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 § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. 20200316464 to Butler et al (Butler).
Claims 1, 10, and 19. Butler discloses a first display device (Fig. 2, 220) comprising:
a communication interface (¶109), comprising communication circuitry;
memory storing at least one instruction (¶¶111, 114); and
at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, individually and/or collectively configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory (¶¶111, 133) to cause the first display device to:
control the communication interface to transmit a first control signal to play a game application to a game server (¶¶48-49, 70 “web server 210 may receive a request from the primary user device 220 to access a cloud video game”) and receive a first game screen (¶12, “gameplay video”, ¶49 ) according to execution of the game application based on the first control signal from the game server (¶60), wherein the first control signal is based on an input received from a first user of the first display device (¶51; ¶61, “primary user device 220 renders the video stream to a display 222 for viewing by the primary user 226”, “primary user 226 may interact with the video game through operation of a controller device 224… provide interactive input to the video game”);
control a display to display the first game screen (¶61 “video game session 204 instantiates and maintains a game state that is updated based on received input commands”; ¶12 “gameplay video”);
control the communication interface to, according to an input designating a second user (¶¶99-100 “user accessing a live video feed of a given game session may also request to join the gameplay as a participant”), transmit the first game screen (¶¶12, 22 “gameplay video”) to a second display device corresponding to the second user by communicating with the second display device (¶22 “primary user device is configured to stream the gameplay video over a peer-to-peer network to one or more secondary user devices, each of said secondary user devices being configured to render the gameplay video”; ¶65 “video rendered by the primary user device 220 is shared to the secondary user devices”);
receive a second control signal for playing the game application from the second display device, wherein the second control signal is based on an input received by the second display device from the second user of the second display device in response to the first game screen displayed on the second display device (¶12 “secondary inputs, that are generated from interactive gameplay associated with the one or more secondary user devices”, “update a game state of the cloud video game that is processed to generate the gameplay video”, ¶¶46, 67 “enables the secondary users to participate in the gameplay of the primary user's video game session”); and
control the communication interface to transmit the received second control signal to the game server for the game server to control the game application, based on the second control signal, and receive a second game screen (¶12 updated “gameplay video”, ¶61 “video frames”, “moving image data”) corresponding to a result of the controlling the game application from the game server (¶46 “enable multiple secondary clients to view the primary client's gameplay video… secondary users are able to participate in the gaming session of the primary user, through input that is aggregated at the primary client device and then transmitted to the cloud video game”; ¶¶80-83 “primary and secondary inputs are processed to define the aggregated input stream 223 that is communicated to the game machine 202, and applied to the video game session 204 to drive the execution of the session and update the game state of the video game. In this manner, the combination of input from the primary user 226 and the secondary users is utilized to play the cloud video game”; “primary user device 220 receives gameplay video from the game machine 202 and distributes the gameplay video through P2P sharing to the secondary user devices 228”; also see ¶¶60-63).
Claims 5 and 14. Butler discloses wherein at least one processor comprising processing circuitry is individually and/or collectively configured to execute at least one instruction to cause the first display device to:
provide a graphical user interface including a friend list; and
receive the input designating the second user by receiving an input of selecting the second user included in the friend list provided on the graphical user interface (Fig. 6A, ¶97).
Claims 7 and 16. Butler discloses wherein at least one processor comprising processing circuitry is individually and/or collectively configured to execute at least one instruction to cause the first display device to:
control the communication interface to perform a direct communication connection with the second display device; and
control the communication interface to directly transmit the first game screen to the second display device and directly receive the second control signal from the second display device (¶¶46 “peer-to-peer network”).
Claims 9 and 18. Butler discloses wherein at least one processor comprising processing circuitry is individually and/or collectively configured to execute at least one instruction to cause the first display device to configure a graphical user interface to include a chatting function enabling voice chatting or video chatting with the second user (¶101).
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20200316464 to Butler et al (Butler) in view of US Pub. 20120206557 to Ridges et al (Ridges), US Pub. 20180353860 to Nakamura et al (Nakamura), and US Pub. 20030093669 to Morais et al (Morais).
Claims 2 and 11. Butler fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 2 and 11.
Ridges in view of Nakamura teaches provide a graphical user interface including an invitation function enabling designation of the second user (see Nakamura ¶¶4, 59); and
display an authentication generated according to an input of selecting the invitation function (see Ridges ¶¶80-89 “clicks on the web link”, and “client credentials and is authenticated to play at the game with the given ID”; and see Nakamura ¶60). The gaming system of Butler would have motivation to use the teachings of Ridges and Nakamura in order to provide a security measure to ensure only particular people are invited and given access to the game in doing would help keep unwanted people from joining a multiplayer game session.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Butler with the teachings of Ridges and Nakamura in order to provide a security measure to ensure only particular people are invited and given access to the game in doing would help keep unwanted people from joining a multiplayer game session.
Morais teaches an authentication number (¶¶41, 55 “session keys”). The gaming system of Butler in view of Ridges and Nakamura would have motivation to use the teachings of Morais in order to provide an additional security measure to further ensure only particular people are given access to the game.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Butler in view of Ridges and Nakamura with the teachings of Morais in order to provide an additional security measure to further ensure only particular people are given access to the game.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20200316464 to Butler et al (Butler) in view of US Pub. 20120206557 to Ridges et al (Ridges), US Pub. 20180353860 to Nakamura et al (Nakamura), and US Pub. 20030093669 to Morais et al (Morais) as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20190321732 to Zimring et al (Zimring).
Claims 3 and 12. Butler fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 3 and 12.
Zimring teaches provide the graphical user interface to a quick panel output according to reception of a specified key input (¶¶15, 232 “commands from a quick menu press button on the game controller”). The gaming system of Butler would have motivation to use the teachings of Zimring in order to provide controls to allow game players to conveniently activate and interact with particular game interfaces in doing so would improve game players gaming experience.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Butler with the teachings of Zimring in order to provide controls to allow game players to conveniently activate and interact with particular game interfaces in doing so would improve game players gaming experience.
Claims 4 and 13. Butler in view of Ridges, Nakamura, and Morais teaches:
receive, from a service server, a friend list (see Butler ¶97, Nakamura ¶61) including the second user corresponding to the second display device configured to join using the generated authentication number (see Ridges ¶¶80-89 “clicks on the web link”, and “client credentials and is authenticated to play at the game with the given ID”; see Nakamura ¶60; and see Morais ¶¶41, 55 “session keys”); and
control the display to display the friend list received from the service server (see Nakamura ¶61).
Claims 6 and 15. Butler in view of Ridges and Zimring teaches wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
perform communication with the second display device through the service server;
transmit the game screen to the second display device through the service server; and
receive the control signal from the second display device through the service server (see Zimring Fig. 1A, element 110, and ¶47; and see Ridges Fig. 1, 108, and ¶38).
Claim 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20200316464 to Butler et al (Butler) in view of US Pub. 20100248841 to Hsiao.
Claims 8 and 17. Butler fail to explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 8 and 17.
Hsiao teaches identify whether a format of a control signal received from the second display device is compatible with a format of a control signal of the first display device;
control the communication interface to transmit the control signal of the second display device as is to the game server, based on identifying that the format of the control signal of the second display device is compatible with the format of the control signal of the first display device; and
convert the format of the control signal of the second display device into the format of the control signal of the first display device and control the communication interface to transmit the format-converted control signal to the game server, based on identifying that the format of the control signal of the second display device is not compatible with the format of the control signal of the first display device (¶34). The gaming system of Butler in view of Ridges would have motivation to use the teachings of Hsiao in order to allow different types of devices to successfully communicate with each other in doing so would accommodate game players and assist in saving money because the players are not required to purchase additional computing devices to participant in network game play.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Butler with the teachings of Hsiao in order to allow different types of devices to successfully communicate with each other in doing so would accommodate game players and assist in saving players money.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights