CTNF 18/813,795 CTNF 83308 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1-21 recite the term “a home video game console” and claims 22-23 recite “personal computer”. It is unclear what the structural difference between these elements would be or what would be required to differentiate a game console from a personal computer. Is it merely intended use such that a personal computer used exclusively for games would be a game console? A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that consoles sold for the last decade are largely indistinguishable from personal computers as they use the same processors and graphics processors. What may be called a game console is often used for other features such as streaming video or internet browsing. As such, for the purposes of examination, any computing device is considered to be a video game console if it can be used to run games, which includes essentially any computer as DOOM (Id software) has been ported to any system capable of running it. Claim 9 recites “wherein the low power mode is presented on the UI for selection and no selectors are presented for the first and second modes”. Claim 9 depends from claim 1 which recites “at least one second mode that is explicitly a low power mode” and as best understood, this is the antecedent basis for both “the low power mode” and “the … second mode[s]. Therefore, it is unclear how the low power mode can be presented for selection but not the second mode, since they appear to be the same thing. For the purposes of examination, there is no selector for the first mode. Claims 12, 14, 15 and 16 recite “a home video game console”. Each depends from claim 1 which recites “a home video game console”. It is unclear if these are the same or distinct elements. For examination, they are all presumed to be the same game console. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 22 recites the limitation " the computer simulation software " in line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 23 recites the limitation " the computer simulation software " in line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ lower power consumption ” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ lower power consumption ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim attempts to define a game console by stating it is “lower power” that “operates at relatively lower power” but provides no point of reference or qualitative values . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 – 07-12-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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-8 and 17-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chao; Ching-Hung et al. (US 20200209939 A1) . With respect to claim 1, Chao discloses an apparatus (200) comprising: at least one processor assembly of a home video game console (par. 47, client 200 includes CPU 210) configured to: implement presentation of at least one computer simulation on at least one display device in a presentation mode selected according to user selection (par. 19, user selects applications to load and a power profile is generated) from among at least: at least one first mode in which the computer simulation is presented at a first frame rate and a first quality (par. 82, graphics processing has five different levels, the user may define a higher level); and at least one second mode that is explicitly a low power mode in which presentation of the computer simulation consumes less power than power consumed in the first mode (par. 82, a lower graphics processing level and par. 4, the different levels correspond to different power levels, with a low option). With respect to claim 2, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the processor assembly is configured to present on the display device at least one user interface (UI) configured for user selection of any one of the first or second modes (par. 81, pull down menus or scroll bars). With respect to claim 3, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 2, wherein the UI describes the low power mode qualitatively (par. 81, menus would show a name or identifier). With respect to claim 4, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 2, wherein the UI describes the low power mode relatively (par. 81, menus would show a name or identifier). With respect to claim 5, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 2, wherein the UI describes the low power mode in absolute power terms (par. 81, menus would show a name or identifier). With respect to claim 6, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 2, wherein the UI describes the low power mode in frame rate terms (par. 81, menus would show a name or identifier, the exact wording or description is nonfunctional descriptive material). With respect to claim 7, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 2, wherein the UI describes the low power mode brightness terms (par. 82, the backlight can be changed as a power parameter and par. 81, user selection via menu would show some identifier or description of the changes). With respect to claim 8, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 2, wherein the low power mode is presented on the UI for selection along with selectors for the first and second modes (par. 81, user menus or scroll bars). With respect to claim 17, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the processor assembly is configured to: present the computer simulation differently based on selection of the second mode, presenting the computer simulation differently comprising at least one of: executing code of the computer simulation to take specific steps to reduce power consumption, modifying hardware configuration to reduce power consumption (pars. 3, 4 and 82, the system may reduce parameters of the CPU or GPU to reduce power consumption). With respect to claim 18, Chao discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one computer medium that is not a transitory signal and that comprises instructions executable by at least one processor assembly to: configure a game for a home video game console in a low power mode, the game also being configurable to operate in a presentation mode that consumes more power than the low power mode (pars. 3, 4 and 82, the system can operate in several power modes, with the lowest being a low power mode and the most being a mode that consume more power). With respect to claim 19, Chao discloses a method, comprising: configuring a home video game console in a low power mode; and configuring the home video console in a presentation mode that consumes more power than the low power mode (pars. 3, 4 and 82, the system can operate in several power modes, with the lowest being a low power mode and the most being a mode that consume more power). With respect to claim 20, Chao discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor assembly of a server implementing a home video game console, the processor assembly being configured to: implement presentation of at least one computer simulation on at least one display device in a presentation mode selected according to user selection from among at least: at least one first mode in which the computer simulation is presented at a first frame rate and a first quality; and at least one second mode that is explicitly a low power mode in which presentation of the computer simulation consumes less power than power consumed in the first mode (pars. 3, 4 and 82, the system can operate in several power modes, with the lowest being a low power mode and the most being a mode that consume more power). With respect to claim 21, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 20, wherein the second mode is established using a selector explicitly indicating low power mode, or a slider selecting power, and appearing in a user interface (UI) separate from other options (par. 81, the pull-down menu would be distinct from other options and indicates the power mode to select via whatever indicia is used to label the selections). With respect to claim 22, Chao discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor assembly of a personal computer (PC), the processor assembly being configured to: implement presentation of at least one computer simulation on at least one display device in a presentation mode selected according to user selection from within the computer simulation software from among at least: at least one first mode in which the computer simulation is presented at a first frame rate and a first quality; and at least one second mode that is explicitly a low power mode in which presentation of the computer simulation consumes less power than power consumed in the first mode (pars. 3, 4 and 82, the system can operate in several power modes, with the lowest being a low power mode and the most being a mode that consume more power). With respect to claim 23, Chao discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor assembly of a server implementing a personal computer (PC), the processor assembly being configured to: implement presentation of at least one computer simulation on at least one display device in a presentation mode selected according to user selection from within the computer simulation software from among at least: at least one first mode in which the computer simulation is presented at a first frame rate and a first quality; and at least one second mode that is explicitly a low power mode in which presentation of the computer simulation consumes less power than power consumed in the first mode (pars. 3, 4 and 82, the system can operate in several power modes, with the lowest being a low power mode and the most being a mode that consume more power and fig. 1, server 100). With respect to claim 24, Chao discloses an apparatus, comprising: a lower power consumption home video game console that plays video games in a low power mode such that the home video game console operates at relatively lower power to support video games that have support for in-game lower power modes or support for a lower power selection in home video game console system menus (pars. 3, 4 and 82, the system can operate in several power modes, with the lowest being a low power mode and the most being a mode that consume more power) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of CHUN; Woochang (US 20150052466 A1) . With respect to claims 9 and 10, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the low power mode is presented on the UI for selection and no selectors are presented for the first and second modes or wherein the processor assembly is configured to enable selection of the low power mode as an on/off setting. In related prior art, Chun discloses an interface for controlling a personal electronic device that could be used to play games wherein the low power mode is presented on the UI for selection and no selectors are presented for the first and second modes and wherein the processor assembly is configured to enable selection of the low power mode as an on/off setting (figs. 4 and 5, power mode software toggle button 507). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of providing a toggle or on/off control for a power saving mode as it would allow a user to easily enable/disable the mode as desired. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to have modified Chao in view of Chun to have included wherein the low power mode is presented on the UI for selection and no selectors are presented for the first and second modes and wherein the processor assembly is configured to enable selection of the low power mode as an on/off setting in order to provide a toggle or on/off control for a power saving mode as it would allow a user to easily enable/disable the mode as desired . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Fleetwood; Alex et al. (US 20200394367 A1) . With respect to claim 11, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 2 including menus or selectors, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor assembly is configured to enable selection of the low power mode using a slider. In related prior art, Fleetwood discloses a user interface may include virtual user input elements; buttons, sliders, toggle buttons, toggle switches, switches, dropdown menus, combo boxes, text input fields, check boxes, radio buttons, picker controls, segmented controls, steppers, and/or any other type of control to affect the functioning of the platform and/or computing device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this list of known options for user interface control and would have understood the expected results of each of the known options to provide for user input control. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to have modified Chao in view of Fleetwood to have used a slider to provide the power mode selection instead of a menu or scroll bar because choosing a slider instead of a menu is merely selecting from known options to achieve predictable results and the specific type of user input chosen would be up to the implementor to select as desired . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Celie; Vincent Y. et al. (US 20170322703 A1) . With respect to claims 12 and 13, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the UI is sourced from a game for a home video game console, wherein the UI is sourced from system configuration menus of the home video game console. In related prior art, Celie discloses a configuration system whereby the user interface includes elements sourced from an application (such as a game) and from the system configuration menus of the computer (fig. 13 and pars. 71-72). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of displaying relevant application and system settings to the user at the same time to make it easier to use the computing device (par. 2) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to have modified Chao in view of Celie to have wherein the UI is sourced from a game for a home video game console, wherein the UI is sourced from system configuration menus of the home video game console in order to make it easier to access relevant settings for the computing device and application or game and thereby ease user control. With respect to claim 14, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the UI comprises a first UI sourced from system configuration menus of a home video game console and a second UI sourced from a game for a home video game console, and the second UI configuration varies based on mode selection from the first UI. In related prior art, Celie discloses an interface system wherein the UI comprises a first UI sourced from system configuration menus of a home video game console and a second UI sourced from a game for a home video game console, and the second UI configuration varies based on mode selection from the first UI (pars. 66-80 and figs. 5-8 and 13-15, system interface and application interface options are determined dynamically based on context such that the system options that are relevant may change the application settings available). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Celie to display the relevant options from the system and application interfaces to the current application state so that the user may more easily adjust settings as desired. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to have modified Chao in view of Celie to have included wherein the UI comprises a first UI sourced from system configuration menus of a home video game console and a second UI sourced from a game for a home video game console, and the second UI configuration varies based on mode selection from the first UI in order to display the relevant options from the system and application interfaces to the current application state so that the user may more easily adjust settings as desired. With respect to claim 15, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the UI comprises a first UI sourced from system configuration menus of a home video game console and a second UI sourced from a game for a home video game console responsive to a first mode selection from the first UI, the second UI not being presented responsive to a second mode selection from the first UI. In related prior art, Celie discloses an interface system wherein the UI comprises wherein the UI comprises a first UI sourced from system configuration menus of a home video game console and a second UI sourced from a game for a home video game console responsive to a first mode selection from the first UI, the second UI not being presented responsive to a second mode selection from the first UI (pars. 66-80 and figs. 5-8 and 13-15, system interface and application interface options are determined dynamically based on context such that the system options that are relevant may change the application settings available). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Celie to display the relevant options from the system and application interfaces to the current application state so that the user may more easily adjust settings as desired. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to have modified Chao in view of Celie to have included wherein the UI comprises a first UI sourced from system configuration menus of a home video game console and a second UI sourced from a game for a home video game console responsive to a first mode selection from the first UI, the second UI not being presented responsive to a second mode selection from the first UI in order to display the relevant options from the system and application interfaces to the current application state so that the user may more easily adjust settings as desired. With respect to claim 16, Chao discloses the apparatus of Claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the UI comprises a first UI sourced from system configuration menus of a home video game console and a second UI sourced from a game for a home video game console, and at least one selection from the second UI has a first meaning responsive to a first mode selection from the first UI and a second meaning responsive to a second mode selection from the second UI. In related prior art, Celie discloses an interface system wherein the UI comprises wherein the UI comprises a first UI sourced from system configuration menus of a home video game console and a second UI sourced from a game for a home video game console, and at least one selection from the second UI has a first meaning responsive to a first mode selection from the first UI and a second meaning responsive to a second mode selection from the second UI (pars. 66-80 and figs. 5-8 and 13-15, system interface and application interface options are determined dynamically based on context such that the system options that are relevant may change the application settings available). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Celie to display the relevant options from the system and application interfaces to the current application state so that the user may more easily adjust settings as desired. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to have modified Chao in view of Celie to have included wherein the UI comprises a first UI sourced from system configuration menus of a home video game console and a second UI sourced from a game for a home video game console, and at least one selection from the second UI has a first meaning responsive to a first mode selection from the first UI and a second meaning responsive to a second mode selection from the second UI in order to display the relevant options from the system and application interfaces to the current application state so that the user may more easily adjust settings as desired . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is cited on attached PTO-892 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID DUFFY whose telephone number is (571)272-1574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700 +/- 15. 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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at (571) 270-1935. 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. /DAVID DUFFY/Quality Assurance Specialist, TC 3700
Prosecution Insights