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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a method for operating a video game controller” (i.e. a process), claim 8 is directed to “a video game controller” (i.e. a machine), and claim 15 is directed to “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of a payment method system either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” fundamental economic practices or principles See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A, or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
The claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental process.” Independent claim 1, analyzed as the representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are in italics. The additional elements recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
Independent claim 1: A method for operating a video game controller, the method comprising:
detecting that an electronic device is within a predetermined distance from the video game controller, wherein the video game controller is wirelessly coupled to a video game console;
in response to detecting that the electronic device is within the predetermined distance from the video game controller, emitting a signal from the video game controller;
receiving a notification from the electronic device, the notification indicating that the signal was received by the electronic device;
in response to receiving the notification from the electronic device, receiving a first message from the electronic device, the first message comprising payment method information for a video game player associated with the video game controller; and
transmitting a second message from the video game controller to the video game console, wherein the second message comprises the payment method information, and wherein transmitting the second message serves as a response to an event that has occurred at the video game console.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “video game controller,” “electronic device,” or “video game console” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed payment method system is not providing a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “video game controller,” “electronic device,” or “video game console” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “video game controller,” “electronic device,” or “video game console” described in the following paragraphs:
“[0038] The video game controller 120 is an example of an input device. The video game controller 120 may allow the user 122 to interact with one or more GUIs presented by the video game console 110 on the display 130. For example, using one or more directional control inputs (e.g., a joystick and/or a directional pad) the user can navigate to and within various menus, dashboards, and UI elements. Other types of the input device are possible including, a keyboard, a touchscreen, a touchpad, a mouse, an optical system, a microphone, a camera, or other user devices suitable for receiving input of a user. For example, a microphone may allow the user 122 to interact with the GUIs using various voice commands.”
“[0052] Examples of electronic devices include, but not are not limited to, video game controllers, mobile phones, computing devices such as tablet computers, laptop computers, and the like, video game consoles, wearable devices, and the like.”
“[0036] The video game console 110 includes one or more processors and one or more memories (e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) storing computer-readable instructions that can be executed by the one or more processors and that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the video game console 110 to perform various operations (e.g., operations related to various applications).”
These element(s) are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “video game controller,” “electronic device,” or “video game console” reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more.
Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YouTube Video by Ardently Tech (“How to Set up PS5 Remote Play on iPad’ found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8fGSaSohcU (2023); hereinafter Ardently Tech) in view of Yuanguang Wang (CN 102340609 A; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Ardently Tech discloses a method for operating a video game controller, the method comprising: detecting that an electronic device is within a predetermined distance from the video game controller, wherein the video game controller is wirelessly coupled to a video game console; in response to detecting that the electronic device is within the predetermined distance from the video game controller, emitting a signal from the video game controller; receiving a notification from the electronic device, the notification indicating that the signal was received by the electronic device (as shown in the attached NPL in FIGs 1-5, a user is able to connect a controller to either a video game console or an electronic device as long as it is within a predetermined distance (since the connection is through Bluetooth) and the user is notified though the devices when there is a signal between the controller and the video game console or the electronic device or both since PlayStation Remote play can also mirror instead of just rest play).
Ardently Tech does not explicitly disclose in response to receiving the notification from the electronic device, receiving a first message from the electronic device, the first message comprising payment method information for a video game player associated with the video game controller; and transmitting a second message from the video game controller to the video game console, wherein the second message comprises the payment method information, and wherein transmitting the second message serves as a response to an event that has occurred at the video game console.
Wang teaches in response to receiving the notification from the electronic device, receiving a first message from the electronic device, the first message comprising payment method information for a video game player associated with the video game controller; and transmitting a second message from the video game controller to the video game console, wherein the second message comprises the payment method information, and wherein transmitting the second message serves as a response to an event that has occurred at the video game console (“As shown in Figures 1 and 2, this invention is a method for prompting payment results in a single-player game. It allows users to continuously run a paid single-player game on their mobile phones and pay the required fees via their phones without waiting for the payment result. The method includes a payment plugin 100, a foreground plugin 300, and a background plugin 400. The foreground plugin 300 calls the network plugin 200 to obtain the payment channel, parses the prompt information configured on the server, prompts the user for confirmation, and after confirmation, immediately starts the single-player game and calls the background plugin 400. The background plugin 400 performs payment processing, payment type determination, payment failure prompts, and game operation control based on the payment result in the background” (recited in at least: Wang paragraph [0025])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a payment method as taught by Wang into the system of Ardently Tech for the added benefit of allowing users to have the ability to make purchases while playing so that it is seamless and users can have similar processes in gaming/virtual world as they do in the real world with submitting payments.
Regarding claim 2, and similarly claims 9 and 16, Ardently Tech in view of Wang teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Ardently Tech further discloses prior to detecting that the electronic device is within the predetermined distance from the video game controller: receiving an event notification from the video game console, the event notification indicating that the event has occurred at the video game console; and in response to receiving the event notification from the video game console, detecting that the electronic device is within the predetermined distance from the video game controller (as shown in the attached NPL in FIGs 1-5 the user has to be able to turn on the console and preset the device to be able to connect to the devices and once the electronic device is ready to play and the controller is within Bluetooth connection distance the player is able to continue playing on the devices).
Regarding claim 4, and similarly claims 11, and 18, Ardently Tech in view of Wang teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Ardently Tech further discloses wherein detecting that the electronic device is within the predetermined distance from the video game controller comprises detecting that the electronic device is communicating with the video game controller using at least one of a Near Field Communication (NFC) protocol or a Bluetooth protocol (as shown in the attached NPL in FIG 5 there is the use of Bluetooth protocol to communicate).
Regarding claim 6, and similarly claim 12 and 20, Ardently Tech in view of Wang teach the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Ardently Tech further discloses wherein the notification further indicates that an application associated with a provider of the video game console is executing on the electronic device (as shown in the attached NPL in FIG 6 the user downloads the application associated with PlayStation to further play PlayStation games).
Regarding claim 8, Ardently Tech discloses a video game controller (as shown in attached NPL FIGs 1-5 Dualsense Controller) comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the video game controller to perform operations (as shown in attached NPL FIGs 1-5 as iPad) comprising: steps similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Ardently Tech discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a video game controller (as shown in attached NPL FIGs 1-5 as iPad with Dualsense Controller connected) to perform operations comprising: steps similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Claims 3, 7, 10, 14, and 17 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardently Tech in view of Wang as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of YouTube Video by Austin Talks (“How to Connect PS5 Dualsense Controller to iPad + COD Mobile Gameplay on M1 iPad Pro!!” found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjnq6pWdnzo; hereinafter Austin Talks).
Regarding claim 3, and similarly claims 10 and 17, Ardently Tech in view of Wang teach the claimed subject matter as stated above; however, Ardently Tech doesn’t explicitly show wherein detecting that the electronic device is within the predetermined distance from the video game controller comprises detecting a signal emitted from the electronic device.
Austin Talks shows wherein detecting that the electronic device is within the predetermined distance from the video game controller comprises detecting a signal emitted from the electronic device (as shown in the attached NPL in FIGs 1-2, the device will detect a signal when getting ready to connect and display that it is ready to connect and once connected showing that the connection has been made).
It would have been obvious to a person to have included detecting a signal emitted from electronic devices to show users that their devices are making a stable connection through wireless connections as shown in Austin Talks.
Regarding claim 7, and similarly claim 14, Ardently Tech in view of Wang teach the claimed subject matter as stated above; however, Ardently Tech doesn’t explicitly show wherein the signal comprises at least one of an audible signal emitted from a visual signal emitted from a light emitting unit of the video game controller, a vibration signal emitted from a vibrating unit of the video game controller, or a combination thereof (as shown in the attached NPL in FIGs 2-3 there is a visual signal showing the connection as well as a haptic feedback signal to show the users there is an active connection).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardently Tech in view of Wang as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Michael Roeygaard (US 20250111754 A1; hereinafter Roeygaard).
Regarding claim 5, and similarly claims 12, and 19, Ardently Tech in view of Wang teach the claimed subject matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly disclose wherein detecting that the electronic device is within the predetermined distance from the video game controller comprises detecting that the electronic device has physically contacted the video game controller.
Roeygaard teaches wherein detecting that the electronic device is within the predetermined distance from the video game controller comprises detecting that the electronic device has physically contacted the video game controller (“in response to receipt of such input, the display device 116A of the self-service lottery terminal 110A also displays payment instructions, as shown in FIG. 5C. In this example, the instructions provide: (1) “Tap to Pay”; (2) the selected game and selected amount; and (3) “Tap Credit/Debit Card or Apple Wallet,” to inform the player that the player can use a credit/debit card or their phone to pay for the draw lottery ticket, as shown in FIG. 5C. It should be appreciated that other electronic payment methods can be employed” (recited in at least: Roeygaard paragraph [0044])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a “tap to pay” option as taught by Roeygaard into the system of Ardently Tech for the added benefit of allowing users to use functions that are available in the real world to make purchases into the virtual world.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights