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 § 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, 2, 15, 16, 30, 31, 38, 39, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20210236944 to Summa et al (Summa) in view of US Pub. 20190143218 to Sulakhe.
Claims 1, 15, and 44. Summa discloses a system for providing application assistance,
running a game with the processor on a computer system (¶137 “gaming session”);
(as required by claim 44) non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (¶¶38, 42, 177), comprising
(as required by claim 15) a processor;
(as required by claim 15) a memory coupled to the processor;
a mobile device (¶3 “mobile device”, ¶¶38-39 “smart phone”) coupled to the processor;
(as required by claims 15) non-transitory instructions stored in the memory that when executed by the processor cause the processor to carry out a method (¶¶38, 42, 177) for providing application assistance (¶¶9, 135-136 “assistance”) comprising;
detecting a game state of the application (Fig. 24, ¶¶7 “in-game events”, ¶¶137 “game state”);
generating one or more assistance frames for execution based on the game state (¶¶9, 135-136 “game play assistance”, “in-game events”, “video”; ¶¶147-150 “walk-through; ¶¶50, 69, 137 “capture one or more clips (e.g., highlights)”, “recent highlights (e.g., the clip 154)”, “in-game highlights”; also see ¶84); and
transmitting the one or more assistance frames (¶¶147-150 “walk-through”).
Summa fails to explicitly disclose:
identifying a mobile device paired with the computing system;
an assistance application;
transmitting the one or more assistance frames to the assistance application executing on the mobile device.
Sulakhe teaches identifying a mobile device paired with the computing system (¶71); an assistance application (¶¶71, 73 “companion app”); and transmitting the one or more assistance frames to the assistance application executing on the mobile device (¶¶72-73). The gaming system of Summa would have motivation to use the teachings of Sulakhe in order to provide game play assistance separately from video game play to players which would enhance the players’ gameplay experiences because of the continuous gameplay on a first display device while receiving hints or help on a second display device.
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 Summa with the teachings of Sulakhe in order to provide game play assistance separately from video game play to players which would enhance the players’ gameplay experiences.
Claims 2 and 16. Summa in view of Sulakhe teaches wherein detecting the game state includes detecting that the game reached an end state and determining one or more states of the game prior to the end state to be one or more challenging states (see Summa ¶53 “level”; ¶¶127, 147 “fails to result in a cleared level”; ¶¶149-150 “in response to failing at a certain game level”, “assist a user in a particularly challenging game, level, or sequence”, “challeng…”; see Sulakhe ¶182 “pre-emptive monitor” “…continuously analyze the state of the game and the state of the player so that it can pre-emptively provide assistance…”).
Claims 30 and 38. Summa in view of Sulakhe teaches wherein identifying the mobile device paired with the computer system/processor comprises detecting a connection between the computer system and the mobile device via a wireless connection or a wired connection (see Summa ¶¶39-41).
Claims 31 and 39. Summa in view of Sulakhe teaches wherein the assistance application executes on the mobile device concurrently with, and independently of, running the game on the computer system (see Sulakhe ¶73).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20210236944 to Summa et al (Summa) in view of US Pub. 20190143218 to Sulakhe as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of US Pat. 6699127 to Lobb et al (Lobb).
Claims 5 and 19. Summa in view of Sulakhe fails to explicitly disclose displaying a slowed down replay of image frames from the game (emphasis added).
Lobb teaches displaying a slowed down replay of image frames (col. 11, 18-63, “replay feature”, and “slow motion”). The gaming system of Summa in view of Sulakhe would have motivation to use the teachings of Lobb in order to provide help images at varying speeds according to players’ particular likings which would enhance the players’ viewing experiences.
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 Summa in view of Sulakhe with the teachings of Lobb in order to help images at varying speeds according to players’ particular likings which would enhance the players’ viewing experiences.
Claims 6, 7, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20210236944 to Summa et al (Summa) in view of US Pub. 20190143218 to Sulakhe as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20120276992 to Moinuddin et al (Moinuddin).
Claims 6 and 20. Summa in view of Sulakhe fails to explicitly disclose having user key or button presses shown.
Moinuddin teaches having user key or button presses shown (¶¶49-51 “tutorials”, “button presses”). The gaming system of Summa in view of Sulakhe would have motivation to use the teachings of Moinuddin in order to provide additional information to a player that would make it easier to follow and understand a walk-through in doing so would provide a better gaming experience.
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 Summa in view of Sulakhe with the teachings of Moinuddin in order to provide additional information to a player that would make it easier to follow and understand a walk-through in doing so would provide a better gaming experience.
Claims 7 and 21. Summa in view of in view of Sulakhe Moinuddin teaches wherein transmitting one or more assistance frames to the assistance application includes displaying one or more image frame on the mobile device having secret or lesser used key presses or key press combinations or button presses or button press combinations on the mobile device (see Sulakhe ¶¶71-73; see Moinuddin ¶¶49-51 “tutorials”, “button presses”).
Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20210236944 to Summa et al (Summa) in view of US Pub. 20190143218 to Sulakhe as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of YouTube video, The 12 most obvious enemy weak points in gaming history - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeFmVvlvV9Y to GamesRadar.
Claims 8 and 22. Summa in view of Sulakhe fails to explicitly disclose an area of the frame highlighted or outlined.
GamesRadar teaches an area of the frame highlighted or outlined (at 0:47, 1:15-1:19, 2:47). The gaming system of Summa in view of Sulakhe would have motivation to use the teachings of GamesRadar in order to additionally help to make it easier for game players to beat monsters and complete different game stages.
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 Summa in view of Sulakhe with the teachings of GamesRadar in order to additionally help to make it easier for game players to beat monsters and complete different game stages.
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 1, 2, 5-8, 15, 19-22, 30, 31, 38, 39, and 44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12070687. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases recite the same and/or similar key limitations related to application assistance, detecting states of the application, and displaying assistance frames on the mobile device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 5-8, 15, 16, 19-22, 30, 31, 38, 39, and 44 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29, 32-37, and 40-43 are 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights