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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/25/24, 3/20/25 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of "(FIG. 1)". Applicant is recommended to remove the phrase. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-12, 16-17, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posin (2017/0354878) in view of Vincent et al. (2020/0061463).
Re Claim 1,
Posin discloses a method for controlling a cloud game, performed on a terminal device or a server (¶¶0002, 0144-0145), and comprising:
obtaining an operation instruction input by a first game client, and converting the operation instruction into a game instruction (Fig 8, ¶¶0014-0015, 0063, 0088; input data received at the client device from one or more client input devices, wherein the input data is processed to generate commands for the cloud video game);
wherein a type of the operation instruction is determined according to a game platform corresponding to the first game client, a type of the game instruction is a type of an instruction to be received by a cloud game server (¶¶0014-0016, 0083, 0087, 0090; a type of the browser of the client device is identified, the one or more client input devices are selected from the group consisting of a keyboard, a mouse, a touchpad, a touch-sensitive display, a game controller, or a motion controller), and
the game instruction is configured to indicate a game operation to be performed, sending the game instruction to the cloud game server (¶¶0014, 0027, 0083, 0087, 0090; the input data is processed to generate commands for the cloud video game).
Posin does not explicitly disclose controlling a game virtual object to perform the game operation according to the game instruction. However, Vincent teaches a cloud game that can be used with different devices to control a game virtual object to perform the game operation according to the game instruction (Fig 6-9, ¶¶0019-0020, 0034-0035; for example, the user presses a button which would direct a character on the screen to move to the right, the game program would then create a sequence of video images showing the character moving to the right). Vincent further teaches such a configuration provides the perception to the user that the controlled application is responding instantly (¶0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Vincent into the cloud game of Posin in order to enhance the gameplay by providing the perception to the player that the controlled application is responding instantly.
Re Claims 4, 19, 21,
Posin discloses obtaining an instruction mapping rule between the operation instruction and the game instruction, and converting the operation instruction into the game instruction according to the instruction mapping rule (¶¶0069, 0088).
Re Claim 5,
Posin discloses generating a back-transmission game instruction in response to determining that the cloud game server transmits back to the first game client for the game instruction, wherein a type of the back-transmission game instruction is the same as the type of the game instruction; and converting the back-transmission game instruction into an operation instruction corresponding to a game platform of the first game client through the instruction conversion interface (Fig 6, ¶¶0090-0091).
Re Claim 6,
Posin discloses obtaining a game screen corresponding to the game, and displaying the game screen on a display component of the first game client (¶¶0025, 0027, 0067-0068, 0072).
Re Claim 7,
Posin discloses obtaining screen information by encoding the game screen, and sending the screen information to the first game client; and obtaining the game screen by decoding the screen information on the first game client, and displaying the game screen on the display component of the first game client (¶¶0067-0068, 0070, 0072).
Re Claims 9, 10,
Claims are substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Re Claim 11,
Posin discloses the type of the operation instruction comprises at least one of: a touch input type, wherein the game platform corresponding to the first game client is a mobile phone platform; a handle input type, wherein the game platform corresponding to the first game client is a game machine platform; or a keyboard and mouse input type, wherein the game platform corresponding to the first game client is a computer platform (Fig 8, ¶¶0014-0016).
Re Claim 12,
Posin discloses configuring a conversion tool for converting the operation instruction into the game instruction in a software development kit (SDK); and converting the operation instruction into the game instruction through the SDK (¶¶0069, 0088).
Re Claim 16,
Posin discloses converting the operation instruction to the game instruction in the instruction processing middleware. (¶¶0069, 0088).
Re Claim 17,
Posin discloses encoding the game screen through at least one of entropy encoding, predictive encoding, transform encoding or hybrid encoding (¶¶0024-0025, 0067-0068).
Claim(s) 2-3, 13-14, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posin (2017/0354878) in view of Vincent et al. (2020/0061463), further in view of Benedetto et al. (2019/0291010).
Re Claims 2, 18, 20,
Posin as modified by Vincent discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on transferring an operation permission of the first game client to a second game client in response to a permission transfer operation; and obtaining an operation instruction input by the second game client, and converting the operation instruction into the game instruction. However, Benedetto teaches transferring an operation permission of the first game client to a second game client in response to a permission transfer operation; and obtaining an operation instruction input by the second game client, and converting the operation instruction into the game instruction (¶¶0104-0105, 0126-0128). Benedetto further teaches such a configuration provides real-time assistance during game play of the player (¶0005). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Benedetto into the cloud game of Posin as modified by Vincent in order to provide real-time assistance during game play of the player.
Re Claim 3,
Posin discloses sending the game instruction received by the first game client to the cloud game server (¶¶0014-0015, 0063, 0088).
Re Claim 13,
Posin as modified by Vincent discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the permission transfer operation comprises at least one of a key operation, a touch operation or a voice control. However, Benedetto teaches the permission transfer operation comprises at least one of a key operation, a touch operation or a voice control (¶¶0104-0105, 0126-0128). See claim 2 for motivation.
Re Claim 14,
Posin as modified by Vincent discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the at least one of: transferring the operation permission of the first game client to the second game client through one permission transfer operation; or transferring the operation permission of the first game client to the second game client through a plurality of permission transfer operations. However, Benedetto teaches at least one of: transferring the operation permission of the first game client to the second game client through one permission transfer operation; or transferring the operation permission of the first game client to the second game client through a plurality of permission transfer operations (¶¶0104-0105, 0126-0128). See claim 2 for motivation.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posin (2017/0354878) in view of Vincent et al. (2020/0061463), further in view of Sirilux et al. (2013/0130800).
Re Claim 15,
Posin as modified by Vincent discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on an instruction mapping table, and the instruction mapping table comprises a mapping relationship between the operation instruction and the game instruction. However, Sirilux teaches an instruction mapping table, and the instruction mapping table comprises a mapping relationship between the operation instruction and the game instruction (¶¶0015-0016). Sirilux further teaches such a configuration allows the controller to easily operate in different modes (¶0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sirilux into the cloud game of Posin as modified by Vincent in order to allow the input device to easily operate in different modes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715