DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 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.
The claims are directed to requesting, presenting, and controlling play of a game (mental processes and organizing methods of human activity) involving:
a request to execute a game application (communication via verbal or written, permission to play game);
execution of the game application (game presentation);
an input designating a second user (communication via verbal or written);
receive a control signal for controlling the game application (communication via verbal or written means from a second person)
Claims 1, 10, and 19 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of presenting game play.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite “first display device”, “game server”, “second display device”; claims 1 and 19 recite processor”; claim 1 recites “communication interface”, “communication circuitry”, “memory”, “processing circuitry”; claim 19 recites “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (game screen) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (display devices, game server, processor, communication interface, communication circuitry, memory, processing circuitry, non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, game screen) performing signal processing (receiving, controlling, and transmitting signals) are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic display devices, servers, processors, memories, circuitry, medium, screens, and signal processing as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-19 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mental process and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of requesting, presenting, and controlling play of a game, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
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 1, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20190321732 to Zimring et al (Zimring) in view of US Pub. 20120206557 to Ridges et al (Ridges).
Claims 1, 10, and 19. Zimring teaches a first display device comprising:
a communication interface, comprising communication circuitry;
a memory storing one or more instructions; and
at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory, at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, configured to:
control the communication interface to transmit a request to execute a game application to a game server and receive a game screen according to the execution of the game application from the game server (Fig. 1A, and ¶¶5, 50-51);
control a display to display the game screen (¶¶5, 48);
control the communication interface to, according to an input designating a second user (¶¶52-55);
receive a control signal for controlling the game application from the second display device (¶¶55); and
control the communication interface to transmit the received control signal to the game server for the game server to control the game application, based on the control signal (¶¶52-55), and receive a game screen corresponding to a result of the controlling the game application from the game server (¶¶48, 58).
However, Zimring fails to explicitly disclose transmit the game screen to a second display device corresponding to the second user by communicating with the second display device.
Ridges teaches transmit the game screen to a second display device (¶¶7, 40, 51). The gaming system of Zimring would have motivation to use the teachings of Ridges in order to provide multiplayer game images at each portable devices which would make game play more exciting because of the ability for players to compete in matches and competitions with other real live players.
It would have been 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 Zimring with the teachings of Ridges in order to allow multiple devices to play the same game simultaneously over a communication network.
Claims 6 and 15. Zimring in view of Ridges 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)
Claims 7 and 16. Zimring in view of Ridges teaches wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
control the communication interface to perform a direct communication connection with the second display device (see Zimring ¶52); and
control the communication interface to directly transmit the game screen to the second display device and directly receive the control signal from the second display device (see Zimring ¶52; and see Ridges ¶31).
Claims 2-5, 9, 11-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20190321732 to Zimring et al (Zimring) in view of US Pub. 20120206557 to Ridges et al (Ridges) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20180353860 to Nakamura et al (Nakamura) and US Pub. 20030093669 to Morais et al (Morais).
Claims 2 and 11. Zimring fails to explicitly disclsoe 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 Zimring in view of Ridges would have motivation to use the teachings of 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 Zimring in view of Ridges with the teachings of 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 Zimring 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 Zimring 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 and 12. Zimring discloses wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to 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”).
Claims 4 and 13. Zimring in view of Ridges, Nakamura, and Morais teaches:
receive, from a service server, a friend list (see 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 5 and 14. Zimring in view of Nakamura teaches
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 (see Nakamura ¶61).
Claims 9 and 18. Zimring in view of Nakamura teaches wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to configure the graphical user interface to include a chatting function enabling voice chatting or video chatting with the second user (see Nakamura ¶40).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20190321732 to Zimring et al (Zimring) in view of US Pub. 20120206557 to Ridges et al (Ridges) as applied to claims 7 and 16 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20100248841 to Hsiao.
Claims 8 and 17. Zimring 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 Zimring 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 Zimring in view of Ridges 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.
Conclusion
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