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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A method of operating a gaming console, the method comprising, by the gaming console: during game play, providing graphical game images on a screen; determining that an appropriate time for alternate content is about to begin; in response to determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to begin, estimating a first duration of the appropriate time for alternate content; and in response to the appropriate time for alternate content beginning, initiating the providing of alternate content on at least a portion of the screen for a second duration, the second duration shorter than the first duration.” (Claim 1); “A gaming console comprising: an input port to receive signals from an external controller; a display output port to provide graphical images to a screen; a memory; a network interface; and a processor coupled to the input port, the display output port, the memory, and the network interface, the processor configured to: during game play, provide graphical game images via the display output port to the screen; determine that an appropriate time for alternate content is beginning; in response to the determination that the appropriate time for alternate content is beginning, retrieve alternate content from the memory and provide alternate content via the display output port to at least a portion of the screen; determine that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to conclude; and in response to determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to conclude, ceasing the providing of alternate content” (Claim 9); and “A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein program code instructions that, when executed by a processor in a computer system, cause the processor to perform a method comprising: retrieving alternate content and storing the alternate content; providing graphical game images on a screen; determining that an appropriate time for displaying the alternate content is about to begin; in response to determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to begin, estimating a first duration of the appropriate time for alternate content; and in response to the appropriate time for alternate content beginning, initiating the providing of alternate content on at least a portion of the screen for a second duration, the second duration shorter than the first duration” (Claim 17). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity, particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for providing alternate content during presentation of a game). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping). In this case, instructions or rules to determining that an appropriate time for alternate content is about to begin; in response to determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to begin, estimating a first duration of the appropriate time for alternate content; and in response to the appropriate time for alternate content beginning, initiating the providing of alternate content for a second duration, the second duration shorter than the first duration (Claim 1); determine that an appropriate time for alternate content is beginning; in response to the determination that the appropriate time for alternate content is beginning, retrieve alternate content provide alternate content; determine that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to conclude; and in response to determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to conclude, ceasing the providing of alternate content (Claim 9); and retrieving alternate content and storing the alternate content; determining that an appropriate time for displaying the alternate content is about to begin; in response to determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to begin, estimating a first duration of the appropriate time for alternate content; and in response to the appropriate time for alternate content beginning, initiating the providing of alternate content for a second duration, the second duration shorter than the first duration” (Claim 17) pertain to concepts performed via managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). Additionally, the limitations pertaining to “providing graphical game images on a screen….. on at least a portion of the screen” (Claim 1); “provide graphical game images via the display output port to the screen … provide alternate content via the display output port to at least a portion of the screen” (Claim 9); “providing graphical game images on a screen….on at least a portion of the screen” (Claim 17) is recited at a low level of generality and amounts to mere pre and/or post solution outputting (via a display), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claimed computer components (console, screen, input port, external controller, display output port, memory, network interface, computer-readable storage medium, computer system) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of a “console”, “screen”, “input port”, “external controller”, “display output port”, “memory”, “network interface”, “computer-readable storage medium”, “computer system”) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the method, console, and/or medium or the extent to which a computer performs/implements the method, console, and/or medium. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-19 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim(s) 17-20 are ineligible subject matter because the claimed limitations are drawn toward non-statutory subject matter. Particularly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is drawn toward computer-readable storage medium (also called computer readable media and other such variants), which typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, since the claims cover transitory propagating signals per se the claims are rendered non-statutory. In order to overcome the above rejection the applicant is advised to narrow the claims to cover only statutory embodiments e.g. by adding the limitation "non-transitory."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis (US 2006/0143675) in view of Huang (CN 117282096 A)(please refer to CN117282096A English Translation found at https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=CN&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=117282096&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=zh&TRGLANG=en and attached as a PDF herein), and in further view of Park (KR 20240069171 A)(please refer to KR20240069171A translation found at https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=KR&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=20240069171&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=ko&TRGLANG=en and attached as a PDF herein).
Claims 1 and 17: Willis teaches a method of operating a gaming console (101) having a computer-readable storage medium having stored therein program code instructions that, when executed by a processor of the gaming console (computer system)(¶ 2-5, 17), the method comprising, by the gaming console via the processor: retrieving alternate content and storing the alternate content during game play (¶ 4-5, 17-20, emphasis on ¶ 19), providing graphical game images on a screen (¶ 8, 17); determining that an appropriate time for alternate content is about to begin (abstract, ¶ 2, 4-5, 18).
Willis teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting in response to determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to begin, estimating a first duration of the appropriate time for alternate content; and in response to the appropriate time for alternate content beginning, initiating the providing of alternate content on at least a portion of the screen for a second duration. Willis at least teaches that numerous other embodiments are possible without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 43). Furthermore, analogous art of Huang teaches a similarly structured method that includes responsive to in response to determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to begin (¶ 49, 59, 72-81), estimating a first duration (game break time/duration) of the appropriate time for alternate content (¶ 64, 102-103, 124); and in response to the appropriate time for alternate content beginning, initiating the providing of alternate content on at least a portion of the screen for a second duration (¶ 59, 72-90, 97-100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Willis with the alternate content processing/presenting means of Huang because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing alternate content during a video game in which at least Willis is intended (see above). Such a modification attracts players’ interests (Huang - ¶ 6).
Willis in view of Huang teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the second duration being shorter than the first duration. Willis teaches that various embodiments are possible without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Huang at least teaches that the second duration should not exceed the first duration (which suggests alternate content including content that is shorter than the first duration)(¶ 25, 32, 50, 62). Furthermore, an analogous art of Park teaches providing alternate content having a second duration shorter than the first duration (¶ 18, 73, 94-95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Willis in view of Huang such that the second duration is shorter than the first duration as taught by Park because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing alternate content for a duration that does not exceed the estimated duration in which Willis in view of Huang is intended (Huang - ¶ 25, 32, 50, 62). Such a modification ensures reduction of a player’s resistance and increasing the player’s acceptance of alternate content (Huang – see above, ¶ 62).
Claim 4: Willis teaches before determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is beginning, retrieving alternate content from a source external to the gaming console (¶ 4-5, 18-20, emphasis on ¶ 19).
Claim 7: Willis in view of Huang teaches wherein the alternate content is overlayed as a picture-in-picture on a non-critical portion of the graphical game images (Huang - ¶ 60-61, 85).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis (US 2006/0143675) in view of Huang (CN 117282096 A) in view of Park (KR 20240069171 A) and in further view of Slough (US 2008/0207328).
Claim 2: Willis in view of Huang in view of Park teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is concluding before the end of the second duration; and in response to determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is concluding before the end of the second duration, ceasing the providing of alternate content before the end of the second duration. Willis at least teaches that various embodiments can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and that appropriate times include pausing of the game (Huang - ¶ 49, 59). Furthermore, an analogous art of Slough teaches determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is concluding before the end of the second duration (second duration representing the duration time of the alternate content); and in response to determining that the appropriate time for the alternate content is concluding before the end of the second duration, ceasing the providing of alternate content before the end of the second duration (¶ 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Willis in view of Huang in view of Park with the early termination means of Slough because such a modification would improve the overall user-friendliness of the gaming environment. Such a modification accommodating users that prefer not to view the entirety of the alternate content.
Claim 3: Willis in view of Huang in view of Park teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting further comprising ceasing the providing of alternate content at the end of the second duration. Willis at least teaches that various embodiments can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and that appropriate content is provided for a second duration (Huang – see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Slough teaches ceasing the providing of alternate content at the end of the second duration (second duration representing the duration time of the alternate content)(¶ 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Willis in view of Huang in view of Park with the ceasing means of Slough because such a modification would yielded predictable results, namely, a means of ensuring that the alternate content is only providing during the second duration in which at least Willis in view of Huang is intended (see above). Such a modification guarantees the duration of the alternate content is met.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis (US 2006/0143675) in view of Huang (CN 117282096 A) in view of Park (KR 20240069171 A) and in further view of Baluja (US 2007/0072676).
Claims 5 and 18: Willis in view of Huang in view of Park teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the alternate content is retrieved from a linked account. Willis at least teaches that various embodiments can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Baluja teaches retrieving alternate content from a linked account (¶ 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Willis in view of Huang in view of Park with the linked account means of Baluja because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of serving alternate content to a player in which at least Willis is intended (see above). Such a modification would improve alternate content targeting by providing useful and relevant content (Baluja – Abstract, ¶ 7).
Claim 6: Willis teaches the alternate content is stored on the console (¶ 17-20).
Claim 19: Willis in view of Huang in view of Park in view of Baluja teaches adjusting the alternate content such that the second duration is shorter than the first duration (particularly, Huang teaches adjusting the alternate content e.g. picking or selecting candidate alternate content (¶ 25, 32, 62-65), wherein with the modification of Park (see above) suggest that candidate alternate content can include content whose second duration is shorter than the first duration).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis (US 2006/0143675) in view of Huang (CN 117282096 A) in view of Park (KR 20240069171 A) and in further view of van Welzen (US 2017/0165569).
Claim 8: Willis in view of Huang in view of Park teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the graphical game images are reduced in size to provide a region of the screen where the alternate content is displayed. Willis at least teaches that various embodiments can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and Huang teaches providing alternating content without obstructing the view of the graphical game images (Huang - ¶ 60-61, 85).
). Furthermore, an analogous art of van Welzen, generally, teaches wherein the graphical game images are reduced in size to provide a region of the screen where the alternate content (game screen of other users) is displayed (Figs. 2a-b, 2d-e, ¶ 37-38, 40-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Willis in view of Huang in view of Park with the reduction in size means of van Welzen because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing alternate content to user in conjunction with the graphical game images in which at least Willis in view of Huang is intended (see above). Such a modification would allow for alternate content to displayed without obscuring or obstructing the view of in-game content (van Welzen – ¶ 38).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis (US 2006/0143675) in view of Huang (CN 117282096 A) in view of Park (KR 20240069171 A) in view of Baluja (US 2007/0072676), and in further view of van Welzen (US 2017/0165569).
Claim 20: Willis in view of Huang in view of Park in view of Baluja teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the graphical game images are reduced in size to provide a region of the screen where the alternate content is displayed. Willis at least teaches that various embodiments can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and Huang teaches providing alternating content without obstructing the view of the graphical game images (Huang - ¶ 60-61, 85).
). Furthermore, an analogous art of van Welzen, generally, teaches wherein the graphical game images are reduced in size to provide a region of the screen where the alternate content (game screen of other users) is displayed (Figs. 2a-b, 2d-e, ¶ 37-38, 40-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Willis in view of Huang in view of Park in view of Baluja with the reduction in size means of van Welzen because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing alternate content to user in conjunction with the graphical game images in which at least Willis in view of Huang is intended (see above). Such a modification would allow for alternate content to displayed without obscuring or obstructing the view of in-game content (van Welzen – ¶ 38).
Claim(s) 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis (US 2006/0143675) in view of Slough (US 2008/0207328).
Claim 9: Willis discloses a gaming console comprising: an input port to receive signals from an external controller; a display output port to provide graphical images to a screen; a memory; a network interface; and a processor coupled to the input port, the display output port, the memory, and the network interface, the processor (¶ 2-5, 17) configured to: during game play, provide graphical game images via the display output port to the screen (see above, ¶ 2-5, 8, 17-20); determine that an appropriate time for alternate content is beginning (abstract, ¶ 2, 4-5, 17-18); in response to the determination that the appropriate time for alternate content is beginning, retrieve alternate content from the memory and provide alternate content via the display output port to at least a portion of the screen (see above, ¶ 2-5, 8, 17-20).
Willis teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting determine that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to conclude; and in response to determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to conclude, ceasing the providing of alternate content. Willis at least teaches that various embodiments can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Slough teaches determine that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to conclude; and in response to determining that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to conclude, ceasing the providing of alternate content (¶ 25, 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Willis with the conclusion/ceasing means of Slough because such a modification would yielded predictable results, namely, a means of ensuring that the alternate content is only provided during alternate content spots (determined appropriate times) in the game in which at least Willis (see above). Such a modification guarantees that the ad spot criteria is met.
Claim 14: Willis teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive alternate content via the network interface and store the alternate content in the memory (¶ 17-20).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis (US 2006/0143675) in view of Slough (US 2008/0207328), and in further view of Huang (CN 117282096 A).
Claim 10: Willis in view of Slough teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the processor is further configured to: before the appropriate time for alternate content begins, estimate a duration of the appropriate time for alternate content. Willis at least teaches that numerous other embodiments are possible without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 43) and Slough teaches the alternate content being display for a first duration (¶ 30). Furthermore, analogous art of Huang teaches a similarly structured method that includes before the appropriate time for alternate content begins (¶ 49, 59, 72-81), estimate a duration of the appropriate time (game break time/duration e.g. ad spot) for alternate content (¶ 64, 102-103, 124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Willis in view of Slough, particularly, as it pertains to the first duration thereof with the estimation means of Huang because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing alternate content for a first duration during a video game in which at least Willis is intended (see above). Such a modification attracts players’ interests (Huang - ¶ 6).
Claim 11: Willis in view of Slough in view of Huang teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: use the estimated duration of the appropriate time for alternate content to determine that the appropriate time for alternate content is about to conclude (Particularly, Slough teaches the duration of the appropriate time determines when the alternate content is about to conclude (see above, ¶ 25, 30) and the teachings of Huang applied to Willis in view of Slough the duration is a estimated/determined duration).
Claim 16: Willis in view of Slough teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the processor is further configured to: overlay the alternate content as a picture-in-picture on a portion of the graphical game images that does not provide needed game information. Willis at least teaches that numerous other embodiments are possible without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 43). Furthermore, analogous art of Huang teaches a similarly structured method that includes overlaying the alternate content as a picture-in-picture on a portion of the graphical game images that does not provide needed game information (¶ 60-61, 85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Willis in view of Slough with picture in picture means of alternate content of Huang because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing alternate content during a video game in which at least Willis is intended (see above). Such a modification not obstructing the player’s view and affecting the gaming experience providing an optimal display of alternate content (Huang - ¶ 60-61, 85).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis (US 2006/0143675) in view of Slough (US 2008/0207328) in view of Huang (CN 117282096 A), and in further view of Eatedali (US 11,838,562).
Claim 12: Willis in view of Slough in view of Huang teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the processor is further configured to: estimate the duration of the appropriate time for alternate content by tracking the durations of previous similar appropriate times. Willis at least teaches that various embodiments can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Eatedali teaches a method including estimating the duration (downtime duration) of the appropriate time for alternate content by tracking the durations of previous similar appropriate times (Col. 7:43-Col. 8:43, emphasis on Col. 8:12-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor method of Willis in view of Slough in view of Huang with the tracking means of Eatedali because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of estimating/determining a duration of appropriate time for alternate content in which at least Willis in view of Slough in view of Huang is intended (see above). Such a modification providing a more optimal and/or defined estimation/determination of the duration.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis (US 2006/0143675) in view of Slough (US 2008/0207328), and in further view of Nelson (US 2021/0090386).
Claim 13: Willis in view of Slough, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a command via the input port to pause the alternate content; and responsive to receiving the command via the input port to pause the alternate content, pause the alternate content. Willis at least teaches that various embodiments can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and receiving commands via the input port from an external controller (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Nelson teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a command via the input port to pause the alternate content (sporting event content); and responsive to receiving the command via the input port to pause the alternate content, pause the alternate content (Fig. 2d, ¶ 16, 32, 36-39, 96, 99, 102, emphasis on ¶ 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor method, including the input means and/or presentation of the alternate content means, of Willis in view of Slough with pausing means of Nelson because such that the player does not miss the presentation of the alternate content while focusing their attention elsewhere on the display device (Nelson - ¶ 15-16). Such a modification aids or assists the player in determining which displayed content to view or focus on at different points in time (Nelson - 16).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis (US 2006/0143675) in view of Slough (US 2008/0207328), and in further view of Baluja (US 2007/0072676).
Claim 15: Willis in view of Slough, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the processor is further configured to: retrieve the alternate content from a linked account. Willis at least teaches that various embodiments can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Baluja teaches retrieving alternate content from a linked account (¶ 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Willis in view of Slough with the linked account means of Baluja because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of serving alternate content to a player in which at least Willis is intended (see above). Such a modification would improve alternate content targeting by providing useful and relevant content (Baluja – Abstract, ¶ 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights