DETAILED ACTION
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
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.
Claims 21-23, 26, 27, 29-32, and 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neldeborn et al., US 2021/0072944 in view of Bakewell et al., US 2008/0201227.
21 and 30 and 37. Neldeborn teaches a computer-implemented method for providing an entertainment experience to a plurality of users, the computer-implemented method comprising:
a processor and memory with instructions [paras. 30, 31, 35, 36];
receiving, by one or more processors, a user selection corresponding to a plurality of users located in one or more pods [users in different seats select a game, Fig. 10A, paras. 64-67; “pod” reads on a row or a column of seats, or a section of a plane];
selecting, by the one or more processors, a multiplayer game based on the selections of each of the plurality of users [tennis game is selected, Figs. 3, 10A-10D, paras. 44, 45, 64-67]; and
executing, by the one or more processors, the multiplayer game to a plurality of screen modalities, wherein the executing includes displaying a simultaneous action corresponding to the multiplayer game on a plurality of different panels [multiplayer game is executed and displayed on different panel displays, Figs. 3, 10A-10D, paras. 44, 45, 64-67].
Neldeborn is silent on user profiles to select a game. Bakewell teaches a travel game system including receiving, by one or more processors, user profile data from a user profile database, the user profile data corresponding to a plurality of users [users game preference/profile data, Fig. 11, paras. 321-338]; and
selecting, by the one or more processors, a game based on the user profile data for each of the plurality of users [possible games are selected based on selection criteria/preferences, Fig. 11, paras. 321-338].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references in order to customize games for each user and to select games that a particular user is likely to enjoy. Profile data also enables the tracking of scores, characters etc. across multiple games and/or vehicle trips.
22 and 31 and 38. Neldeborn teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein each of the one or more pods includes a plurality of viewing panels configured for visual display [each row or column of seats has displays for each passenger, Figs. 3, 10A-10D, paras. 44, 45, 64-67], and wherein the plurality of viewing panels includes at least one of: a front panel [e.g. display screen in front of the passenger, Figs. 3, 10A-10D, paras. 44, 45, 64-67], a rear panel [e.g. display on rear of seat, Figs. 3, 10A-10D, paras. 44, 45, 64-67], a right panel, a left panel, and a roof panel.
23 and 32 and 39. Neldeborn teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the one or more pods are located in a vehicle [e.g. airplane, Figs. 1, 3, 10].
26 and 35. Neldeborn teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, the computer- implemented method comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, a user control input from a user interface device; and converting, by the one or more processors, the user control input to a game command for controlling an output of the multiplayer game [input via controller 28 is converted to game commands, paras. 64, 65].
27 and 36. Neldeborn teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 26, wherein the user interface device includes at least one of: a touch screen [touch display, paras. 5, 35], a keyboard, a pointing device, a microphone, a motion sensor, and a camera.
29. Neldeborn teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the multiplayer game includes a plurality of interactive features [e.g. controlling the paddle element in an interactive tennis game; the graphics are a feature, the control input is a feature, etc., Figs. 3, 10A-10D, paras. 44, 45, 64-67].
Claims 24, 33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neldeborn and Bakewell as cited above in view of Yang et al, US 2017/0097857.
24 and 33 and 40 (from 23). The above references are silent on modifying a game based on vehicle state data. Yang teaches a method including calculating, by the one or more processors, vehicle state data corresponding to the vehicle, wherein the vehicle state data includes a vehicle progress along a trip or an expected arrival time [geographic location of vehicle is determined, para. 67; vehicle speed also meets “progress along a trip”]; and
modifying, by the one or more processors, the multiplayer game based on the vehicle state data [game may be paused at certain locations or speeds, para. 67].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references in order to ensure safe operation of a vehicle by minimizing distractions during challenging road conditions [see Yang, para. 67].
25 and 34. Yang teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 23, the computer- implemented method comprising: pausing, by the one or more processors, the execution of the multiplayer game at one or more geographical points on a route of the vehicle [para. 67].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neldeborn and Bakewell as cited above in view of Yang et al., US 2017/0097857.
28 (from 21). The above references are silent on tracking user actions across games. Neogi teaches a game tracking system including tracking, by the one or more processors, a plurality of user actions or a plurality of biometric responses across a plurality of multiplayer games for at least one of the plurality of users, wherein the plurality of multiplayer games includes the multiplayer game [user actions are tracked across a plurality of multi-player games (e.g. game sessions), para. 42].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, tracking game actions in order to customize future gameplay for users and to iteratively improve the games themselves.
Relevant Prior Art
Other prior art considered relevant but not cited in a rejection includes Couleaud et al., US 2019/0273964 [Figs. 3-10], and Woodhouse et al., US 2017/0274825 [Figs. 2A, 5].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights