CTNF 18/806,132 CTNF 83395 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to providing help during a game (mental processes and organizing methods of human activity) involving: a method for providing application assistance (mental process, e.g., advise or help in various forms); running a game (certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., game rules); detecting a game state (mental process, e.g., situational observation); determining an assistance for the game state (mental process) wherein the assistance includes display of one or more assistance frames (using pen and paper to present chart, list, drawings, pictures, images); sending information regarding the determined one or more assistance frames (providing help or advise in the form of chart, list, drawing) Claims 1 and 15 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of providing help during a game. No particular machine beyond generic components. Claim 1 recites “computer system”; claim 15 recite “processor”, “memory”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f). The additional elements (mobile device) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d). Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas. Generic computer components and environments (computer system, processor, memory, mobile device) performing information receiving and sending are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming. Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic computers, processors, memories, and information receiving and sending as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture. No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-28 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mental process and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of providing help during a game, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3, 10, 12, 15-17, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US Pub. 20210236944 to Summa et al (Summa) . Claims 1 and 15. Summa discloses a system for providing application assistance, 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 claim 15) non-transitory instructions stored in the memory that when executed by the processor cause the processor to carry out a method for providing application assistance (¶¶9, 135-136 “assistance”) comprising; a) running a game with the processor (¶137 “gaming session”); b) detecting a game state of the application (Fig. 24, ¶¶7 “in-game events”, ¶¶137 “game state”); c) determining an assistance (¶¶9, 135-136 “assistance”) for the game state wherein the assistance includes display of one or more assistance frames on the mobile device (¶¶147-150 “walk-through”, also see ¶84) (¶¶50, 69, 137 “capture one or more clips (e.g., highlights)”, “recent highlights (e.g., the clip 154)”, “in-game highlights”); and d) sending information regarding the determined one or more assistance frames to the mobile device, wherein the mobile device is configured to display the one or more assistance frames (¶¶147-150 “walk-through”, also see ¶84). Claims 2 and 16. Summa discloses wherein detecting the game state includes detecting that the game reached an end state (¶53 “level”; ¶¶127, 147 “fails to result in a cleared level”). Claims 3 and 17. Summa discloses wherein one or more game states prior to the end state (¶147 “user input assistance message 409 for the first user 135 during the execution of the video game application”) are determined to be one or more challenging game states (¶¶53, 135, 150 “offer “coaching” to a user (e.g., for a particularly challenging portion of the video game application”). Claims 10 and 24. Summa discloses wherein the game state is a challenging game state and detecting the game state includes detecting the challenging game state including analyzing user statistics (¶¶7, 90 “metrics”) to determine the challenging game state (¶¶149-150 “in response to failing at a certain game level”, “assist a user in a particularly challenging game, level, or sequence”). Claims 12 and 26. Summa discloses wherein displaying the determined one or more assistance frames includes displaying one or more images frames from a video sequence of tips or tricks (¶¶135-136 “tips”) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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 Pat. 6699127 to Lobb et al (Lobb) . Claims 5 and 19. Summa fails to explicitly disclose displaying a slowed down replay of image frames from the application ( 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 would have motivation to use the teachings of Lobb in order to provide addition to control to players 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 with the teachings of Lobb in order to provide addition to control to players which would enhance the players’ viewing experiences . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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. 20120276992 to Moinuddin et al (Moinuddin) . Claims 6 and 20. Summa 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 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 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 Moinuddin teaches wherein information regarding the determined one or more assistance frames 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, shown (see Moinuddin ¶¶49-51 “tutorials”, “button presses”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8, 9, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20210236944 to Summa et al (Summa) 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 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 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 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. PNG media_image1.png 1008 1324 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 1006 1326 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 1010 1326 media_image3.png Greyscale Claims 9 and 23. Summa in view of GamesRadar teaches wherein the area of the frame highlighted or outlined is an enemy weak spot or missed item or missed location (see GamesRadar at 0:47, 1:15-1:19, 2:47) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 11, 13, 14, 18, 25, 27, and 28 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. 20180001205 to Osman et al (Osman) . Claims 4 and 18. Summa fails to explicitly disclose claims 4 and 18 limitations. Osman teaches wherein d) further includes restarting the application at a state before the one or more challenging game states (see Osman ¶87, “restart game play from a previous game play stop point”). The gaming system of Summa would have motivation to use the teachings of Osman in order to keep a game player from having to repeat portions of the game that were already completed by the game player in doing 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 with the teachings of Osman in order to keep a game player from having to repeat portions of the game that were already completed by the game player in doing would provide a better gaming experience. Claims 11 and 25. Summa fails to explicitly disclose searching a library. Osman teaches searching a library of tips or tricks for the game (Osman ¶19 “Game Knowledge database” ¶80, “hints”). The gaming system of Summa would have motivation to use the teachings of Osman in order to select game assistance from a plurality of stored options in doing so would allow providing different game assistance according to players’ demands. 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 Osman in order to select game assistance from a plurality of stored options in doing so would allow providing different game assistance according to players’ demands. Claims 13 and 27. Summa in view of Osman teaches wherein displaying the determined one or more assistance frames on the mobile device includes displaying frames from the game modified for use with the mobile device (see Osman ¶136, “modifying received video”). Claims 14 and 28. Summa in view of Osman teaches wherein the frames from the application modified for use with the mobile device are part of an interactive application running on the mobile device (see Osman ¶136, “modifying received video”) . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 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 . Regarding claims 1 and 15 of instant application. US Pat. 12070687 claims a system for providing application assistance (see claim 14), comprising: (as required by claim 15) a processor (see claim 14); (as required by claim 15) a memory coupled to the processor (see claim 14); a mobile device coupled to the processor (see claim 14); (as required by claim 15) non-transitory instructions stored in the memory that when executed by the processor cause the processor to carry out a method for providing application assistance (see claim 14) comprising; a) running a game with the processor (see claim 14 “running an application with the processor”); b) detecting a game state of the application (see claims 1 and 14 “detecting a challenging application state of the application”); c) determining an assistance for the game state (see claims 1 and 14 “the challenging application state”) wherein the assistance includes display of one or more assistance frames on the mobile device (see claims 1 and 14); and d) sending information regarding the determined one or more assistance frames to the mobile device, wherein the mobile device is configured to display the one or more assistance frames (see claims 1 and 14). Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/806,132 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/806,132 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/806,132 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/806,132 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/806,132 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/806,132 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/806,132 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/806,132 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/806,132 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/806,132 Page 11 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/806,132 Page 12 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/806,132 Page 13 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/806,132 Page 14 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights