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
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koustas et al. (U.S. 9,613,498 B1) in view of Morgan et al. (U.S. 8,109,829).
Re claim 1, Koustas et al. disclose in Figures 1-12 a method comprising:
receiving, at a server computing system and from a first client device (e.g. player), a launch request to initiate a game session (e.g. col. 8 line 23-31, and col. 9 lines 50-67 as the player initiated select game to play);
selecting, at the server computing system and using the launch request, a media host of a plurality of media hosts based on a location associated with the first client device (e.g. col. 6 lines 43-55);
transmitting, by the media host, media content associated with the game session, to a second client device and receiving, at the media host, a user command that is generated during the game session and provided by the first client device (e.g. competitor) physically distinct from the first client device (e.g. col. 8 last paragraph through col. 9 1st paragraph, command such as issue betting during the poker game session).
Koustass et al. do not discloses generating a composite view by generating modified media content based on the user command and transmitting the composite view to the second client device.
However, Morgan et al. disclose in generating a composite view by generating modified media content based on the user command (e.g. wager/betting) and transmitting the composite view to the second client device (e.g. player, e.g. col 8 lines 11-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling data to claimed invention to allow user to modify the media content based on user command and transmit the composite view to the second client device as seen in Morgan et al.’s invention into Koustass et al’s invention because it allows the players to gather information and refine their focus before it turn to act.
Re claim 2, Koustass et al. further disclose the user command is generated at a controller wirelessly connected to the first client device (e.g. col. 3 lines 47 through col 4 lines 5).
Re claim 3, Koustass et al. further disclose receiving, at the server computing system and from the first client device, an authentication credential of a user of the first client device and triggering, in response to successful authentication of the authentication credential, the game session (e.g. col. 12 lines 31-45).
Re claim 4, Koustass et al. further discloses mapping the game session to a virtual machine associated with content storage for the first client device, the game session configured to enable communication between the first client device and the server computing system (e.g. Figures 3-4).
Re claim 5, Koustass et al. further discloses selecting a set of candidate media hosts to provide the game session based on the location associated with the first client device, the set of candidate media hosts including a first media host and a second media host, transmitting information that identifies the set of candidate media hosts to the first client device, receiving, from the first client device, information that identifies the first media host, and transmiting, by the first media host, the media content to the second client device (e.g. Abstract, Figures 5-12).
Re claim 7, Koustass et al. further discloses the game session is associated with an access port identifier, the access port identifier including a user datagram protocol input port configured to relay the user command between the server computing system and the first client device (e.g. interaction between user device and server computing system, Figure 4).
Re claim 8, Koustass et al. further discloses the second client device is connected to a display device configured to display the media content (e.g. col. 3 lines 47 through col 4 lines 5).
Re claims 9-14, they are apparatus claims having similar limitations cited in claims 1-6 respectively. Thus, claims 9-14 are also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 1-6 respectively.
Re claims 15-20, they are non-transitory computer-readable medium claims having similar limitations cited in claims 1-6 respectively. Thus, claims 15-20 are also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 1-6 respectively.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koustas et al. (U.S. 9,613,498 B1) and Morgan et al. (U.S. 8,109,829) further in view of Sanders et al. (U.S. 9,094636 B1).
Re claims 6 and 19, Koustas disclose receiving, at a server computing system and from a client device, a launch request to initiate a game session; selecting, at the server computing system and using the launch request, a media host of a plurality of media hosts based on a location associated with the client device; transmitting, by the media host, media content associated with the game session, to the first client device; a user command that is generated during the game session). Morgan et al. disclose generating a composite view by generating modified media content based on the user command and transmitting the composite view to the second client device. However, Koustass et al. and Morgan et al. fail to disclose a first set of data representing the user command and a second set of data representing a duplicate of the user command, wherein the operations further comprise in response to detection of the first set of data, discarding the second set of data.
Sanders et al. disclose a first set of data representing the user command and a second set of data representing a duplicate of the user command, wherein the operations further comprise in response to detection of the first set of data, discarding the second set of data (e.g. col. 31 lines 31 through col. 32 lines 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling data to detect and discard duplicate data packets as seen in Sanders et al.’s invention into Koustass et al’s and Morgan et al.’s invention because it eliminating redundant and improves efficiency.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No 12/041,106. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,041,106 contains every element of claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-17 and 19 of the instant application and thus anticipated the claims of the instant application. Claim of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No 10,135,892. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,135,892 contains every element of claims 1, 4, and 7 of the instant application and thus anticipated the claims of the instant application. Claim of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
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 PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights