DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Remarks received on August 28, 2026. Claims 1-10 are pending with no claims currently amended.
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 § 102
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 –
(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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by White [US20210129017A1].
Regarding claim 1, White discloses:
A game effect providing method, suitable for an electronic device comprising an effect providing device, wherein the method comprises:
executing a game application, and capturing a game frame of the game application (White, [0030], “…the event recognition module 304 may receive all video frames on a stream for a game session, or may receive a sampling of frames, such as one frame per 100ms or every tenth frame.”);
recognizing frame content of the game frame to obtain game status information (White, [0027], “…a region 242 is selected for analysis that includes textual information and updates about the status of the game. The detector in this case can include a text detection algorithm, as may include an OCR engine and text analyzer, to determine when certain information is displayed or updated.”);
comparing the game status information with at least one threshold value (White, [0037], “output of a set of detectors (such as five or six detectors for a given game) will be a match or non-match for an event type, with a corresponding confidence value or level of confidence.” and White, [0027], “In cases such as this, it may not necessarily be the information displayed that indicates an event of interest, but a specific type of change in that information, such as would indicate getting a double birdie on a hole.” In other words, comparing current game status information with a value of a past game status information.); and
controlling the effect providing device to provide a tactile effect or a visual effect based on a comparison result of the game status information and the at least one threshold value (White, [0036], “The log can also store the data in a format that is usable by one or more processes, algorithms, or applications to perform one or more tasks as discussed herein, as may relate to a generation of montages or highlight videos, player skill analysis, player coaching, game adjustment, player matching, and the like.”).
Regarding claim 2, White discloses:
The game effect providing method according to claim 1, wherein a step of recognizing the frame content of the game frame to obtain the game status information comprises:
recognizing numerical information in the game frame by using text recognition; and obtaining the game status information according to the numerical information (White, [0027], “The detector in this case can include a text detection algorithm, as may include an OCR engine and text analyzer, to determine when certain information is displayed or updated. This information can include, for example, a current number of swings on a certain hole, a change in current hold, and other such information.” and White, [0035], “a game might indicate a number of skull icons that indicate a number of kills a player has caused during a current gameplay session. A change in the number of skulls indicates a kill event.”).
Regarding claim 3, White discloses:
The game effect providing method according to claim 2, wherein the numerical information is a number of occurrences of an event for a game event (White, [0027] and [0035], see citations above – “current number of swings” and “a number of kills a player has caused”), and
a step of obtaining the game status information according to the numerical information comprises:
calculating a cumulative number of events within a statistical period based on the number of occurrences of the event (White, Current number of swings or kills indicates a summation of the total number of swing or kill events during the hole or gameplay session.).
Regarding claim 4, White discloses:
The game effect providing method according to claim 3, wherein the game event comprises
a kill event (White, [0035], “A change in the number of skulls indicates a kill event.”), and
the number of occurrences of the event comprises a number of kills (White, [0035], “a game might indicate a number of skull icons that indicate a number of kills a player has caused during a current gameplay session. A change in the number of skulls indicates a kill event.”).
Regarding claim 10, the claim shares similar limitations to claim 1. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White and the GameSense-SDK as published by SteelSeries on GitHub [https://github.com/SteelSeries/gamesense-sdk] (hereinafter, GameSense).
Regarding claim 5, White discloses a game effect providing method with threshold values as cited above, but White does not explicitly disclose the specifics of the values being compared in such a manner as to satisfy the limitations claimed within the instant application.
GameSense, however, discloses:
The at least one threshold value comprises
a first threshold value (GameSense, json-handlers-tactile.md, “For a vibration pattern that does not vibrate at high health, that clicks a single time per new value at medium health, and that uses the above custom pattern for every new value at low health”. The threshold values are the ranges created to characterize and differentiate high, medium, and low health.), and
a step of controlling the effect providing device to provide the tactile effect or the visual effect based on the comparison result of the game status information (GameSense, json-handlers-tactile.md, Causing vibration pattern.) and
the at least one threshold value comprises:
when the game status information is less than or equal to the first threshold value,
controlling the effect providing device to provide a first tactile effect or a first visual effect (GameSense, json-handlers-tactile.md, For example, producing the custom vibration pattern when low health is reached.); and
when the game status information is greater than the first threshold value,
controlling the effect providing device to provide a second tactile effect or a second visual effect (GameSense, json-handlers-tactile.md, For example, producing the single click/vibration at medium health (i.e., above the threshold value of low health).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have various effects following different gaming events based on structured threshold values for comparing a variety of possible game statuses for integrating within gameplay as in GameSense in the system executing the method of White with the motivation of offering more responses (i.e., user interactivity) to the user based on more possible game status as taught by GameSense over that of White.
Regarding claim 6, White/GameSense discloses:
The game effect providing method according to claim 5, wherein the at least one threshold value comprises
a second threshold value greater than the first threshold value (GameSense, json-handlers-tactile.md, For example, the threshold value between high health and medium health.), and
a step of, when the game status information is greater than the first threshold value, controlling the effect providing device to provide the second tactile effect or the second visual effect comprises:
when the game status information is greater than the first threshold value and less than or equal to the second threshold value,
controlling the effect providing device to provide the second tactile effect or the second visual effect (GameSense, json-handlers-tactile.md, For example, producing the single click/vibration at medium health (i.e., above the threshold value of low health).); and
when the game status information is greater than the second threshold value,
controlling the effect providing device to provide a third tactile effect or a third visual effect (GameSense, json-handlers-color.md, “For a color that is static red at values 0-10 and a red to green gradient at values 11-100”. Indicating a green health bar for high health.).
Regarding claim 7, White discloses a game effect providing method with threshold values as cited above, but White does not explicitly disclose two screens or the specifics of the values being compared in such a manner as to satisfy the limitations claimed within the instant application.
GameSense, however, discloses:
The effect providing device comprises
a main display screen and a secondary display screen (GameSense, json-handlers-screen, “Screen handlers are used to display images and/or textual notifications on supported devices with one or more embedded OLED/LCD screens.”), and
a step of controlling the effect providing device to provide the tactile effect or the visual effect based on the comparison result of the game status information and the at least one threshold value comprises:
controlling the main display screen to display a main visual effect at an edge of a program frame of the game application (GameSense, json-handlers-screen.md, “Specifying a zone to which to apply the effect is mandatory for devices with multiple valid zones, and optional for devices with only a single zone. For guaranteed future compatibility, it is recommended to use the value of one for screen handlers with the device-type screened.”); and
controlling the secondary display screen to display a secondary visual effect (GameSense, json-handlers-screen.md, As GameSense explicitly discloses the use of multiple screens, the citations previously provided also apply to the secondary screen.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have various effects following different gaming events based on structured threshold values for comparing a variety of possible game statuses for integrating within gameplay as in GameSense in the system executing the method of White with the motivation of offering more responses (i.e., user interactivity) to the user based on more possible game statuses as taught by GameSense over that of White.
Regarding claim 9, White discloses a game effect providing method with threshold values as cited above, but White does not explicitly disclose the specifics of the values being compared in such a manner as to satisfy the limitations claimed within the instant application.
GameSense, however, discloses:
A step of controlling the effect providing device to provide the tactile effect or the visual effect based on the comparison result of the game status information and the at least one threshold value comprises:
determining a vibration amplitude based on the comparison result of the game status information and the at least one threshold value (GameSense, json-handlers-tactile.md, “Most of these effects have "softer" versions that feel softer. Any effect suffixed _100 is the full power version of that effect, while a different number suffix indicates relative strength on a percentage basis.”); and
controlling the vibration device to provide a vibration effect according to the vibration amplitude (GameSense, json-handlers-tactile.md, Utilizing the effects as described in the citation directly above.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have various effects following different gaming events based on structured threshold values with varied amplitudes for comparing a variety of possible game statuses for integrating within gameplay as in GameSense in the system executing the method of White with the motivation of offering more responses (i.e., user interactivity) to the user based on more possible game statuses as taught by GameSense over that of White.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White/GameSense as applied above, and further in view of Chang [US10320962B1].
Regarding claim 8, White/GameSense discloses:
The game effect providing method according to claim 7,
the secondary visual effect comprises an animated image or a static image (GameSense, json-handlers-screen.md, “The above section describes how to bind default static images to be displayed when a specific event is sent.”).
White/GameSense does not explicitly disclose the two screens facing away from each other.
Chang, however, discloses:
the secondary display screen faces away from the main display screen (Chang, cols 4-5, lines 63-67 and lines 1-4, “This patent document discloses dual-screen smartphone designs that place two different display screens on two opposing first and second surfaces of a smartphone so that a first display screen is placed on the first surface … and a second smaller display screen is placed on the second surface”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the game-status effect system of White/GameSense the two opposite facing screens as taught by Chang since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
White/GameSense discloses dual screens with no limitation on orientation, and Chang simply provides an explicit recitation of the orientation at which the dual screens are displayed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), in the Remarks filed August 28, 2026 on pages 2-5, the Applicant argues (emphasis added by Applicant):
“Applicant respectfully submits that White does not anticipate the feature "comparing the game status information with at least one threshold value; and controlling the effect providing device to provide a tactile effect or a visual effect based on a comparison result of the game status information and the at least one threshold value" recited in claim 1.” (Remarks, p. 3, para 1)
The Examiner respectfully submits that no inference has been made in view of White. Rather, the Examiner cited from White to map onto the claims of the instant application where White disclosed the limitations claimed within the instant application under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
Specifically, the limitations emphasized by the Applicant require the following:
comparing game status information with at least one threshold value; and
controlling the effect providing device to provide a tactile effect or a visual effect based on a comparison result of the game status information and at least one threshold value.
Regarding the first limitation argued by the Applicant, as cited in the Office Action of June 29, 2026, the Examiner noted that White disclosed the first limitation in [0037] of White (“In at least one embodiment, output of a set of detectors (such as five or six detectors for a given game) will be a match or non-match for an event type, with a corresponding confidence value or level of confidence.”) and in [0027] of White (“In cases such as this, it may not necessarily be the information displayed that indicates an event of interest, but a specific type of change in that information, such as would indicate getting a double birdie on a hole.”).
Firstly, the Examiner will acknowledge the required comparison. This requirement is discussed through White’s disclosure of “match or non-match”. As defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a “comparison” is “an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities” (e.g., matching).
This disclosure teaches the comparison as claimed within the instant application.
Secondly, the Examiner will acknowledge the required presence of game status information. The specification provides the following examples of game status information:
numerical information in a game frame ([0029]);
a cumulative number of events ([0030]);
a cumulative number of kills ([0031]);
remaining game time ([0032]); and
end-game risk values ([0033]).
The specification does not indicate that these are the only possibilities of game status information. Instead, the specification simply states, “Frame content of the game frame is recognized to obtain game status information” ([0003]); therefore, game status information is understood to represent any information regarding the game’s status that can be recognized via a frame within the game and later compared to a threshold value.
The Examiner points to White’s disclosure of detectors to illustrate White’s teachings of game status information. In [0025] of White, Detectors are defined as:
“Since such an approach is looking for specific types of occurrences in a game, or other media content, a set of detectors can be used to detect occurrences that may correspond to events of interest. In the examples of FIGS. 1A and 1B, video content is analyzed (although audio and other content may be analyzed as well in at least some embodiments). The detectors used for such video can include detectors that attempt to detect or recognize specific patterns, icons, text, or images, among other such options.” (White, [0025])
This disclosure teaches the game status information as claimed within the instant application.
Thirdly, the Examiner will acknowledge the require presence of at least one threshold value. The application does not explicitly define a threshold value, but states, “Returning to FIG. 3, in step S330, the processor 130 compares the game status information with at least one threshold value. An actual value of the above threshold value may be set according to the actual applications, and the disclosure is not limited thereto. In addition, in different embodiments, the number of at least one threshold value may be 1, 2, 3, or other numbers” ([0034]); therefore, a threshold value is understood to be any value that can be set with an optional ability to be tailored to the application but with a primary function of being utilized to compare against game status information.
This value is taught by White as evidenced by the output of a confidence value. The output of a confidence value occurs as a result of comparing features ingested by the system against its internal reference data.
This disclosure teaches the at least one threshold value as claimed within the instant application.
Finally, the Examiner will acknowledge the requirement of these features in a combined manner to meet the full limitation (i.e., that White discloses comparing game status information with at least one threshold value). Referencing back to [0037] of White (“In at least one embodiment, output of a set of detectors (such as five or six detectors for a given game) will be a match or non-match for an event type, with a corresponding confidence value or level of confidence.”), the Examiner notes that the detectors (e.g., detectors of game status information) output game status information (e.g., cues) that is compared to event types to produce a confidence value. The confidence value is a result of comparing two events (past/stored event types with the event in question). White utilizes the following example to illustrate White’s system/method further:
“The detector module 314 can process the selected regions of the frames (or other game content) using the specified detector(s), which can generate one or more cues or other such outputs, which can be stored to local cache 318 in this example. The cues can be any appropriate cues indicative of, or mapped to, a type of event. As an example, a game might indicate a number of skull icons that indicate a number of kills a player has caused during a current gameplay session. A change in the number of skulls indicates a kill event.” (White, [0035])
In this example, a number of skull icons (i.e., game status information) are indicated by the game and the system compares the current number of skull icons (i.e., game status information) to the past number of skull icons (i.e., threshold value) to indicate a kill event.
As all elements of the limitation, individually and in combination, are disclosed by White, the Examiner has determined that White teaches the limitation.
Regarding the second limitation argued by the Applicant, as cited in the Office Action of June 29, 2026, the Examiner noted that White disclosed the second limitation in [0036] of White (“The log can also store the data in a format that is usable by one or more processes, algorithms, or applications to perform one or more tasks as discussed herein, as may relate to a generation of montages or highlight videos, player skill analysis, player coaching, game adjustment, player matching, and the like.”).
Although the Applicant argues that [0036] in White merely recites logging for “backend analytical purposes”, the Examiner finds this point to be moot. No limitation within the instant application discusses utilizing game status information (or the results generated in comparing game status information with at least one threshold value) in backend analytics in any capacity – let alone limiting the invention from performing backend analytics. The limitation simply requires a tactile effect or a visual effect be produced based on a comparison result. Montages and highlight videos, which White discloses as being generated via the event data documented within the logs (White, [0036]), are visual effects.
As the system/method of White discloses controlling the sub-components of the system to provide a visual effect based on a comparison result of game status information and at least one threshold value, the prior art teaches the claim limitation.
The Applicant does not argue any claims, beyond claims 1 and 10 (acknowledged above), with particularity.
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 ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights