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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 10/22/2024.
Claims 1-28 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 10/22/2024 are noted.
AIA Notice
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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0106446 A1 to Cannon et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0097914 A1 to Balasubramanian.
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 10, 19, and 28, Cannon discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored therein a game program causing one or more processors of an information processing apparatus to:
control a plurality of games simultaneously, based on operation inputs based on operations by a plurality of players (paras. [0020]-[0024]);
display a game image including an individual image of each of the plurality of games in each of a plurality of regions (paras. [0020]-[0024]).
However, Cannon does not explicitly disclose:
set the game corresponding to any of the regions as a sound output target;
output a game sound for the game as the sound output target among game sounds generated based on game processing of the plurality of games; and
if a game progress state of the game as the sound output target satisfies a first condition, change the sound output target to the game, corresponding to another one of the regions, not satisfying the first condition.
In a related invention, Balasubramanian discloses
set the game corresponding to any of the regions as a sound output target (Balasubramanian, paras. [0018]-[0024] discloses provide for the autonomous selection of the audio associated with a particular one of the video windows based upon predetermined user preferences);
output a game sound for the game as the sound output target among game sounds generated based on game processing of the plurality of games (Balasubramanian, paras. [0018]-[0024] discloses the predetermined user preferences can be functions of the relative size and/or position of a particular video window, as well as the content, resolution, provider, or other characteristic associated with a particular video in a given window; only the audio associated with the selected window is output while the others are present but not audible); and
if a game progress state of the game as the sound output target satisfies a first condition, change the sound output target to the game, corresponding to another one of the regions, not satisfying the first condition (paras. [0018]-[0024] discloses provide for the autonomous selection of the audio associated with a particular one of the video windows based upon predetermined user preferences. The predetermined user preferences can be functions of the relative size and/or position of a particular video window, as well as the content, resolution, provider, or other characteristic associated with a particular video in a given window)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Balasubramanian’s single target audio selection to Cannon’s multi-game display so that the player hears the audio on one game at a time and the audio follows the game of of current interest.
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claims 11, 20, Cannon in view of Cannon in view of Balasubramanian discloses the storage media according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of games are identical games (Cannon, paras. [0020]-[0024]).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claims 12 and 21, Cannon in view of Balasubramanian discloses the storage media according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of games are started simultaneously from a common scene (Cannon, paras. [0020]-[0024]).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claim 13 and 22, Cannon in view of Balasubramanian discloses the storage media according to claim 3, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to: stop or end a game satisfying the first condition among the plurality of games; and perform a win/loss determination for the plurality of players, based on a speed at which the first condition is satisfied (Cannon, paras. [0020]-[0024]).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claims 14, and 23, Cannon in view of Balasubramanian discloses the storage media according to claim 4, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to, for each of the plurality of games, output a predetermined sound effect if the first condition is satisfied, regardless of whether the game is the sound output target (Balasubramanian, paras. [0018]-[0024]).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claims 15 and 24, Cannon in view of Balasubramanian discloses the storage media according to claim 1, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to, for each of the plurality of games, output a predetermined sound effect if a second condition is satisfied, regardless of whether the game is the sound output target (Balasubramanian, paras. [0018]-[0024] discloses provide for the autonomous selection of the audio associated with a particular one of the video windows based upon predetermined user preferences.).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claims 16 and 25, Cannon in view of Balasubramanian discloses the storage media according to claim 1, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to output a predetermined sound effect if a third condition with respect to all of the plurality of games is satisfied (Balasubramanian, paras. [0018]-[0024] discloses provide for the autonomous selection of the audio associated with a particular one of the video windows based upon predetermined user preferences. The predetermined user preferences can be functions of the relative size and/or position of a particular video window, as well as the content, resolution, provider, or other characteristic associated with a particular video in a given window).
Regarding Claim 8, and similarly recited Claims 17 and 26, Cannon in view of Balasubramanian discloses the storage media according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of games are games executed by a plurality of emulators, respectively (Cannon, para. [0047]).
Regarding Claim 9, and similarly recited Claims 18 and 27, Cannon in view of Balasubramanian discloses the storage media according to claim 8, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to: monitor a specific address in a memory at which the game is being executed using the emulator; and determine that the first condition is satisfied, if data on the address satisfies a predetermined condition (Cannon, para. [0047] discloses programs relating to the operation of gaming machine 70 may typically be stored in ROM (read-only memory) 112.).
Conclusion
Claims 1-28 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.N.H/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights