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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a networking module configured to manage the game state” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Concerning claim 20,
A networking module is claimed, but there is no mention of what the networking module is or any mention of it in the specifications provided. For this reason, the claim does not meet the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “specific configuration” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specific configuration” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what a specific configuration is and the term does not establish any clear metes and bounds.
Concerning claim 20,
Claim limitation “a networking module configured to manage the game state” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. A networking module is claimed, but there is no mention of what the networking module is or any mention of it in the specifications provided. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-8 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11992746 B1 to Berme (hereinafter Berme) in view of US Publication 2022/0226727 A1 to Yao (hereinafter Yao).
Concerning claim 1,
Berme discloses a system for coordinating game play, the system comprising: a server device having at least a processor and a memory (Col. 34, ln 54-Col 35, ln 29; Figure 10); and
each client device is configured to: execute a game program in association with a selected game module, wherein the selected game module corresponds to a theme associated with games executed by the plurality of client devices (Col. 22, ln 34-Col 23, ln 19; Figure 11-12);
obtain input data, via an input device, from a user (Col. 22, ln 34-Col 23, ln 19, Figure 11-12; wherein the input device is considered to be the treadmill disclosed);
update a game state of the game program in association with the obtained input data (Col. 22, ln 34-Col 23; ln 19, Figure 11-12);
generate, for display, a game display in associated with the selected game module (Col. 22, ln 34-Col 23, ln 19; Figure 11-12); and
communicate the game state of the game program to the server device (Col. 35, ln 30-57; Figure 10), and
the server device is configured to: obtain the game state of the game program from each client device (Col. 35, ln 30-57; Figure 10);
manage the game state of the game program of each client device (Col. 35, ln 30-57; Figure 10); and
communicate the managed game state of the game program to each client device (Col. 35, ln 30-57; Figure 10).
Berme does not disclose a plurality of client devices, wherein each of the plurality of client devices includes a processor and a memory,
Yao teaches a plurality of client devices, wherein each of the plurality of client devices includes a processor and a memory (0048; 0051; 0082; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the server and networking between multiple devices as shown in Yao with the exercise gaming device shown in Berme as both devices disclose virtual reality gaming. The server configuration described in Yao would allow for more interconnected gaming between multiple devices and would improve the gaming experience that the exercise gaming device described in Berme provides.
Concerning claim 2,
Yao teaches the server device is configured to synchronize the game state between the games executed by the plurality of client devices (0048; 0051; 0082; Figure 1).
Concerning claim 3,
Yao teaches the server device is configured to transmit the synchronized game state to each of the plurality of client devices (0048; 0051; 0082; Figure 1), and
each of the plurality of client devices is configured to receive the synchronized game state and synchronize the game state between each client device (0048; 0051; 0082; Figure 1).
Concerning claim 4,
Berme discloses a plurality of projectors configured to project the game display, wherein each client device includes an associated projector from the plurality of projectors (Col. 15, ln 4-22; Figure 1).
Concerning claim 5,
Berme discloses the input device includes a motion sensing device configured to obtain motion data associated with the user (Col. 19, ln 58-Col. 20, ln 18; as broadly claimed, the head tracking disclosed satisfies the limitation).
Concerning claim 6,
Berme discloses the input device includes a pressure sensing device configured to detect pressure applied by the user (Col 12, ln 20-36; Col. 19, ln 58-Col. 20, ln 18; wherein the force sensing disclosed is considered to be a pressure sensor).
Concerning claim 7,
Yao teaches each client device is arranged in a same area where users can move between areas associated with each client device (0048; 0051; 0082; Figure 1; as broadly claimed, the limitations that the “users can move between areas associated with each client device” is not constrained, so the users of the terminal devices disclosed meet this limitation).
Concerning claim 8
Berme discloses each client device includes additional equipment arranged in a specific configuration associated with the respective game module (Col. 16, ln 19-31; see the 112b rejection above. The configuration of the cameras disclosed meets the limitation).
Concerning claim 10,
Berme discloses the game modules include any of: a burst module, a future runner module, a vortex module, and/or a jumpatron module (Col. 22, ln 34-Col 23, ln 19, Figure 11-12; wherein the grocery aisle game disclosed is interpreted to be a vortex module).
Concerning claim 11 and 17, see the rejection of claim 1.
Concerning claim 12,
Yao teaches receive an updated game state from the server system (0048; 0051; 0082; Figure 1); and
update the game state of the game program based on the received updated game state (0048; 0051; 0082; Figure 1).
Concerning claim 13 and 18, see the rejection of claim 2.
Concerning claim 14, see the rejection of claim 4.
Concerning claim 15, see the rejection of claim 5.
Concerning claim 16, see the rejection of claim 6.
Concerning claim 19, see the rejection of claim 3.
Concerning claim 20,
Berme discloses a networking module configured to manage the game state between each of the plurality of client devices (Col. 34, ln 54-Col 35, ln 29, Figure 10; see the 112 rejections above. As claimed, the network module limitation is considered to be equivalent to the software system disclosed).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 11992746 B1 to Berme in view of US Publication 2022/0226727 A1 to Yao and further in view of US Publication 2015/0231502 A1 to Allen et al. (hereinafter Allen).
Concerning claim 9,
Berme does not disclose the system is configured to generate a user interface configured to accept user feedback associated with development of each game module.
Allen teaches the system is configured to generate a user interface configured to accept user feedback associated with development of each game module (0024; Figure 2).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feedback system as shown in Allen with the exercise gaming device shown in Berme as both devices pertain to gaming. The feedback system described in Allen would allow for the inventor to add functionality and would tailor the gaming experience that the exercise gaming device described in Berme provides.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715