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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-5 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/02/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not disclose a concise statement of the claimed technical disclosure. 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).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 6-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Townsend [PGPUB 2014/0101343] in view of Winick [PGPUB 2018/0369692].
Regarding claim 6, the Townsend reference discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program having instructions that, when executed by one or more processors in a computing device [ie. host device (“computing device”) with game controller; Townsend; figures 1 and 7A; paragraphs 0006, 0032, and 0037], cause the one or more processors to:
without informing a remote device of local games stored in the computing device, determine a subset of the local games stored in the computing device that support a game controller as an input device, wherein the subset of the local games is determined based on an identification of games that are stored in the remote device and are playable by the computing device using the game controller, wherein the games support the game controller as an input device [ie. subset of games, from all applications, stored in the host, which is not reported to the marketplace (“remote device”); Townsend; para 0039, 0043-0045, and 0098-0100]; and
display, in a user interface for user selection, an identification of the subset of the local games [Townsend; para 0032, 0039, 0042-0043, and 0103].
Townsend does disclose games can be implemented as a server-based programs [Townsend; para 0029] but does not clearly disclose “remotely playable over the network”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Winick discloses remotely playable over a network by the computing device using the game controller [Winick; fig 1, 40, and 45b; Winick; para 0016, 0018, 0170, and 0434]. The Townsend and Winick references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage controllers for gaming. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of remote playable games with a controller, taught by Winick, into the system, taught by Townsend. The motivation for doing so would have been able to play streaming games over the internet.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Townsend-Winick further discloses determine the subset of local games by comparing characteristics of the local games and the games remotely playable over the network [ie. game identifiers; Townsend; para 0042-0043 and 0098] [ie. streaming vs offline games; Winick; para 0016].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Townsend-Winick further discloses send a request for a local game stored in the computing device to support the game controller as an input device [ie. get (“send a request”) a local game; Townsend; para 0036, 0042, and 0072].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Townsend-Winick further discloses the computer program comprises a controller app in the computing device [Townsend; para 0036, 0042, and 0072-74].
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Townsend-Winick further discloses display of the identification of the subset of the local games is organized by level of support [ie. different types of controllers and filtered display; Townsend; para 0034, 0043, 0064, and 0067].
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Townsend-Winick further discloses an identification of the local games that do not support the game controller as an input device are not displayed in the user interface for user selection [ie. filter games to be displayed; Townsend; para 0032 and 0043].
Regarding claim 13, the Townsend reference discloses a method comprising: performing in a computing device in communication with a game controller [ie. host device (“computing device”) with game controller; Townsend; figures 1 and 7A; paragraphs 0006, 0032, and 0037]:
determining an identification of games that are stored in a remote device and are playable by the computing device using the game controller, wherein the games support the game controller as an input device [Townsend; fig 7A; para 0039 and 0043];
without informing the remote device of local games stored in the computing device and based on the identification of games by the computing device, determining a subset of the local games stored in the computing device that support the game controller as an input device [ie. subset of games, from all applications, stored in the host, which is not reported to the marketplace (“remote device”); Townsend; para 0043-0045 and 0098-0100]; and
displaying, in a user interface for user selection, an identification of the subset of the local games [ie. display the games; Townsend; para 0032, 0039, 0042-0043, and 0103].
Townsend does disclose games can be implemented as a server-based programs [Townsend; para 0029] but does not clearly disclose “remotely playable over the network”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Winick discloses remotely playable over a network by the computing device using the game controller [Winick; fig 1, 40, and 45b; Winick; para 0016, 0018, 0170, and 0434]. The Townsend and Winick references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage controllers for gaming. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of remote playable games with a controller, taught by Winick, into the system, taught by Townsend. The motivation for doing so would have been able to play streaming games over the internet.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Townsend-Winick further discloses support is assessed based on an operating system [Townsend; para 0032 and 0037-0038] [Townsend; para 0170].
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Townsend-Winick further discloses support is assessed based on network connectivity [Townsend; para 0040-0041] [Winick; para 0093].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Townsend-Winick further discloses support is assessed based on input compatibility [Townsend; para 0034, 0043, and 0067] [Winick; para 0119].
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Townsend-Winick further discloses support is assessed based on an application-level restriction [Townsend; para 0098].
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Townsend-Winick further discloses support is assessed based on a licensing or legal issue [Winick; para 0173].
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Townsend-Winick further discloses support is assessed based a software restriction [Townsend; para 0098].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Townsend-Winick further discloses support is assessed based on a geographic limitation [ie. 10 feet; Townsend; para 0039] [Winick; para 0187].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Townley et al. [USPAT 11,911,694] describes cloud gaming controller.
Thomas et al. [PGPUB 2003/0045356] describes network server checking if game is supported by handheld controller.
Huang et al. [PGPUB 2014/0221087] describes handheld gaming system to play native games.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D CARDONE whose telephone number is (571)272-3933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-4pmEST.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D CARDONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights