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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-22, 25, 30-31, 34 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,063,704 (hereinafter referred to as ‘704). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variants of one another.
Regarding claims 21, 30 and 40, ‘704 describes a method comprising by an accessory device/an accessory device, comprising:
[a processor; a wireless communication device in data communication with the processor; a hardware storage device in data communication with the processor, the hardware storage device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor (fig. 1 & 15 or para. 28, STA 110 a communication device with processor 624 & memory 1530 (storage) for executing its steps), cause the accessory device to:]
receiving an assignment, from a host device, of a resource unit within a wireless data channel, the resource unit having a bandwidth less than 20 MHz;
receiving a trigger signal from the host device; and
sending state data to the host device in response to receiving the trigger signal (claim 1, mirrored steps).
Regarding claims 22 and 31, ‘704 describes:
by the accessory device:
recording a user input to the accessory device;
preparing one or more packets with the state data based at least partially on the user input; and
transmitting the state data to the host device via the one or more packets in response to receiving the trigger signal (claims 1 and 3).
Regarding claims 25 and 34, ‘704 describes:
wherein the state data controls a video game executing on the host device (claim 9 in view of claim 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 21, 30 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2016/0255620).
Regarding claims 21, 30 and 40, Li describes a method/accessory device/hardware computer-readable storage device storing instructions which, when executed by a processor of an accessory device, cause the accessory device to perform acts (fig. 1, any of STA devices 110a-d) comprising:
[a processor; a wireless communication device in data communication with the processor; a hardware storage device in data communication with the processor, the hardware storage device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor (fig. 1 & 15 or para. 28, STA 110 a communication device with processor 624 & memory 1530 (storage) for executing its steps), cause the accessory device to:]
receiving an assignment, from a host device, of a resource unit within a wireless data channel, the resource unit having a bandwidth less than 20 MHz (fig. 2 & para. 30, AP allocates (assigns) respective subcarriers for within channel with 20Mhz bandwidth each STAs’ use);
receiving a trigger signal from the host device (para. 30, each STA (accessory) receives from AP a trigger frame 210); and
sending state data to the host device in response to receiving the trigger signal (para. 30, each STA (accessory) device 110a-110d sends to AP 114a HE-Preambles + data (state data)).
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.
Claim 22-25 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Tanaka (US 2005/0245316).
Regarding claims 22 and 31, Li describes sending current HE-preamble & data (state data) in response to trigger (para. 30), but fails to further explicitly describe:
recording a user input to the accessory device;
preparing one or more packets with the state data based at least partially on the user input; and
transmitting the state data to the host device via the one or more packets.
Tanaka also describe wireless transmission between accessory devices and host (fig. 4-5), further describing:
recording a user input to the accessory device;
preparing one or more packets with the state data based at least partially on the user input; and
transmitting the state data to the host device via the one or more packets (fig. 12 & para. 181, game controller 102 (accessory device) consolidates (records) player/users’ commands + actions (packets comprising (with) the state data) and transmits them to video game console/host 101),
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the accessory device in Li to record user’s input, and prepare + transmit packets with the state data to the host device as in Tanaka.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables individual operators of the individual operation terminal devices to readily recognize the correlation between such individual operation terminal devices and information operable therethrough (para. 13).
Regarding claims 23 and 32, Li and Tanaka combined describe:
the accessory device is a game controller (Tanaka fig. 4-5 & para. 66, game controller 40).
Regarding claims 24 and 33, Li and Tanaka combined describe:
the user input is provided via a joystick on the game controller (Tanaka fig. 13 & para. 167-168, the left & right analog operation portions 123 & 124 with rotary operation elements 126 & 126 for fully rotatable around the operation access = joysticks per definition).
Regarding claims 25 and 34, Li and Tanaka combined describe:
wherein the state data controls a video game executing on the host device (para. 168, player’s input command signals from game controller control the game characters such as moves, velocity & transformation of the game controlled & displayed on the monitor/TV 100 by the video game machine 101, para. 157).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-29 and 35-39 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.
Regarding claims 26 and 35, the prior art fails to further explicitly describe:
receiving another assignment, from the host device, of another resource unit within the wireless data channel, the resource unit having a bandwidth less than 10 MHz and less than the resource unit;
receiving another trigger signal from the host device; and in response to receiving the another trigger signal, sending other state data to the host device via one or more other packets transmitted via the other resource unit.
The closest prior art, Mahimeister (US 2023/0173384) describing detection of a current trigger during a video game and determining a group of players involved in the current trigger (abstract), and Kirkland (EP 235549) describing monitoring the gameplay state of a game to create trigger inputs for simulating gameplay output events (abstract), in combination with Li and Tanaka, fail to additionally describe a second trigger from the host device to accessory device to the accessory device of a game system to send a response using a second, designated resource which is less than 10Mhz, along with other claim limitations as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Townsend (US 2014/0101343) describing communication between host device 104 & controllers 108A-D (fig. 1 & abstract), Ambuchi (US 2012/0236706) describing transceiver 105 and two or more human interface devices 110 in the network (fig. 1 & para. 32) communicatively coupled to (connect with) a host (e.g. computer), para. 33), and Fosior (US 6684062) describing base transceiver communicating wirelessly with controllers with latency, reliability, etc. techniques (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WARNER WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8197. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am - 3:30pm.
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, Ian Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
WARNER WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/WARNER WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights