts a player being enabled to play a video game on the mobile device in which thumb-sticks are used for providing input for game play. Please see below.); and
enable sharing the video game from the mobile device to another computer (5:11-8:30. The video explains how game played on the mobile device can paused and resumed on a different computer. This is interpreted as sharing of the video game from the mobile device to another computer.).
While one can infer that Youtube discloses presenting a video game on a mobile device in view-only mode (3:09-8:30. The video explains how the Steam Deck runs a custom version of Steam, which would allow players the ability to purchase games for play on the Steam Deck. In this case, since players can view games prior to purchasing them for play on the Steam Deck, this can be inferred as presenting a video game on the mobile device in view-only mode. It could also be noted that at 4:20 of the video, the browser depicts an option for the player to purchase the game “Black Desert” while presenting screen shots of the games that the player can only view but not purchase. Please see below.), the Examiner believes such Youtube does not explicitly disclose presenting a video game on a mobile device in view-only mode.
However, Youtube 2 discloses that when it comes to the use of a Steam Deck, a player can purchase a game and depicts a player implementing the steps of purchasing a game (0:16-3:22) in which the player navigates to a “store” where the player is can search for games for purchase. The video further depicts the player doing a search for “Call of Duty” in which the player is then presented with a plurality of “Call of Duty” games available for purchase. Please see below.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since Youtube is directed towards a Steam Deck which uses Steam for presenting games to player, and Youtube 2 is also directed towards a Steam Deck which also used Steam for allowing a player to purchase a game, the combination of Youtube and Youtube 2 supports claimed limitation presenting a video game on a mobile device in view-only mode as taught by Youtube 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
726
1439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The image depicts a player playing a game on the mobile device (Steam Deck)
PNG
media_image2.png
721
1442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The image depicts the player on the “Steam Store” in which the player has the option to purchase a game.
PNG
media_image3.png
808
1438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The image depicts the player within presented with an image of the game he/she could purchase. This is interpreted as the player being presented with a game in view-only mode.
Regarding Claims 16, 25, 32.
Youtube further discloses enabling purchase rights related to the video game, wherein purchase rights comprise joining a computer game network (Youtube 2: 0:12-3:22. The player must first join a computer game network, such as the Steam Store, in order to purchase a video game.).
Claims 14, 22, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youtube video “Steam Deck: First Hands-On With Valve’s Handheld Gaming PC” (Youtube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLtiRGTZvGM) and Youtube video of “How To Buy Games on Steam Deck!” (Youtube 2) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB3IePeKICU) as applied to the Claims above and in further view of Youtube video of “How To Buy Games On Steam” (Youtube 3) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sWGSXKgDNE)Regarding Claims 14, 22, 30. Youtube and Youtube 2 further discloses wherein enabling purchase rights related to the video game (Youtube: 4:22-8:30; Youtube 2: 1:22-3:22. Players being able to purchase the game is interpreted as purchasing rights related to the video game.).
While it could be inferred that Youtube and Youtube 2 disclose presenting only a clip of the video game on the mobile device and no more of the video game unless input is received accepting purchase rights (Youtube: 4:22-8:30. Steam Store presents game play trailers of the game when the player searching for a game to purchase as a way of presenting what the game looks like during game play should the player play/purchase the game.) the Examiner believes Youtube and Youtube 2 failed to explicitly disclose presenting only a clip of the video game on the mobile device and no more of the video game unless input is received accepting purchase rights.
However, Youtube 3 disclose that when a player selects a game for purchase on Steam, the player s presented with clips of the video game in which no more of the video game unless input is received accepting purchase right (0:20-2:59. Even though the player is presented with a movie clip of the game, only the movie clip of the video game is presented, and the player cannot play the game until the actual game is purchased. In this case, the act of purchasing the game is interpreted as the player making an input accepting purchase rights. The game trailer presented is interpreted as a clip of the video game. Please see below.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since Youtube and Youtube 2 and Youtube 3 are allow directed towards analogous art (ie: the use of Steam for allowing players the ability to purchase/play video games.), the combination would also encompass the teachings of presenting only a clip of the video game on the mobile device and no more of the video game unless input is received accepting purchase rights as taught by Youtube 3.
PNG
media_image4.png
807
1434
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The image depicts a showcasing of a selected video game and how a trailer/video clip for the selected video game is presented to the player. The video clip does not mean the player can actually play the game. Only buy taking the steps and purchasing the video game would the player be allowed to play the game.
Regarding Claims 15, 22, 24, 29, 31. Youtube and Youtube 2 further discloses enabling purchase rights related to the video game, wherein purchase rights comprise purchasing the video game (Youtube: 4:22-8:30; Youtube 2: 1:22-3:22). Claims 17, 23, 26, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youtube video “Steam Deck: First Hands-On With Valve’s Handheld Gaming PC” (Youtube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLtiRGTZvGM) and Youtube video of “How To Buy Games on Steam Deck!” (Youtube 2) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB3IePeKICU) as applied to the Claims above and in further view of Youtube video of “Steam Deck - How To Stream Games From Your PC” (Youtube 4)( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av9A3VQHBnw)Regarding Claims 17, 23, 26, 33. Youtube and Youtube 2 further disclose enabling purchase rights related to the video game (Youtube: 4:22-8:30; Youtube 2: 1:22-3:22), but failed to disclose wherein purchase rights comprise streaming the video game to the mobile device. However, Youtube 4 discloses that when it comes to playing purchased games on your mobile device, the video game can be streamed on to the mobile device (0:40-5:28. The video shows explains how the Steam Deck can be used for streaming video games. Please see below.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since Youtube and Youtube 2 are directed towards the use of Steam on a Steam Deck, an Youtube 4 discloses that streaming a video game on a mobile device such as a Steam Deck is permissible, and the combination of prior art being analogous to one another would, it would mean the Steam Deck also teaches that the the video game can be streamed on to the mobile device as taught by Youtube 4.
PNG
media_image5.png
800
1423
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The image depicts how the player can have setting on his/her mobile device (ie: Steam Deck) changed such that the mobile device can stream video games.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights