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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 15–20, drawn to a system for interacting with interactive content.
II. Claims 21–34, drawn to a computer-implemented method and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions for interacting with interactive content.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other, because:
The system of Group I is directed to a specific apparatus comprising a peripheral device, modular customization units, and a mapping unit.
The method and computer-readable media of Group II are directed to process steps (identifying, generating, receiving, executing) and to media storing instructions that cause processors to perform those operations.
These inventions are related as product (system) and process of use / computer-readable medium. The inventions can be shown to be distinct because:
The system as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process (e.g., simple input remapping without generating an “updated input mapping” of functions inaccessible via the first input elements, or without modifying interactive content in the claimed manner).
The method and media as claimed can be practiced by / relate to another materially different apparatus (e.g., a non-modular controller or a purely software-based remapping system without physical modular customization units).
Furthermore, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art as shown by their different classification and the divergent fields of search noted above.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all of these inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different CPC subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries or search strategies).
The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and/or § 112.
During a telephone conversation with Benjamin Halkowski on 7/24/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, claims 21-34. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Additionally, Benjamin Halkowski confirmed claims 31-34 should be dependent from claim 30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 31–34 each depend from “claim 16.” Claim 16 is directed to a system and has been withdrawn. Claim 30 is the independent non-transitory computer-readable storage media claim that recites the operations. There is no proper antecedent basis for the “operations” language of a media claim depending from a withdrawn system claim, and the dependency is improper. The claims are therefore indefinite. Benjamin Halkowski confirmed claims 31-34 should be dependent from claim 30. Correction is required (e.g., changing the dependency to claim 30) in replying to this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 26, 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Himoto (US 2002/0098887 A1).
21. Himoto discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying, by one or more computer processors, a base peripheral device having one or more first input elements and a corresponding base input mapping; identifying, by one or more computer processors, one or more customization units associated with the base peripheral device, the one or more customization units comprising one or more second input elements; generating, by one or more computer processors, an updated input mapping that comprises one or more additional functions assigned to the one or more second input elements that are inaccessible via the one or more first input elements of the base peripheral device (i.e. new function can be added to the original controller via an expansion unit without making changes to the controller body, wherein a conversion means converts the command signal based on a function expanded by the function expansion means and supplying the converted command signal to the game apparatus), (Abstract), [0021]-[0022], [0098], [0139]-[0142];
receiving, by one or more computer processors, an input signal from one of the one or more second input elements; and executing, by one or more computer processors, at least one of the one or more additional functions to modify an interactive content in accordance with the updated input mapping and in response to the received input signal (i.e. signals from the expansion unit/additional inputs are processed and supplied to the game apparatus to control and modify the interactive content/game), [0261], [0263]-[0264].
26. Himoto discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising generating an output configured to cause the one or more customization units to emit at least one of light, sound, or haptic feedback based on a state of the interactive content, [0025].
30-31. Himoto disclose one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: identifying a base peripheral device having one or more first input elements and a corresponding base input mapping; identifying one or more customization units associated with the base peripheral device, the one or more customization units comprising one or more second input elements; generating an updated input mapping that comprises one or more additional functions assigned to the one or more second input elements that are inaccessible via the one or more first input elements of the base peripheral device; and receiving an input signal from one of the one or more second input elements; and executing at least one of the one or more additional functions to modify an interactive content in accordance with the updated input mapping and in response to the received input signal as similarly discussed above.
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 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.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himoto (US 2002/0098887 A1) as applied above and further in view of Zalewski (US 2008/0261693 A1).
22. Himoto disclose the method of claim 21, but does not expressly disclose determining at least one of an identity or an arrangement relative to the base peripheral device of the one or more customization units based on an image depicting the peripheral device. Zalewski disclose determining at least one of an identity or an arrangement relative to the base peripheral device of the one or more customization units based on an image depicting the peripheral device [0013]. For example, camera-based systems (such as those used with motion controllers) capture an image of the peripheral device and process the image to identify the controller and/or any attached components and their spatial arrangement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Himoto to determine the identity and/or arrangement of the modular customization units based on an image depicting the peripheral device, as taught by Zalewski. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to automatically detect the customization units attached and how they are arranged.
Claim(s) 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himoto (US 2002/0098887 A1) as applied above and further in view of Adamenko (US 2017/0354889 A1).
23-24. Himoto discloses the method of claim 21, but does not expressly disclose modifying an appearance of an aspect of the interactive content based on the one or more customization units communicably connected to the base peripheral device, wherein the modifying comprises at least one of reskinning an in-game avatar or reskinning an in-game item associated with the avatar to reflect a new functionality enabled by the one or more customization units; however such technique of changing appearance of avatar or in-game item in response to receiving a modular accessory add-on is well known as evidenced by Adamenko (Abstract), [0044], [0050]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Himoto with Adamenko and would have been motivated to do so to provide visual confirmation of the active modular configuration and the new functionality it enables.
Claim(s) 25, 27, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himoto (US 2002/0098887 A1) as applied above.
25. Himoto discloses the method of claim 21, but does not expressly disclose generating an output indicating an updated selection of customization units to be associated with the peripheral device, the output being generated based on a user profile indicating which customization units are available for use. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Himoto to generate such an output for improved user convenience in selecting the appropriate expansion units.
27, 32. Himoto discloses the invention above, but does not expressly disclose outputting, to a head-mountable display (HMD), images of the interactive content; however, virtual and augmented reality gaming has become very popular and common before the filing date of the invention. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Himoto to output a display of the game to a HMD and would have been motivated to do so to provide a more immersive gaming experience.
Claim(s) 28-29, 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himoto (US 2002/0098887 A1) as applied above and further in view of Kesten (US 11,857,868 B1).
28-29, 33-34. Himoto discloses the invention above, but does not expressly disclose obtaining, from a user profile, data indicating a set of customization units available for use; analyzing play statistics of other users stored in a repository; and generating an output suggesting a configuration or rearrangement of the available customization units based on the analyzing the play statistics to improve user comfort or gameplay effectiveness, wherein generating the updated input mapping further comprises: accessing a possible function list provided by the interactive content that indicates a range of functions non-assignable to a base peripheral device; and utilizing a trained machine learning model to automatically assign the one or more additional functions to the one or more customization units based on historical usage data and input types of the customization units; however such technique for providing recommendation or suggestion for controller configuration based on analyzed play statistics of other users stored in a repository or utilizing a trained machine learning model to automatically assign the one or more additional functions to the one or more customization units based on historical usage data and input types of the customization units is taught by Kestell (Fig. 4), (col. 1-2) (col. 7, lines 12-24). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Himoto with Kesten and would have been motivated to do so to encourage player performance improvement and play better.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights