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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on April 16, 2026 for the patent application 18/667,263 originally filed on May 17, 2024. Claim 15 is amended. Claims 1-14 and 16 are canceled. Claims 17-35 are new. Claims 15 and 17-35 remain pending. The first office action of January 27, 2026 is fully incorporated by reference into this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been noted by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 101.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the outstanding rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC 103.
New claims 17-35 are rejected under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103, as provided below.
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 15 and 17-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 15 is directed to “a computer-implemented method” (i.e. a process), claim 27 is directed to “one or more non-transitory computer storage media” (i.e. a machine), and claim 35 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “communicating user information,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations (from exemplary claim 15):
“receiving… user profile information comprising a control input mapping;
detecting… based on the received user profile information, that the control input mapping corresponds to an input device currently available…
performing… one or more processing operations in dependence on at least some of the user profile information received… by using the control input mapping in response to detecting that the input device is currently available.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a portable user device,” “a video game processing device,” “an input device,” “one or more non-transitory computer storage media,” “one or more computers,” “a system,” and “one or more storage devices” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “communicating user information” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a portable user device,” “a video game processing device,” “an input device,” “one or more non-transitory computer storage media,” “one or more computers,” “a system,” and “one or more storage devices” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a portable user device” is described in paragraph [0027] as follows: “The portable user device 210 may be one of a smartphone device, smartwatch device and tablet computing device associated with a user and which stores user profile information associated with the user. The portable user device 210 may comprise any suitable storage circuitry (e.g. non-volatile memory such as flash memory) for storing the user profile information.”
Applicant’s claimed “a video game processing device” and “one or more input devices” are described in paragraph [0025] as follows: “The entertainment system 220 comprises the video game processing device 230 and the one or more input devices 240 so that the video game processing device 230 is operable to perform processing operations, such as processing one or more video games, in accordance with input signals received from one or more of the input devices 240. In some embodiments of the disclosure, the entertainment system 220 may comprise a video game console (as an example of the video game processing device 230) and handheld video game controller (as an example of the one or more input devices 240).”
Applicant’s claimed “one or more non-transitory computer storage media” is disclosed in paragraph [0076] as, “processor implementable instructions stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium such as a floppy disk, optical disk, hard disk, solid state disk, PROM, RAM, flash memory or any combination of these or other storage media, or realised in hardware as an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit) or an FPGA (field programmable gate array) or other configurable circuit suitable to use in adapting the conventional equivalent device.” Applicant’s claimed “one or more storage devices” is not explicitly defined in the instant specification, but under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is equivalent to “one or more non-transitory computer storage media.”
Applicant’s claimed “one or more computers” and “a system” do not have any special definitions in the instant specification, and therefore are deemed to be generic computers and a generic system.
Therefore, these elements are reasonably interpreted as generic computers or generic computing components, which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 17-26 and 28-34 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 17-26 and 28-34 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 15 and 27.
Therefore, claims 15 and 17-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25-27, 30, 31, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (hereinafter “Schmidt,” US 2006/0068910) in view of Lipscomb (US 2016/0337370).
Regarding claim 15, and substantially similar limitations in claims 27 and 35, Schmidt discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a video game processing device from a portable user device … user profile information comprising a control input mapping (Schmidt [0006], “the ancillary application may allow the game console user to store and retrieve game application configuration settings and game controller configuration settings to and from the portable device. In this manner, a user may store a saved game, a "left-handed" controller configuration, and the like to the portable device for possible uploading to another game controller at a different location.”);
detecting, by the video game processing device based on the received user profile information, that the control input mapping corresponds to an input device currently available at the video game processing device (Schmidt [0070], “a user can carry USB memory device 230A to their friend's house and be able to upload that "left handed" game controller 190 configuration to their friend's game console 100,” in order for a user to use an uploaded game controller configuration, the game console must necessarily have detected a currently available game controller); and
performing, by the video game processing device, one or more processing operations in dependence on at least some of the user profile information received from the portable user device by using the control input mapping in response to detecting that the input device is currently available (Schmidt [0070], “gaming data that may be stored on USB memory device 230A includes gaming configuration data also called a "gamer profile." For example, game console 100 may store game related configuration settings, such as, a "left handed" game controller 190 configuration to USB memory device 230A. In this manner, a user can carry USB memory device 230A to their friend's house and be able to upload that "left handed" game controller 190 configuration to their friend's game console 100.”).
Schmidt does not explicitly teach communication between a video game processing device and a portable user device is performed via near-field communication.
In Schmidt, “[c]ommunication between a game console having a communication port and a portable device is facilitated by determining that a portable device has been directly connected to the communication port” (emphasis added). Therefore, Schmidt does not teach that the profile information is communicated to the second device via near-field communication.
However, Lipscomb discloses communication between a video game processing device and a portable user device is performed via near-field communication (Lipscomb [0033], “The portable device 100 can directly connect to the base device 130 in a physical manner (e.g, wired connection or port interface) or in a local wireless manner (e.g., near field communication, bluetooth connection, bluetooth low energy connection, bluetooth smart connection, Wi-Fi direct connection, infrared communication, ultrasonic communication, subsonic communication, active radio frequency identification, passive radio frequency identification, or another method of wireless connection),” wired connection of near field communication connection can be used).
Lipscomb is analogous to Schmidt, as both are drawn to the art of game consoles. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt, to include communication between a video game processing device and a portable user device is performed via near-field communication, as taught by Lipscomb, since it would have been a simple substitution of one known data communication element for another to obtain predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, and substantially similar limitations in claim 30, Schmidt does not explicitly teach wherein receiving the user profile information via near-field communication comprises: receiving one or more wireless pairing credentials to establish a wireless network between the portable user device and the video game processing device, the method comprising: performing, by the video game processing device, a log-out operation with respect to a user account on the video game processing device in response to a detection that the portable user device is no longer connected to the video game processing device via the wireless network.
However, Lipscomb discloses wherein receiving the user profile information via near-field communication comprises: receiving one or more wireless pairing credentials to establish a wireless network between the portable user device and the video game processing device, the method comprising: performing, by the video game processing device, a log-out operation with respect to a user account on the video game processing device in response to a detection that the portable user device is no longer connected to the video game processing device via the wireless network (Lipscomb [0048], “Once the exemplary user goes back home, the user can take the portable device 100 with him/her. If the portable device 100 uses a physical/wired connection, or a local wireless connection, this means that the connection between the portable device 100 and the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) is automatically terminated. Once this connection is terminated, the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) loses its authorization to download software applications/games (granted through “software authorized to download” dataset 200 of the profile data set 170), loses its authorization to run software applications/games (granted through “software that this base device is authorized to run” dataset 240 of the authorization token 175), loses its authorization to access the user's software settings (granted through “software settings that this base device is authorized to access” dataset 250 of the authorization token 175), and loses its authorization to purchase new software applications/games (granted through “authorized to make purchases?” dataset 260 of the authorization token 175). The friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) may also lose the software applications/games that it downloaded from the network 160 under the authorization of the user's portable device 100 (granted through “software authorized to download” 200 of the profile data set 170), or it may keep them stored (but unplayable until re-authorized through a new profile data set 170) to prepare for a future gaming session. The friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) may also lose the software settings 210 that it received from the profile data set 170 from the user's portable device 100, or it may keep them stored (but inaccessible until re-authorized through a new authorization token 175) to prepare for a future gaming session.”).
Lipscomb is analogous to Schmidt, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt, to include wherein receiving the user profile information via near-field communication comprises: receiving one or more wireless pairing credentials to establish a wireless network between the portable user device and the video game processing device, the method comprising: performing, by the video game processing device, a log-out operation with respect to a user account on the video game processing device in response to a detection that the portable user device is no longer connected to the video game processing device via the wireless network, as taught by Lipscomb, in order to improve software application delivery and user profile systems (Lipscomb [0009-0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, and substantially similar limitations in claim 31, Schmidt does not teach wherein the user profile information comprises video game asset information enabling access to an in-game item, the method comprising: receiving, by the video game processing device, an indication of a temporary share mode selected at the portable user device; enabling, by the video game processing device, access to the in-game item in response to receiving the indication of the temporary share mode; and automatically stopping access to the in-game item at the video game processing device upon expiry of a predetermined time duration without requiring further input from a user.
However, Lipscomb discloses wherein the user profile information comprises video game asset information enabling access to an in-game item, the method comprising: receiving, by the video game processing device, an indication of a temporary share mode selected at the portable user device; enabling, by the video game processing device, access to the in-game item in response to receiving the indication of the temporary share mode; and automatically stopping access to the in-game item at the video game processing device upon expiry of a predetermined time duration without requiring further input from a user (Lipscomb [0053], “The connection between the portable device 100 and the base device 130 may then be terminated (step 340), either manually (e.g., through button, switch, or other graphical or mechanical user interface) or automatically (e.g., by physical unplugging the portable device 100 from a physical/wired connection to the base device 130, or by moving the portable device 100 far enough away that a local wireless connection stops functioning, or via a timer). Once the connection between the portable device 100 and the base device 130 is terminated, the various authorizations granted to the base device 130 are also terminated (step 345),” the timer can be used to enable time-limited access).
Lipscomb is analogous to Schmidt, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt, to include wherein the user profile information comprises video game asset information enabling access to an in-game item, the method comprising: receiving, by the video game processing device, an indication of a temporary share mode selected at the portable user device; enabling, by the video game processing device, access to the in-game item in response to receiving the indication of the temporary share mode; and automatically stopping access to the in-game item at the video game processing device upon expiry of a predetermined time duration without requiring further input from a user, as taught by Lipscomb, in order to improve software application delivery and user profile systems (Lipscomb [0009-0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22, and substantially similar limitations in claim 33, Schmidt in view of Lipscomb discloses wherein the user profile information received by the video game processing device was previously acquired by the portable user device from a different processing device using a first software application on the portable user device and a second software application installed on the different processing device (Schmidt [0006], “the ancillary application may allow the game console user to store and retrieve game application configuration settings and game controller configuration settings to and from the portable device. In this manner, a user may store a saved game, a "left-handed" controller configuration, and the like to the portable device for possible uploading to another game controller at a different location,” saving saved games and controller settings to the portable device from another game console).
Regarding claim 23, and substantially similar limitations in claim 34, Schmidt in view of Lipscomb discloses wherein the user profile information comprises one or more user-specified settings selected from a group consisting of: one or more display settings, one or more audio settings, and one or more graphical user interface settings, wherein performing the one or more processing operations comprises: updating stored settings of the video game processing device to use the one or more user- specified settings (Schmidt [0006], “the ancillary application may allow the game console user to store and retrieve game application configuration settings and game controller configuration settings to and from the portable device,” application configuration settings; also Schmidt [0071], “Further gaming data that can be stored and uploaded via USB memory device 230A includes a team icon, a custom playbook/roster, a player emblem, a log of last played games, customization, a racing game suspension setting, a racing game bike model or color, a racing game suit color, and the like. If the user then plays the game at a friend's house, the user can access the stored game settings via the USB memory device 230A by uploading his game configuration settings to the game console 100 at the friend's house,” these are display settings or graphical user interface settings).
Regarding claim 25, Schmidt does not explicitly teach wherein the user profile information received by the video game processing device is based on one or more user inputs received via one or more graphical user interfaces associated with a software application executed on the portable user device.
However, Lipscomb discloses wherein the user profile information received by the video game processing device is based on one or more user inputs received via one or more graphical user interfaces associated with a software application executed on the portable user device (Lipscomb [0022], “The portable device 100 could also be a mobile device 110, such as a smartphone device, a tablet device, a laptop computer, a wearable device, or a portable media player device”; also see Lipscomb Figs. 2A-B and [0046], “the portable device 100 could then transmit the profile data set 170 to the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) the authorize the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) to start downloading a set of games (“software authorized to download” 200) from the network 160. Once the user and the friend are ready to play a game, the user can transmit an authorization token 175 to the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) to authorize the playing of the user's favorite games on the friend's game console (i.e., base device 130) (“software that this base device is authorized to run” 240). The user could choose not to authorize the playing of some games even if he/she has authorized the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) to download them (i.e., SOFTWARE B and SOFTWARE D were present in “software authorized to download” 200 but are missing from “software that this base device is authorized to run” 240).”).
Lipscomb is analogous to Schmidt, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt, to include wherein the user profile information received by the video game processing device is based on one or more user inputs received via one or more graphical user interfaces associated with a software application executed on the portable user device, as taught by Lipscomb, in order to improve software application delivery and user profile systems (Lipscomb [0009-0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 26, Schmidt in view of Lipscomb discloses wherein the portable user device is one selected from the list consisting of: a smartphone device, a smartwatch device, and a tablet computing device (Schmidt [0036], “Portable media device 210 may be any portable media device compatible with the communication ports of game console 100 (i.e., USB controller 126) including, for example, smart portable phone 210A, digital camera 210B, video camera 210C (which may be Firewire compatible), personal digital assistant (PDA) 210D, audio player 210E (which may be a MP3 player, a player compatible with WMA files, etc.), and the like, as shown in FIG. 3a.”).
Claims 17 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, and in further view of Shah et al. (hereinafter “Shah,” US 2014/0121010).
Regarding claim 17, and substantially similar limitations in claim 28, Schmidt in view of Lipscomb does not explicitly teach wherein the user profile information comprises two or more different control input mappings specified by a user for the input device, and wherein each of the two or more different control input mappings is associated with a different video game processed by the video game processing device.
However, Shah discloses wherein the user profile information comprises two or more different control input mappings specified by a user for the input device, and wherein each of the two or more different control input mappings is associated with a different video game processed by the video game processing device (see Shah Fig. 5 and [0016], “FIG. 5 illustrates certain exemplary mappings that describe translation from game controller events to input events understood by different video games according to a specific embodiment of the present invention.”).
Shah is analogous to Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, to include wherein the user profile information comprises two or more different control input mappings specified by a user for the input device, and wherein each of the two or more different control input mappings is associated with a different video game processed by the video game processing device, as taught by Shah, in order to unlock a treasure chest of inexpensive and exciting mobile devices based video games for the player of the video gaming system (Shah [0009]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, and in further view of Zimring et al. (hereinafter “Zimring,” US 2019/0321732).
Regarding claim 18, and substantially similar limitations in claim 29, Schmidt in view of Lipscomb does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein the input device is a handheld video game controller used for interactive content during an active session on the video game processing device, and wherein the near-field communication is established by moving at least one of the handheld video game controller or the portable user device to be proximate to one another without interrupting the active session.
However, Zimring discloses wherein the input device is a handheld video game controller used for interactive content during an active session on the video game processing device, and wherein the near-field communication is established by moving at least one of the handheld video game controller or the portable user device to be proximate to one another without interrupting the active session (see Zimring Fig. 10B and [0255], “FIG. 10B illustrates another implementation in which the game controller 102 automatically pairs with an interface device based on proximity to the interface device, irrespective of default settings. Here, even though the interface device 106-1 is the default pairing device for the game controller 102, the game controller 102 detects one or more interface device(s) in its proximity (e.g., 106-1 and 106-2) and pairs with the interface device (i.e., 106-2) that it is most proximate to.”).
Zimring is analogous to Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, as both are drawn to the art of gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, to include wherein the input device is a handheld video game controller used for interactive content during an active session on the video game processing device, and wherein the near-field communication is established by moving at least one of the handheld video game controller or the portable user device to be proximate to one another without interrupting the active session, as taught by Zimring, since it would have been a simple substitution of the interface device of Zimring with the portable user device to obtain predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 21 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, and in further view of Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu,” US 2023/0208790).
Regarding claim 21, and substantially similar limitations in claim 32, Schmidt in view of Lipscomb does not explicitly teach wherein the user profile information received by the video game processing device comprises portions of user profile information having a sharing status indicating they are to be shared, the sharing status having been specified via a graphical user interface of the portable user device.
However, Liu discloses wherein the user profile information received by the video game processing device comprises portions of user profile information having a sharing status indicating they are to be shared, the sharing status having been specified via a graphical user interface of the portable user device (Liu [0049], “In an implementation, the near field connection includes a Bluetooth connection or a Wi-Fi connection. The association relationship includes: A device account of the first terminal is the same as a device account of the second terminal, or a device account of the second terminal is in a sharing device list of the first terminal. The sharing device list is a set of device accounts. In this way, data is transmitted by using Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, to improve transmission efficiency. The user can share the content with a specified device based on a setting of the user, to improve purposefulness of content sharing.”).
Liu is analogous to Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, as both are drawn to the art of gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, to include wherein the user profile information received by the video game processing device comprises portions of user profile information having a sharing status indicating they are to be shared, the sharing status having been specified via a graphical user interface of the portable user device, as taught by Liu, in order to improve purposefulness of content sharing (Liu [0049]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, and in further view of Kolehmainen (US 2006/0183462).
Regarding claim 24, Schmidt in view of Lipscomb does not explicitly teach wherein the user profile information comprises one or more login credentials for accessing an account associated with a software application on the video game processing device, the method comprising: automatically logging into the account on the video game processing device using the one or more login credentials in response to the near-field communication.
However, Kolehmainen discloses wherein the user profile information comprises one or more login credentials for accessing an account associated with a software application on the video game processing device, the method comprising: automatically logging into the account on the video game processing device using the one or more login credentials in response to the near-field communication (Kolehmainen [0007], “In still another embodiment of the invention, a computer-readable medium that has computer-executable components is directed to managing access to a computing resource. The components include a transceiver, a processor, and memory. The transceiver is directed to receiving and sending information to another computing device, and is configured to employ a near field communications (NFC) network link. The processor is in communication with the transceiver, and the memory is in communication with the processor and stores data and machine instructions that cause the processor to perform a plurality of operations. The operations include monitoring for a presence of a mobile device, and if the presence of the mobile device is detected, initiating the NFC network link to be established with the mobile device; receiving over the NFC network link from the mobile device a credential for use in authentication, wherein the mobile device is configured to provide the credential automatically; determining whether the mobile device is authentic based, at least in part on the received credential, and if the mobile device is authentic, automatically creating an account environment for use in accessing the computing resource; enabling access to the account environment; logging information associated with traffic over the NFC network link; and if the mobile device logs out of the account environment, securely removing the account environment and information associated with the mobile device use of the NFC network link.”).
Kolehmainen is analogous to Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, as both are drawn to the art of networking devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, to include wherein the user profile information comprises one or more login credentials for accessing an account associated with a software application on the video game processing device, the method comprising: automatically logging into the account on the video game processing device using the one or more login credentials in response to the near-field communication, as taught by Kolehmainen, since it would have applied a known technique of logging in to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on April 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant respectfully argues that the applied references do not disclose, teach or suggest at least the new limitations added by amendment to claim 15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, for reasons provided in the 35 USC 103 rejection above.
Conclusion
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 Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
