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 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 1, 2, 4-10, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims disclose an abstract idea that lack practical application, and significantly more.
Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of mental steps.
The instant application receives inputted motion data corresponding to a physical activity and from there the system determines a game state of a video game to be modified in accordance with said physical activity, and outputs said result to said video game. This exemplifies the holding of Electric Power Group wherein data is collected, analyzed, and a result is outputted. Here, data is collected from sensors, and analyzed to determine a specific game state of the video game, and then outputs said modification to the video game. Additional claim limitations, also fit within the scope of the holding of Electric Power Grid. For example, determining an excitement level from sensory data and adjusting the game state, collecting the average heart rate of the user and number of heart beats over a threshold, and determining various aspects of game play, are considered part of the inputting, analyzing, and outputting steps. For these reasons, the claims are considered an abstract idea.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims discuss modifying a video game according the collected sensory data. This is not a longstanding problem in computer technology. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more as the claim language only recites only sensory equipment embedded in a mobile device, and an output unit, that captures heart rate information and a video game and video gaming device. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that sensory and heart rate sensory equipment is commonly stored in a watches and mobile devices and such is well understood, routine, and common in the art. Furthermore, Examienr takes Official Notice that a computer with a processor, i.e. a gaming device, and software, i.e. a video game, are generic computing devices that are well known, routine, and well understood in the art. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible. Therefore, the abstract idea lacks significantly more to make the claims eligible patent subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarrafzadeh (U.S. PGPUB 20150050972).
Re claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 15, 17: Sarrafzadeh discloses with respect to an entertainment device comprising:
processing circuitry to identify a game to be processed, and to process a game state of the game (see Fig. 6D: a user logs on to a website, wherein their game is retrieved from said server, from a plurality of games belonging to other users);
and communication circuitry to receive activity data recorded by at least one mobile device, the activity data relating to one or more activities performed by a user (see Fig. 6d and paragraphs [0005, 0023, 0029, 0048, 0051]: the physical data captured from the watch is transmitted to the game server),
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control, in dependence on the received activity data, at least one aspect of the game state (see paragraph [0069]: the difficulty level of the game is increased on decreased based off of inputted physical data, as stated here, “The avatar 1102 is comparatively thin, and so may be able to move quickly and more easily dodge the apples 1104. This avatar 1102 may be associated with a user that recently uploaded activity data that met thresholds to make the avatar 1102 thin, or that caused a stamina level of the avatar 1102 to be raised to a point where the avatar 1102 appears thin due to the stamina level.)
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (U.S. PGPUB 2023/0107803).
Re claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 15, 17: Dugan discloses with respect to an entertainment device comprising:
processing circuitry to identify a game to be processed, and to process a game state of the game (see Fig. 5, object 508, Fig. 6, object 608: a game is identified to be processed based on particular a particular exercise plan);
and communication circuitry to receive activity data recorded by at least one mobile device, the activity data relating to one or more activities performed by a user (Fig. 5, object 510, Fig. 6, object 610, Fig. 7, object 712: the system monitors a user’s physical activity in accordance with the exercise plan, in which said activity is transmitted to the game),
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control, in dependence on the received activity data, at least one aspect of the game state (see paragraph [0037, 00410, 0056-0062, 0065, 0066, 0069]: the game system includes various adjustments to game states including initiating the game itself based off of physical activity; allowing a restart of a game; and providing certain attributes to a user’s in game character, thus adjusting the difficulty level of the game)
Re claim 4: Dugan discloses with respect to the entertainment device of claim 1, wherein:
the processing circuitry is configured to determine, in dependence on the activity data, an excitement level for the user (see paragraph [0037]: “For example, Joe may start a video game (before or during exercise), and the video game player may freeze or suspend play until Joe performs some required level of exercise (e.g., runs faster, cycles for 5 minutes, achieves a certain heart/pulse rate, etc.). Once Joe achieves the required exercise performance level, game play may be reinitiated.”); and
the processing circuitry is configured to control, based on the excitement level, the at least one aspect of the game state (see paragraphs [0037]).
Re claim 5: Dugan discloses with respect to the entertainment device of claim 4, wherein:
the processing circuitry is configured to control the at least one aspect of the game state to complement or contrast the excitement level determined for the user (see paragraph [0037]: the game system is configured to control the activation of the system);
the communication circuitry is configured to receive input data indicative of a user input (see paragraph [0037]: the receives input regarding a user’s blood pressure data); and
the processing circuitry is configured to: determine, based on the input data, a selection made by a user (see paragraph [0037]: when the user reaches a particular blood pressure rate, the user has made a selection to restart the game); and determine, based on the selection made by the user, whether to modify the processing of the game to complement the excitement level or to contrast the excitement level (see paragraph [0037]: the system is modifies the system by selecting a start process for the system to start and become playable).
Re claim 8: Dugan discloses with respect to the entertainment device of claim 1, wherein:
the at least one aspect of the game state comprises selection, from amongst a plurality of games, of the game to be processed (see paragraph [0081]: “As one particular example, at start-up, a video game may provide a list of exercise programs that may be associated with the video game (e.g., weight loss, distance training, sprint training, etc.).”); and
the processing circuitry is configured to select the game to be processed in dependence on the activity data recorded by the at least one mobile device and a classification of each of the plurality of games (see paragraph [0081]: “A user of the video game may select one of the exercise programs and specify additional parameters for the exercise program such as how much weigh to loose and/or over what period of time, whether the distance training is for a 5 K, 10 K or 26 K run and/or how fast the run should be completed, etc.”).
Re claim 12: Dugan discloses with respect to the entertainment device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate, in dependence on the activity data, a welcome screen for display in response to the entertainment device being powered on. (see paragraph [0091]: “As one particular example, at start-up, a video game may provide a list of exercise programs that may be associated with the video game (e.g., weight loss, distance training, sprint training, etc.)”.
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 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugan in view Goslin (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0216675).
Re claim 3. Dugan fails to disclose with respect to the entertainment device of claim 1, wherein the activity data comprises information indicative of at least one of:
biometric data of a user; activity records indicative of physical activities performed by the user;
images captured by a camera of the at least one mobile device; and audio recorded by a microphone of the at least one mobile device. However, Goslin teaches a physical activity recording apparatus that records physical activity and comprises of a biometric sensor, memory, a camera device, and an audio recording device wherein activity information is stored in memory (see paragraphs [0038, 0043]: “In such an example, the user could select a physical world fitness gaming objective that the user wishes to complete using an input device of the game application 160 (e.g., a game controller 130, movement tracking device 340, microphone device 345, etc.”; wherein said movement tracking device can include a biometric sensor and cameras as stated in the following “. For example, the movement tracking device 340 could represent one or more camera devices, an electromyography sensor device, and so on, and more generally represents any electronic device capable of collecting data through which a user's movement can be determined.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the physical activity capturing game system of Dugan to simply substitute it’s sensory with the biometric, camera, memory, and audio capturing elements of Goslin as such would have produced the predictable results of collecting data using the aforementioned structural elements.
Re claim 14: Dugan fails to disclose with respect to the entertainment system of claim 13, wherein:
the at least one mobile device comprises a mobile device capable of displaying augmented reality (AR) images;
the mobile device comprises mobile-device communication circuitry to receive, from the entertainment device, game information associated with a game played by the user; and
the mobile device comprises processing circuitry to generate, based on the game information, the AR images for display.
However, Goslin discloses a mobile device, that includes augmented reality display to display augmented based reality gaming wherein said gaming includes images (see paragraph [0075, 0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Dugan with the augmented reality features of Goslin, for the purpose of “creating(ing) games that exist outside of traditional video game platforms (e.g., where the virtual world is solely output through a display device). Using such technologies, virtual characters and other virtual objects can be made to appear as if they are present within the physical world” (see paragraph [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715