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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claim 1 now recites: “when the plurality of game manipulation devices having the same device name are connected, edits the device name of the game manipulation device through a pop-up window displayed on the display, and displays the battery low notification including the edited device name on the display”. Support for this limitation is said to be found in Figure 7 and paragraphs [141-158]. It is clear that the specification provides support for the entry of a device name through pop-up window 700, Figure 7 and paragraph [141-145], when devices of the same brand, model, or type are connected. However, paragraph [158] only indicates that entered device names “may be used later to notify users of which device has experienced a low battery condition”, and not “when the plurality of game manipulation devices having the same name are connected”, as the claim now requires. In other words, a low battery condition notification occurs at some time later than the entry of a device name, not when the entry of a device name occurs. Accordingly, the specification as originally filed fails to provide adequate support for the newly claimed limitation of “when the plurality of game manipulation devices having the same device name are connected… displays the battery low notification including the edited device name on the display”. Claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale.
For the purposes of the rejection under 35 USC 103 below, the claims will be interpreted consistent with the specification such that the controller does not display the battery low notification including the edited device name on the display when the game manipulation devices having the same device name are connected, but that the controller simply displays the battery low notification including the edited device name.
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(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lum et al (US Patent Publication No. 2005/0170889 A1) in view of Hino et al (US Patent No. 11,504,629 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lum discloses: A display device (met by game console 102 in conjunction with a television or other display, [0019]), comprising: a memory (see cache memory 210 and 212, flash memory 204, RAM 206, hard disk drive 208, portable media drive 106, Figure 2); a display (as noted); a wireless communication interface for performing wireless communication with a plurality of game manipulation devices having the same brand name or model name (see wireless link 108 in Figure 1 and controller wireless interface 244 of game console 102 in Figure 2; see also the plural controllers 104(2) of Figure 1---the controllers are illustrated as being of the same type albeit operating in different modes; it is inherent to the disclosed Microsoft game console that in operation a configuration of controllers could include those of the same model having the same brand name, such as that of Microsoft); and a controller for receiving battery information indicating a low battery level from one of the game manipulation devices in a state where the plurality of game manipulation devices are connected to the display device (the controller sends battery life data to the console and the console can utilize the data to instruct the player when to switch from wireless play to wired play so that the controller can recharge; the console may present a pop up message on the display to inform the player of low battery conditions [0037]) , and displaying a battery low notification (the pop up message on the display as indicated above), [including a device name on the display] when the device name of the game manipulation device is stored in the memory, wherein the controller (Lum discloses identifiers 390 stored in EEPROM 308 of game controller 104, including a device ID that identifies the controller itself. This ID is passed to the game console [0039]), [when the plurality of game manipulation devices having the same device name are connected, edits the device name of the game manipulation device through a pop-up window displayed on the display], and displays the battery low notification (again, the pop up message on the display as indicated above) [including the edited device name on the display]. Lum, however, is silent as to how a particular player is informed of a low battery condition and does not disclose “including the device name on the display”, as claimed. Hino discloses a system analogous to that of Lum in which control devices 2 store local IDs which are obtained from a control section 11 of a center device 1 along with an authentication key as part of an authentication process (Figure 4 and col. 7, lines 11 – col. 8, line 16). In this manner, control devices 2 are associated with users and identified by a user’s name, such as Taro, Jiro, or Hanako (Figures 6 and 8, and col. 8, lines 17-35). It would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Lum with the teachings of Hino, so as to identify a particular player/controller by name in order to enable features associated with authentication, such as parental control, limits of time of play, and so forth (col. 7, lines 34-49). Lum also fails to disclose that the controller, “when the plurality of game manipulation devices having the same device name are connected, edits the device name of the game manipulation device through a pop-up window displayed on the display”. Hino further discloses as part of the authentication process show in Figure 5, step S2 “select authentication object”, that a list of obtained user identification information may be shown so as to have a user select a user to be authenticated, among users pre-registered to the center device 1 (col. 8, lines 3-7). Control section 11 holds the respective pieces of identification information having been obtained by the completion of the authentication process, including user identification information of thus named controllers (see Figures 7 and 8 and col. 8, lines 36+). It would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Lum with these teachings in order to facilitate the authentication process.
Regarding claim 2, Lum as modified by Hino discloses: The display device of claim 1, wherein the memory matches and then stores identification information and device names of each of the plurality of game manipulation devices, and wherein the controller obtains the device name matching the identification information of the game manipulation device that is transmitted the battery information from the memory. (see Hino col. 8, lines 36+, in addition, the control section holds respective pieces of identification information of the controller devices 2)
Regarding claim 3, Lum as modified by Hino discloses: The display device of claim 2, wherein the identification information of each game manipulation device is a Bluetooth address. (see Hino, col. 8, lines 36+, the control section 11 stores a Bluetooth device ID)
Regarding claim 4, Lum as modified by Hino fails to explicitly disclose: The display device of claim 1, wherein the controller displays a low battery notification including the brand or model name of the game manipulation device on the display when the device name of the game manipulation device is not stored in the memory. In terms of the identification of a peripheral device such as a ‘game manipulation device’, the examiner takes Official Notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art prior to the effective filing of the invention to identify such a device by its brand name or model. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Lum and Hiro so as to characterize a device by brand or model name rather than by player name in a case where devices are shared among players and have a shared local ID.
Regarding claim 5, Lum as modified by Hino discloses: The display device of claim 4, wherein the controller transmits a disconnection command for wireless disconnection to the game manipulation device through the wireless communication interface. Applicant discloses at paragraphs 178-179 of the specification that the controller may transmit a Bluetooth disconnection command to the game manipulation device to notify the device of a low battery condition and that the game manipulation device may blink an LED in response to a disconnect command. In other words, the Bluetooth disconnection command is disclosed as a command to trigger an alert to the user. Lum discloses that the game controller 104 detects when power is low and can illuminate a light indicator on the controller, and that the console can use battery life data so as to flash a warning light on the console or present a pop up message on the display to inform the player of a low battery condition [0036-0037]. Since a Bluetooth connection inherently supports bidirectional communication, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Lum such that a lower battery condition sensed by the console triggers a warning light on the game controller rather than the game console so as to more immediately alert the user to such a condition when the console itself is not within the line of sight of the player.
Regarding claim 6, Lum as modified by Hino discloses: The display device of claim 1, wherein the controller sequentially disconnects the plurality of game manipulation devices and receives the name of each device when the plurality of game manipulation devices are connected to the display device. As indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above, Lum discloses that the device ID is passed to the game console when a connection is established. Lum as modified by Hino discloses that a device/player name is communicated when a connection is established, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lum further discloses a process for switching from a wireless mode to a wired mode and in so doing reestablishing a connection [0040+]. If a sequence of controllers in a wireless mode enter a low battery condition necessitating a switch to a wired mode, it follows that the controller would sequentially disconnect the ‘game manipulation devices’ from the wireless mode and thereafter reconnect them in a wired mode.
Regarding claim 7, Lum as modified by Hino fails to explicitly disclose: The display device of claim 6, wherein the controller displays a virtual keyboard window for entering a device name on the display and obtains each device name by a key selection command entered in the virtual keyboard window. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art prior to the effective filing of the invention to have a virtual keyboard for alphanumeric data entry in a graphical user interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lum/Hino and in particular the log in screen of Hino (Figure 6) with these well-known teachings in order to facilitate data entry.
Claims 8-14 are met as discussed above for claims 1-7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argues with respect to the newly amended claims that the pop-up window features in [0037] of Lum is related to the newly-added features, and that Hino makes no apparent reference to any messaging using any pop-up window. The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is clear from that discussed above that Hino indeed teaches a pop-up window for ‘editing’ a device name as part of a registration process. For this reason, the argument is not persuasive.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John W. Miller whose telephone number is (571) 272-7353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571) 272-0734. 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.
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422