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 § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 15, 26, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0243093 to Macauley in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0136568 to Buhr.
In Reference to Claims 15, 26, 33, and 34
Macauley discloses an information processing device, system, and method (Fig. 1 console 100), comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 1 CPU 101 [0018]); and
one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 1 Memory 143 [0021]), cause the one or more processors to:
acquire setting information stored in the console and associated with a manipulation of the manipulation device (“[a]s will now be described in further detail, an exemplary system functionality provided by a concurrent application is the storage and retrieval of information related to the configuration of the controller 142 used with an application running on the multimedia console 100. The console 100 stored user information in a profile” [0034]); and
cause a display unit to display information corresponding to the acquired setting information in response to detection of an input of a predetermined manipulation using a first button provided on the manipulation device during execution of an application (“the user requests help regarding the controller configuration (step 304), the console 100 displays a graphic of the controller and its configurations (step 306). (Figs. 3 and 4, [0035]).
Macauley discloses the invention substantially as claimed stores profile information in console memory 143. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose storing information in the controller. One of skill in the art would be aware of the controller of Buhr.
Buhr teaches of game controller settings (Titl.) wherein “the mapping information can be stored either locally, in main memory 202 (FIG. 2) of electronic entertainment system 200 or similar local storage, or it can be stored remotely, in a memory of remote server 110 or like device. It is also contemplated that the mapping information can be stored in the game controller itself, or in a portable memory format such as a writable disk, a micro SD, flash memory stick, or the like, that the user can transport to the different locations at which he or she wishes to play.” [0040].
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, one of skill in the art would consider storage in the controller itself to modify the controller storage of Macauley to achieve the predictable result of making the controller settings portable so that a player is able to bring their own controller to different locations at which he or she wishes to play. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 16 and 27
Macauley discloses acquiring a plurality of pieces of setting information and display a list (Fig. 3 306 graphic, Fig. 4 graphic, “the console 100 displays a graphic of the controller and its configurations (step 306) [0035]).
In Reference to Claim 17
Macauley discloses holding-down manipulation of the first button (Examiner construes holding-down as presses down [0035]) to map for a first button “Switch Weapon” [0036]).
In Reference to Claims 18 and 28
Macauley discloses wherein the plurality of pieces of setting information are respectively
associated with different second buttons provided on the manipulation device; and wherein the list includes information indicating the respective second buttons associated with the plurality of pieces of setting information (“[t]he console 100 stores user information in a profile, such that preferences may be retrieved and applied for all applications of a particular type, etc. For example, a user profile may specify that a particular button on the controller 142 is mapped to an action (e.g., move left) for all applications running on the multimedia console 100, or particular types of applications. The same button may be mapped to a different command for different types of applications based on the user profile.” [0034]. First and second buttons mapping of two keys "Switch Weapon" and "Melee Attack" shown in FIG. 4 [0036]).
In Reference to Claim 19
Examiner construes a shortcut allocation as the linked content in the graphic of Macauley that leads to activation of the described content (Figs. 3 and 4). Buhr discloses that the functions that can be mapper to the controller buttons include sounds ([0003, 0029, 0031]).
In Reference to Claims 20 and 29
Macauley discloses display of a setting screen (Fig. 4) for the setting information in response to detection of a manipulation of a second button different from the first button ([0036] simultaneously with the manipulation of the first button (Examiner construes how the buttons are operated as a statement of intended use of which the invention and mappings of Macauley is capable of).
In Reference to Claims 21 and 30
Fig. 4 is a setting screen is a screen for selecting setting information to be stored in the manipulation device ([0036]).
In Reference to Claims 22 and 31
Fig. 4 is a setting screen is a screen for editing details of the setting information stored in the manipulation device where the user makes changes to the controller mapping [0036]).
In Reference to Claim 24
Examiner construes “wherein a selectable button for a transition to the screen of the application currently executed is disposed on the screen for editing details of the setting information” as the displayed graphic and its contents of Figs. 3 and 4 for the changing of information [0036]).
In Reference to Claim 25
Macauley discloses a setting screen for the setting information (Figs. 3 and 4 graphic) and cause the manipulation device to store setting information edited on the setting screen ([0036]).
6. Claims 23 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macauley, Buhr further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0156983 to Vong.
Macauley discloses a second button however, the second button is silent as to be a most recently displayed setting screen was the screen for editing details; and displays the same screen for editing details. One of skill in the art would be aware of Vong.
Vong teaches of scaling what is displayed on a television using a game controller as an input device (Fig. 1) but more broadly Vong relies on a use of the controller and of managing viewing experiences where “[i]n some embodiments, the computing device 102 may remember a “most recent” viewing experience that the user was in before the user exited to the full screen, “now playing” viewing experience 304. For example, the user may have viewed the “partners” viewing experience 318, then selected a “back” button (“B” button) on the input device 132 to return to full screen, and then provided a directional input (e.g., selection of the directional pad 136). In response to the directional input, the display interface 104 may return to the most recent viewing experience; in this case, the “partners” viewing experience 318, instead of traversing through the intermediate viewing experiences between the “now playing” viewing experience 304 and the “partners” viewing experience 318.” [0058].
Here, one of skill in the art would apply the ability for the most recent viewing experience of Vong to the particular input configuration screen displayed of Macauley such that after a user has edited a mapping will be returned to that same mapping screen as an intuitive measure that the user may want to further make adjustments. The Courts have held that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
9. Examiner interviews may be available depending on the stage of prosecution and provided 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.
10. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights