Support NeoGAF

Rösti · Jan 8, 2016

Update (Feb. 29): Amendments made, some claims cancelled
Update (Feb. 19): An Applicant Initiated Interview Summary (PTOL-413) and an Office Action Appendix have been published.

Disclaimer: "Imaginably" is used in the title instead of "potentially" to simply mark the sheer possibility of rejection. In terms of patent litigation, Nintendo is strong and while USPTO's case can be seen as robust, what will happen is likely that Nintendo will amend its application and regain access to a continued process. Also, it is a non-final rejection, described below:

(CTNF) (Non-final rejection) This is an Office action by the
examiner which does not close prosecution of the application
(compared to a final Office action which intends to close
prosecution). The Office action may include requirements,
objections, and/or rejections.

In December last year, I reported about Nintendo filing a patent application for cloud gaming devices (or as they are called in the application, "Supplemental Computing Devices"), and the news sparked some interesting discussions, in particular whether these devices could have any connection to Nintendo's upcoming system codenamed NX. A newer document, dated December 8, 2015, shows that the application has been met with a Non-Final Rejection from the USPTO.

The Non-Final Rejection spans 18 pages, so I cannot provide the full contents of it in text format (it's not available as text, only as raster graphics, anyway). But I will provide each page in image format. The letter contains some technical language and references several US laws, so take your time to read it.

Here are some quick notes:

Much of the application is considered generic by the USPTO, this being used as grounds for rejection
Claims (1-25) are not considered eligible as they do not contain anything significantly more than abstract ideas.
The USPTO references distributed computing with examples Folding@home and Prime95
USPTO reject claims 6, 12, 16-19 and 21 under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2). This regards Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent, and concerns US patent 4,521,014 "Video game including user visual image", invented by David H. Sitrick in 1982.
Sitrick is mentioned many times in USPTO's letter, and appears to be the main issue.
Three more inventors/patents are referenced:
- Nakajima for "Game system and information storage medium" (09/673,173)
- Castro for "Practical network node coordinate estimation" (10/454411)
- Ayyagari for "System and method for achieving zero-configuration wireless computing and computing device incorporating same" (09/805500)
GeForce 256 is used as example for grounds of rejection of claim 5 of Nintendo's application - The gaming system as recited in claim 1, wherein the supplemental computing device does not include a display driver, an audio driver, and a user-control interface.

Images (quoted for size)

Page 12 and further I find the most interesting.

The first claim objection should be easy for Nintendo to amend, as it's just a matter of grammar. The subsequent claim rejections shouldn't bee too difficult to amend either, it's a matter of clarifying what is regarded the invention.

The GeForce 256 should have in terms of power no relation to NX, anything else would be ridiculous. It is only used as an example here.

As we discussed in the original thread, the application describes certain rewards for users for them allowing other users to utilize their computing resources.

Source: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=IHYY6IJYPXXIFW4&lang=DINO

JohnTinker · Jan 8, 2016

I have great appreciation for these threads, even when I have no clue what they may mean

maxcriden · Jan 8, 2016

I can't imagine nintendo can announce this as a product until the patent goes through. Is that correct? Thanks as always for these extremely detailed and informative threads!

Broritos · Jan 8, 2016

Are they trying to patent an add-on? If so, I'm not sure if they'll succeed.

Reversed · Jan 8, 2016

maxcriden said:
I can't imagine nintendo can announce this as a product until the patent goes through. Is that correct? Thanks as always for these extremely detailed and informative threads!

Has this ever happened within the big players on the console market? I'm picturing this add-on being shipped with a "PATENT PENDING" label. Looks pretty ugly.

Übermatik · Jan 8, 2016

Rösti threads are the best threads.

Depends what Nintendo are aiming to do as to wether this rejection carries much weight or not. I wouldn't be surprised if this ended here. Equally, however, I'd like to see this resolved - the concept sounded really interesting (albeit, as shown, a bit vague!).

Kouriozan · Jan 8, 2016

Reversed said:
Has this ever happened within the big players on the console market? I'm picturing this add-on being shipped with a "PATENT PENDING" label. Looks pretty ugly.

I think there was a problem with the U of the Wii U shortly before its release.
It concerned an UK company if I remember correctly.

Persona7 · Jan 8, 2016

supplemental computing device

hmm

McHuj · Jan 8, 2016

maxcriden said:
I can't imagine nintendo can announce this as a product until the patent goes through. Is that correct? Thanks as always for these extremely detailed and informative threads!

No. They can announce. The ideas they are trying to patent are already public by the application disclosure.

Whether they get the patent or not, really makes no difference on the product at this point.

Kouriozan · Jan 8, 2016

Found it Nintendo could lose Wii U trademark in England.

Aostia · Jan 8, 2016

Interesting.
I wonder if we will start knowing more details about NX through patents Application earlier than an official announcement, considering how they must provide more details to patent

Cid Highwind · Jan 8, 2016

I can't even pretend to understand this.

DownGrader · Jan 8, 2016

Reversed said:
Has this ever happened within the big players on the console market? I'm picturing this add-on being shipped with a "PATENT PENDING" label. Looks pretty ugly.

"PAT. PEND." on the back label, alongside with tons of other descriptive and non-descriptive lines, never looked ugly.

And Nintendo did this before. Numerous times, in fact:

670px-Take-Apart-Your-Nintendo-DS-and-Safely-Put-It-Back-Together-Step-1-Version-2.jpg

Serenitynow · Jan 8, 2016

Question: So Nintendo filed this on 6/3/14, and they are just now getting a response on 12/8/15? If Nintendo made the correct changes back in December, would it take another year for it to be reviewed again?

wheapon · Jan 8, 2016

Serenitynow said:
Question: So Nintendo filed this on 6/3/14, and they are just now getting a response on 12/8/15? If Nintendo made the correct changes back in December, would it take another year for it to be reviewed again?

If those dates are right it would certainly explain why so many products have to shove patent pending onto the label.

Fourth Storm · Jan 8, 2016

Nice detective work as usual, Rosti. I just wonder if and how this patent will be implemented. More NX info can't get here soon enough.

dragonzdogma · Jan 8, 2016

could someone layman the thread for me?
So they are making a complementary system for the a current console or both?

Aostia · Jan 8, 2016

Hard to get any feedback earlier than six months after the request

Dascu · Jan 8, 2016

The USPTO rejecting something? Hah. Anyway, Nintendo will just amend their claims.

And it doesn't mean anything regarding NX.

_PsiFire_ · Jan 8, 2016

Look at the new Razer Ultrabook being shown off at CES. It's also using a supplemental computing device. How will Nintendo patent this when it's practically the same idea?

This is why this patent could be rejected - it's nothing new.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eYo-d8Qh7xI&feature=youtu.be

Rösti · Jan 8, 2016

Serenitynow said:
Question: So Nintendo filed this on 6/3/14, and they are just now getting a response on 12/8/15? If Nintendo made the correct changes back in December, would it take another year for it to be reviewed again?

The patent was published on December 3, 2015. Thereafter, the examiner made further research and found these inaccuracies.

How long time Nintendo has to respond to this I can't see in the documentation, but they can at most extend time to reply up to six months.

Afrikan · Jan 8, 2016

As we discussed in the original thread, the application describes certain rewards for users for them allowing other users to utilize their computing resources.

Is this similar to what Ken Kutaragi initally wanted the PS3 generation to do?

Using PS3s around the world that were not used by gamers, to link together and push graphics and such.

I'll try to find the old link.

Rösti · Feb 17, 2016

Small update:

The transaction history that can be viewed via USPTO's PAIR now show this event:

02-12-2016 Interview Summary - Applicant Initiated - Telephonic

A more thorough answer should hopefully come soon. Things are moving anyway.

openrob · Feb 17, 2016

dragonzdogma said:
could someone layman the thread for me?
So they are making a complementary system for the a current console or both?

Well they are researching it. Most companies have intensive Research & Development going on, with only a few of their products going through to the market in a finished state and fit for consumers. Patents are the few insights we get into what a company may be working on and may be indicative of what their next hardware may be like

mrklaw · Feb 18, 2016

_PsiFire_ said:
Look at the new Razer Ultrabook being shown off at CES. It's also using a supplemental computing device. How will Nintendo patent this when it's practically the same idea?

This is why this patent could be rejected - it's nothing new.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eYo-d8Qh7xI&feature=youtu.be

Patent was filed way before the razer.

Although if the patent office considers an internal GPU to be a supplemental computing device then it won't matter anyway. On that logic the DSP in SNES Super Mario kart could be considered the same sort of thing

MisterHero · Feb 18, 2016

The US Patent office also wants to know what the heck NX is.

The world awaits, Nintendo!

KingBroly · Feb 18, 2016

Rösti;195680708 said:
Small update:

The transaction history that can be viewed via USPTO's PAIR now show this event:

A more thorough answer should hopefully come soon. Things are moving anyway.

Telephonic?

THEAnderson21 · Feb 18, 2016

KingBroly said:
Telephonic?

Sounds like they phoned in the application.

Rösti · Feb 18, 2016

KingBroly said:
Telephonic?

I believe it means the applicant (likely an attorney at Lee & Hayes PLLC) initiated a phone interview with the USPTO about the issue.

Principate · Feb 18, 2016

maxcriden said:
I can't imagine nintendo can announce this as a product until the patent goes through. Is that correct? Thanks as always for these extremely detailed and informative threads!

That's not how this works, apple was seling iphones, when one of it's majo patents only went through a year later

FunkyDealer · Feb 18, 2016

Nintendo HQ ninja: "Sensei. It's time for our next-gen system. The Wii U is... Well, kind of a failure. Please understand!"

Kimi-san: "What's wrong with the Wii U?"

Nin'ja: "Well, for one it's not powerful enough..."

Kimi-san: "It has the almighty power of eight Gamecubes sticky-taped together!"

Nin'ja: "Sensei, I'm sorry to say the PS4 and the American's box is more powerful."

Kimi-san: "Very well. Commence project NX! Nintendo Xpansion! We shall sticky-tape yet another Gamecube to the Wii U! That makes for a total of NINE, which is unprecedented and surely market-leading! Please be excited for our new product!"

Rösti · Feb 19, 2016

Alright, the Applicant Initiated Interview Summary (PTOL-413) and an Office Action Appendix (describing proposed amendments) were published today, February 19. These files are provided as bitmap images, so it's not in text format and thus cannot be quoted. The Summary first:

Now the Appendix:

Sources: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=IKQX4785RXEAPX4&lang=DINO http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=IKQX4784RXEAPX4&lang=DINO

Not that much new that can provide us a better understand of this innovation. The amendments mainly deal with more precise language and distinguishing certain devices and environments as first, second etc.

Trago · Feb 19, 2016

Dumb Question: If the patent is rejected, they'll still be able to sell SCD's? Or not?

mclem · Feb 19, 2016

To clarify in the latest docket, does that mean that the interview mentioned in the remarks right at the end of the amendments is the one that was implied to have taken place and been responded to in the summary page at the start of this release?

Rösti · Feb 19, 2016

mclem said:
To clarify in the latest docket, does that mean that the interview mentioned in the remarks right at the end of the amendments is the one that was implied to have taken place and been responded to in the summary page at the start of this release?

Yes, that is the same interview.

blu · Feb 19, 2016

Rösti;191608973 said:
Here are some quick notes:

Much of the application is considered generic by the USPTO, this being used as grounds for rejection

Claims (1-25) are not considered eligible as they do not contain anything significantly more than abstract ideas.

The USPTO references distributed computing with examples Folding@home and Prime95

USPTO reject claims 6, 12, 16-19 and 21 under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2). This regards Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent, and concerns US patent 4,521,014 "Video game including user visual image", invented by David H. Sitrick in 1982.
Sitrick is mentioned many times in USPTO's letter, and appears to be the main issue.

Three more inventors/patents are referenced:

Nakajima for "Game system and information storage medium" (09/673,173)

Castro for "Practical network node coordinate estimation" (10/454411)

Ayyagari for "System and method for achieving zero-configuration wireless computing and computing device incorporating same" (09/805500)

GeForce 256 is used as example for grounds of rejection of claim 5 of Nintendo's application - The gaming system as recited in claim 1, wherein the supplemental computing device does not include a display driver, an audio driver, and a user-control interface.

I'm not saying nintendo should be granted this patent, but, boy, are USPTO a bunch of random bureaucrats (in light of what other patents they have granted..)

Also, LOL at GeForce256 being an SCD.

Jackano · Feb 19, 2016

Übermatik;191610863 said:
Rösti threads are the best threads.

Don't encourage him. He havn't answered my last tweet!

I believe if Nintendo want to do something like that, they don't need to patent it anyway.
I'm not surprised, that's merely a custom cloud.
Still an interesting way to use a Nintendo device with smartphones/PCs/tablets, and to provide them more raw power.

M3d10n · Feb 19, 2016

It was a good read. Considering all the bad patent news we hear, it's refreshing to see there are people at the patent offices that have a modicum of common sense.

Bringing up the Geforce 256, complete with picture and a Wikipedia link made me smile. So brutal.

Rösti · Mar 1, 2016

Update (Feb. 29, 2016)

February 29, 2016, saw quite a few documents published in this case. Some intriguing amendments have been made to the patent. The documents published are these:

Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject
Claims
Applicant summary of interview with examiner
Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment
Acknowledgment Receipt

This will be quite lengthy, so bear with me. First, let's start with the amendments.

Summary

Currently amended claims: 1, 3-6, 8, 10-12, 14-19 and 21-25
Currently canceled claims: 2, 7, 13

The canceled claims were:

2. The gaming system as recited in claim 1, wherein: the game console comprises a first game console; the supplemental computing device includes a wireless communication interface; and the one or more processors of the supplemental computing device are configured to provide, over the wireless communication interface, processing resources to a second game console for assisting the second game console in locally executing the same or a different game on the second game console, the second game console being located remotely from the first game console.

What I can gather from this is that it seems the patent no longer deals with a second game console locally utilizing an SCD to execute a game. We should together try and decipher its exact meaning.

7. The apparatus as recited in claim 6, wherein the game console comprises a first game console, and the acts further comprising: receiving a third request from a second game console to process third data associated with a game that the second game console is executing; processing, at least partly in response to the third request, the third data to create a second result; providing the second result back to the second game console; receiving a fourth request from the second game console to store fourth data associated with the game that the second game console is executing; and storing the fourth data at the apparatus at least partly in response to the fourth request.

13. The one or more computer-readable media as recited in claim 12, wherein the game console comprises a first game console, the supplemental computing device comprises a first supplemental computing device, and the acts further comprising: identifying a second supplemental computing device physically coupled to a second game console that is available for use by the first game console; sending, wirelessly from the game console and to the second supplemental computing device, a request to a process or store second data associated with the game that the game console is executing; and receiving an indication that the second supplemental computing device has processed or stored the data associated with the game.

Each page is supplied as a bitmap image as usual, so no text. I have provided some comments to certain pages:

The term non-transitory has been added here. I believe this is a mere action to exclude signals, carrier waves, or other transitory signals.

Source: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=IL8W0NXVRXEAPX3&lang=DINO

Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject is an introductory comment

Source: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=IL8W0NXURXEAPX3&lang=DINO

Applicant summary of interview with examiner is what it sounds like:

Source: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=IL8W0NXRRXEAPX3&lang=DINO

Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment is what it sounds like:

Source: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=IL8W0NXSRXEAPX3&lang=DINO

EFS Acknowledgment Receipt does not contain any significant information and does not need to be posted.

Most important to take away from this amendment is that it tells us Nintendo has a genuine intent to see this patent granted/registered and eventually be used. Whether the cancellation of claim 2 will have any greater bearing on the SCDs in an NX environment I don't know; as previously written it's something we together can try and figure out.

I'll update this as the story develops.

mclem · Mar 1, 2016

Is it just dodgy typesetting, or is it the case that an underscore in a legal document should also encompass the following space? that got on my nerves quite rapidly!

emag · Mar 1, 2016

I can't comment on any specific elements of the patent application, but I will say that this thread is reading far too much into the patent process with regard to effects upon the consumer product. All that is of interest from that perspective is the original disclosure (see the PGPub from the previous thread).

mclem said:
Is it just dodgy typesetting, or is it the case that an underscore in a legal document should also encompass the following space? that got on my nerves quite rapidly!

Underlined characters are those that are inserted. Technically the spaces are being inserted, but it's not common/required to have them underlined in this fashion.

Serenitynow said:
Question: So Nintendo filed this on 6/3/14, and they are just now getting a response on 12/8/15? If Nintendo made the correct changes back in December, would it take another year for it to be reviewed again?

The examiner has 56 days to respond to the applicant's amendment. The applicant has 3-6 months to respond to the examiner's non-final rejection.

blu · Mar 2, 2016

In light of the amendments it is clear that nintendo are aiming for the SCD to be both a 'cloud saver' as well as a 'cloud computer'; some people where expecting only the first.

Also now we have a wireless link between the SCD and client, so it seems the possibilities for links have been narrowed down.

Lutherian · Mar 2, 2016

JohnTinker said:
I have great appreciation for these threads, even when I have no clue what they may mean

Glad to see that I'm not alone.

Support NeoGAF

Nintendo's patent for Supplemental Computing Devices imaginably facing rejection

Rösti

Unconfirmed Member

Limbaugh Parrot

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

El Capitan Todd

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

El Capitan Todd

Member

Member

Rösti

Unconfirmed Member

Member

Rösti

Unconfirmed Member

Member

MrArseFace

Super Member

Banned

Member

Rösti

Unconfirmed Member

Saint Titanfall

Banned

Rösti

Unconfirmed Member

Member

Member

Rösti

Unconfirmed Member

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Member

Member

Rösti

Unconfirmed Member

Member

Member

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Member

Similar threads