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 Interpretation
Claims 14 and 23 both refer to “a posture of the operation apparatus.” This does not appear to be a term of the art, and the definition of “posture” as used in the claims appears to be given in the specification as “a posture of the controller 18 can also be said to be a positional relation between the analog stick section 402 and the button section 404.” It appears that this definition makes reference to a specific physical configuration of a gameplay controller depicted in the drawings (see Fig. 9) and described in the specification more generally.
Although Applicant is allowed to be their own lexicographer, this definition is somewhat problematic because the specific physical configuration of the gameplay controller implied in the specification’s definition of “posture” is not positively recited in the claims. Thus, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the definition of “posture” where it appears in the claims will be interpreted as “a positional relation between [an] analog stick section […] and [a] button section” (instead of the particular “analog stick 402” and “button section 440” depicted in the drawings), and will be considered to be applicable to any controller which features both an analog stick and a set of buttons clustered in the same physical area of the controller.
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) 10, 15, 17, 20-21, 24, 26, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steam Input Configurator.
Steam Input Configurator is a tool within the Steam client that allows users to assign specialized functions and custom “macros” to physical controller inputs, which has been available since at least April 12, 2023.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
1015
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. An example of the edit screen allowing a user to assign “Activators” to a button on an input device using the Steam Input Configurator, specifically a “long press” activator.
PNG
media_image2.png
578
1009
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. The Steam Input Configurator edit screen after the user has assigned a “long press” activation type to the “DPAD DOWN” button on a controller with a directional pad (dpad).
Regarding claim 10 and substantially similar limitations in claims 21 and 30, Steam Input Configurator discloses “a computer-implemented method comprising: providing, for display, an edit screen (see Fig. 1) that is configured to accept an assignment of a freely-selected button of an operation apparatus to a long press operation of a particular function (see Fig. 1 and “Activators let you define simple macros like, "If I hold DOWN for 1 second, repeat DOWN every 0.1 seconds thereafter until release." Ta-da! Now you can scroll through that list in a jiffy just by holding down the button, even though the developers never implemented it!”); and after the assignment of the freely-selected button has been accepted, providing, for display, an indication that the long press operation has been assigned to the freely-selected button (see Fig. 2: a dropdown menu indicating a “Long Press” function has been assigned to the “DPAD DOWN” button is visible under the “Activation Type” setting on the top left).”
Regarding claim 15 and substantially similar limitations in claim 24, Steam Input Configurator discloses “the computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the indication that the long press operation has been assigned to the freely-selected button comprises operating in a toggle mode, wherein the toggle mode enables (i) a first time pressing of the freely-selected button to trigger a continuous input state of the particular function and (ii) a second time pressing of the button to trigger terminating the continuous input state of the particular function (see the “Toggle Off/On” option in Fig. 1; see also the description of the Toggle Activator setting, “Toggle will make this activator continue to be active after releasing it until it is pressed again”).”
Regarding claim 17 and substantially similar limitations in claim 26, Steam Input Configurator discloses “the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the long-press operation causes the continuous input state of the particular function to continue intermittently by repeating a predetermined input period and a predetermined non-input period (“Activators let you define simple macros like, "If I hold DOWN for 1 second, repeat DOWN every 0.1 seconds thereafter until release." Ta-da! Now you can scroll through that list in a jiffy just by holding down the button, even though the developers never implemented it!”).”
Regarding claim 20 and substantially similar limitations in claim 29, Steam Input Configurator discloses “the computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein providing, for the display, the indication that the long press operation has been assigned to the freely-selected button comprises providing, for the display, a graphical user interface element that represents the particular function assigned to the freely-selected button (see Fig. 2, the “graphical user interface element” being the dropdown menu option which displays “Long Press,” indicating the long press activation type has been assigned to the “DPAD DOWN” button).”
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.
Claim(s) 13-14, 18-19, 22-23, 27-28, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steam Input Configurator in view of RetroSpy as evidenced by SNES Input Display Test and RetroSpy Dreamcast Demo.
PNG
media_image3.png
550
975
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Screen capture from SNES Input Display Test demonstrating the output of the RetroSpy software rendered in the top right corner of the screen.
PNG
media_image4.png
550
975
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Screen capture of SNES Input Display Test demonstrating the output of the RetroSpy software rendered in the top right corner of the screen. At the moment of capture, several buttons on the input device are being held down by the user, as indicated by the icons in the top right.
PNG
media_image5.png
817
1446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Screen capture from RetroSpy Dreamcast Demo demonstrating an overlay generated by the RetroSpy software and the graphical output from a video game being rendered simultaneously.
Regarding claim 13 and substantially similar limitations in claims 22 and 31, Steam Input Configurator discloses “the computer implemented method of claim 10.”
However, Steam Input configurator does not disclose “providing, for display, an indication that the long press operation has been assigned to the freely-selected button comprises in response to exiting the edit screen, providing, for display in another screen, the indication that the long press operation has been assigned to the freely-selected button.”
Computer applications that visually represent the current input state of buttons on a physical input device in real time (e.g., whether they are currently being pressed or held down) are well-known in the art, with many such as InputVisualizer, Keypress Hero, and RetroSpy being freely available for download online. RetroSpy teaches displaying information regarding the input state of a button on an operation apparatus to be displayed, as evidenced by SNES Input Display Test, which depicts a pictorial representation of an SNES controller corresponding to an actual SNES controller being displayed on a screen (see Fig. 3). When the user holds down the yellow “B” button, the right directional button, and the right shoulder button on the controller, the RetroSpy software causes pictorial representations of the “B” button, the right directional button, and the right shoulder button to update visually by becoming “filled in,” as seen in Figs. 3-4 which are included for reference. The pictorial representations of these buttons remain “filled in” until the user releases the buttons, as seen throughout the video as the player steers the car around the track. RetroSpy also teaches that the visualization of controller inputs in a display window is useful for applications such as speedrunning and creating game tutorials. The use of RetroSpy and similar tools for these applications are well known in the art, being widely popular among digital content creators who frequently employ them during video game livestreams and when filming recordings of video game speedruns. Examiner notes that other methods known in the art for capturing player input, such as recording the controller with a camera, would be incapable of capturing the actions performed by the macros assigned by Steam Input Configurator, as these occur at the software level. Thus, input visualizer technologies such as RetroSpy occupy a unique niche in the art when it comes to recording “simulated” inputs which do not directly correspond to the physical inputs on an operation device.
Therefore, 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 software of Steam Input Configurator to visually display information regarding the inputs sent to the information processing apparatus by input macros executed by the Steam Input Configurator in response to inputs from an input device, as taught by RetroSpy, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow users to capture the actions performed by these macros when recording gameplay of a video game so that viewers of the recorded gameplay could see the “simulated” inputs generated by the macro, as taught by RetroSpy, with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14 and substantially similar limitations in claim 23, Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) discloses “the computer-implemented method of claim 13.”
However, Steam Input Configurator does not disclose “providing, for display, the indication that the long press operation has been assigned to the freely-selected button comprises displaying a plurality of graphic user interface elements corresponding to assigned or unassigned operations for each button, a posture of the operation apparatus, and a positional relationship between the freely-selected button and a plurality of other buttons on the operation apparatus.”
Computer applications that visually represent the current input state of buttons on a physical input device in real time (e.g., whether they are currently being pressed or held down) are well-known in the art, with many such as InputVisualizer, Keypress Hero, and RetroSpy being freely available for download online. RetroSpy teaches displaying information regarding the input state of a button on an operation apparatus to be displayed, as evidenced by SNES Input Display Test, which depicts a pictorial representation of an SNES controller corresponding to an actual SNES controller being displayed on a screen (see Fig. 3). When the user holds down the yellow “B” button, the right directional button, and the right shoulder button on the controller, the RetroSpy software causes pictorial representations of the “B” button, the right directional button, and the right shoulder button to update visually by becoming “filled in,” as seen in Figs. 3-4 which are included for reference. The pictorial representations of these buttons remain “filled in” until the user releases the buttons, as seen throughout the video as the player steers the car around the track. RetroSpy also teaches that the visualization of controller inputs in a display window is useful for applications such as speedrunning and creating game tutorials. The use of RetroSpy and similar tools for these applications are well known in the art, being widely popular among digital content creators who frequently employ them during video game livestreams and when filming recordings of video game speedruns. Examiner notes that other methods known in the art for capturing player input, such as recording the controller with a camera, would be incapable of capturing the actions performed by the macros assigned by Steam Input Configurator, as these occur at the software level. Thus, input visualizer technologies such as RetroSpy occupy a unique niche in the art when it comes to recording “simulated” inputs which do not directly correspond to the physical inputs on an operation device. Examiner notes that because RetroSpy, in the case where the input device features both buttons and an analog stick, depicts both the buttons and the analog stick with respect to a pictorial representation of a game controller (see Fig. 5), RetroSpy teaches “displaying a […] posture of the operation apparatus,” which is defined by the specification as “a posture of the controller 18 can also be said to be a positional relation between the analog stick section 402 and the button section 404.”
Therefore, 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 software of Steam Input Configurator to visually display information regarding the inputs sent to the information processing apparatus by input macros executed by the Steam Input Configurator in response to inputs from an input device, as taught by RetroSpy, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow users to capture the actions performed by these macros when recording gameplay of a video game so that viewers of the recorded gameplay could see the “simulated” inputs generated by the macro, as taught by RetroSpy, with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18 and substantially similar limitations in claim 27, Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) discloses “the computer-implemented method of claim 10.”
However, Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) does not disclose “the operation apparatus is one of a plurality of operation apparatuses connected to one or more computers.”
That being said, multiplayer games, particularly the local multiplayer/“couch co-op” games to which the claim seems to be directed, have been known in the art for decades. Their popularity would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the capabilities of the apparatus taught by Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) to accommodate multiplayer games in addition to single-player games, such as by displaying multiple pictorial representations of controllers on the screen simultaneously, each corresponding to one of the multiple physical controllers connected to the information processing apparatus, so that all of the participating players can enjoy the benefit of the invention that a single player would playing alone.
Such modifications would not require extraordinary creativity, as implementing them would merely constitute adding more controllers and/or replicating the programming code used to display input information for each additional controller, whether explicitly (such as by manually duplicating the instructions in the program code) or implicitly through the use of loop control structures, as is commonly known in the field of computer programming. Examiner finally notes that In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the Court has held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Because replicating the software and hardware components of the system of Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) would predictably result in replicating the input visualization display on the screen, this duplication of parts does not produce a novel or unexpected result and therefore does not carry patentable weight.
Therefore, 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 system of Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) to accommodate multiple input devices simultaneously, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow more than one player to gain the benefits of viewing and/or record their inputs, as taught by RetroSpy, with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19 and substantially similar limitations in claim 28, Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) discloses “the computer-implemented method of claim 18.”
However, Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) does not disclose “providing, for display, the indication that the long press operation has been assigned to the freely-selected button comprises providing, for the display and for each operation apparatus of the plurality of operation apparatuses, identification information for a respective operation apparatus and an assigned function for each button of the respective operation apparatus that is set to a toggle mode.”
This limitation amounts to a replication of the output displayed for a single controller, where the inputs for multiple controllers are displayed and rendered on the screen simultaneously. Multiplayer games, particularly the local multiplayer/“couch co-op” games to which the claim seems to be directed, have been known in the art for decades. Their popularity would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the capabilities of the apparatus taught by Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) to accommodate multiplayer games in addition to single-player games, such as by displaying multiple pictorial representations of controllers on the screen simultaneously, each corresponding to one of the multiple physical controllers connected to the information processing apparatus, so that all of the participating players can enjoy the benefit of the invention that a single player would playing alone. One of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that adding support for multiple controllers simultaneously would require displaying identification information to allow each player to distinguish between their controller and other players’ controllers, because without displaying such identification information the players and the audience would not be able to receive the benefit of the invention, that being knowing which inputs each player is entering in real time.
Such modifications would not require extraordinary creativity, as implementing them would merely constitute adding more controllers and/or replicating the programming code used to display input information for each additional controller, whether explicitly (such as by manually duplicating the instructions in the program code) or implicitly through the use of loop control structures, as is commonly known in the field of computer programming. Examiner finally notes that In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the Court has held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Because replicating the software and hardware components of the system of Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) would predictably result in replicating the input visualization display on the screen, this duplication of parts does not produce a novel or unexpected result and therefore does not carry patentable weight.
Therefore, 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 system of Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) to accommodate multiple input devices simultaneously, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow more than one player to gain the benefits of viewing and/or record their inputs, as taught by RetroSpy, with reasonable expectation of success.
Having implemented these modifications, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) to display identification information for each input device, and they would have been motivated to do so as such identification information would be necessary for each player to distinguish between their own controller and that of the other players, with reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 16 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steam Input Configurator in view of RetroSpy as evidenced by SNES Input Display Test and RetroSpy Dreamcast Demo.
Regarding claim 16 and substantially similar limitations in claim 25, Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) discloses “the computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising: providing, for the display, a graphical user interface element in response to the continuous input state being actively triggered (see Figs. 3-5).”
However, Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) does not disclose “removing, from display, the graphical user interface in response to a termination of the continuous input state.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that at times it might be undesirable for the graphical overlay as seen in Figs. 3-5 to be rendered on the screen, because rendering a graphical overlay on top of the video output of a video game might be considered distracting to players or otherwise detract from the viewing experience. However, rendering such a graphical overlay provides advantages in the form of revealing a player’s inputs to an audience. To reconcile these differences, it would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the system could be modified so that a graphical overlay is only rendered when an input is actively provided to the controller, and otherwise the graphical overlay would not be rendered, due to the information being redundant (because the graphical overlay explicitly serves the purpose of visualizing the player’s inputs, viewers would understand that the graphical overlay not being rendered simply means that the player is not providing any input at the current moment). Such a modification would not require extraordinary creativity to implement because the third-party graphic overlay software would need only to “turn off” its display output at the software level.
Therefore, 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 system of Steam Input Configurator (in view of RetroSpy) to selectively toggle the visibility of the graphic overlay depending on whether the player is providing input, and they would have been motivated to do so to avoid distracting from or interfering with the visual gameplay experience of the player and/or audience when there is no need to render the graphic overlay, with reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNETH HAROLD JOHANSSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:30 to 6:30.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571)270-7625. 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.
/K.H.J./
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights