DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is made Final in response to applicant’s Amendments / Request for Reconsideration filed 3/2/26. Claims 12-14 and 16-17 are cancelled; claims 15, 18-19 are amended; claims 1-11 and 20 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant argues withdrawn claim 20, directed to a computer implemented system, is directed to the method of playing a word game that was originally elected stemming from the restriction requirement made 12/12/22. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The computer system of claim 20 can be used to practice another and materially different game method. For example, in claim 20, there is no requirement that the gameplay is conducted by the remote devices. The gameplay can be played on site by in person players, and then presented to the remote devices. This constitutes a fundamentally different game than required by the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 15, 18-19 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the display screen". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, the requirement that the stackable tiles have notch and bump used to “mechanically constrain vertical stacking alignment” is unclear, misleading and indefinite. The claim is directed to a digital method. It is unclear how nonphysical stacking tiles can be made to “mechanically constraint” stacking alignment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitations indicated in bold below from claims 15 and 18-20 are considered unsupported by the specification as originally filed. These elements were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor.
15. (Currently Amended) A method of electronically playing a multi-dimensional word spelling game electronically and remotely over a data network, comprising: providing a server adapted to communicate over a data network with remote devices to support remote player game playing; storing a multi-dimensional word building game program on the server, the multi- dimensional word building game program including stackable hexagonal letter tiles; enabling remote devices to access the server and the multi-dimensional word building game program, wherein the multi-dimensional word building game program is configured to provide remote player access to the multi-dimensional word building game program over the data network using the remote devices, wherein each stackable hexagonal letter tile comprises a top surface and six side surfaces, at least one of the six side surfaces being imprinted with a letter, and further comprises a notch formed on the top surface and a complementary bump formed on a bottom surface, the bump being configured to be received within a notch of another stackable hexagonal letter tile to mechanically constrain vertical stacking alignment; allowing the remote players to select and agree upon a dictionary of words for use in the multi-dimensional word spelling game, in a case of a word challenge in the multi- dimensional word spelling game, wherein the dictionary of words is used to settle word challenges in the multi-dimensional word spelling game; enabling the remote players to spell words in vertical, upward, downward and stackable directions online and as displayed on the display screen associated with the remote devices using the top surface and at least one of the six side surfaces of each stackable hexagonal letter tile wherein stacking of stackable hexagonal letter tiles offers a multiplicative bonus; and wherein words when spelled are presented three-dimensionally on the display screen associated with the remote devices and are spelled in the upward and downward direction and are formed in a 30-degree angle from a level cross section of each tile given the hexagon shape that the six sides and the top surface of the stackable hexagonal letter tiles provide, and wherein the server tracks remote player scores and performance histories, and wherein the server maintains and synchronizes a persistent representation of tile adjacency, stacking order, and applied scoring multipliers across the remote devices in real time.
18. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 15, wherein the multi-dimensional word building game program further graphically renders, on the display screen of the remote devices, a visual representation of a notch on a top surface of each stackable hexagonal letter tile and a complementary bump on a bottom surface of each stackable hexagonal letter tile, and constrains stacking of the stackable hexagonal letter tiles in the displayed three-dimensional environment based on alignment of the rendered notch and bump features.
19. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 15, wherein the server maintains a structured representation of tile positions including adjacency relationships and vertical stacking order, and updates the three-dimensional presentation on the remote devices based on the structured representation to reflect changes in stacking height and associated multiplicative scoring bonuses.
Applicant argues that limitations pertaining to the notch and bump are supported in paragraph [0011]. However, this appears to be directed to the physical embodiment, not the electronic embodiments. Paragraph [0076] does support subject matter directed to an electronic embodiment that supports a virtual multi-dimensional word spelling board game, including three-dimensional expressions. However, the bolded limitations impart specific and narrower limitations that are not supported by paragraph [0076] when read in view of the specification as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a set of rules to play a “spelling game”. Specifically, the rules comprise rules to “spell words using letters”, “spelling words in vertical, upward, downward and stackable directions”, “allowing … players to select and agree upon a dictionary of words”, “wherein dictionary of words is used to settle word challenged”, “offer(s) a multiplicative bonus”, applying “geometric constraints”, and track “player scores and performance histories” which is grouped under: 1) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, subgroup ‘Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People’, including following rules or instructions - MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)C.
6. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Under Step 2A: Prong Two, additional limitation(s) or a combination of additional elements are evaluated to determine if those elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Here, the Abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The rules to the spelling game are applied using general gaming technology as opposed to a particular machine. There is no improvement to any functioning of computer technology. No transformation or reduction of a particular article occurs. The rules are generally linked to gaming technology elements. Regarding the claimed programming content (i.e. the digitally presented content on the remote devices including “three-dimensional stackable hexagonal letter tiles”, “words when spelled are presented three-dimensionally”, “notch” and “bump” of the tiles etc.), these elements are directed to non-descriptive material intended for purposes of conveying game related message or meaning to a human reader independent of the computer system it in implemented on. As such, the limitations pertaining to the content displayed on the remote devices are treated like printed matter for purposes of the patent-eligible subject matter analysis, which generally falls outside the scope of patent-eligible subject matter under § 101. See In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d at 1157, 1160, and 1161 (Fed. Circ. 2018).
7. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in ordered combination, and within the context and character of the claims as a whole, the claimed additional elements (listed below) are conventional and widely prevalent in the gaming art. MPEP 2106.05 – “Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More”. The claimed additional elements other than the limitations pertaining to the abstract idea include:
- server, remote devices displaying various game related content, data-network, computer graphics rendering engine
The question of whether certain claim limitations represent well-understood, routine and conventional is a question of fact. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Circ. 2018). Regarding hexagonal tiles, there is ample factually supported evidence that this type of additional limitation is conventional and widely prevalent in the gaming art as evidenced by Vertegaal et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0247422) at paragraph [0082], Schwartz (US Pub. No. 2009/0264200) at paragraph [0006], Walsh (US Pat. No. 9,089,765) at column 1, lines 14-34. Regarding tile racks, and server, remote devices displaying various game related content, data-network, it is admitted that that such features are well known to be routine and conventional in the gaming art (The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. SEE MPEP 2144.03). See also Kim et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0056752) at paragraph [0001], Critten at al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0226833) at paragraph [0002], Liang et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0133608) at paragraph [0001], Imai (US Pub. No. 2019/0209922) at paragraphs [0003]-[0004], Somarajapuram (US Pub. No. 2013/0190087) at paragraph [0003], Schlottmann et al. (US Pat. No. 8,384,710) at column 1, Hoyt et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0190708) at paragraph [0068], Schoenberg et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0302926) at paragraph [0003]), Jabara et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0248959) at paragraph [0098]), Hefezi (US Pub. No. 2013/0344945) at paragraphs [0028], [0053], Fan et al. (US Pat. No. 8,072,950) at column 6, lines 52-58; Walker et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0162134) at paragraph [0034], Cannon (US Pub. No. 2002/0177483) at paragraphs (0004], [0007], [0036]. With respect to a computer graphics rendering engine, the prior art makes clear this electronic element is routine and conventional in the art – See Deering (US Pat. No. 4,885,703) at column 1; Akeley (US Pat. No. 5,193,145) at column 4; Hancock et al. (US Pat. No. 6,307,559) at column 2; Pacey et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0058100) at paragraph [0050]; Floden (US Pub. No. 2007/0184886) at paragraph [0035]; Anser (US Pub. No. 2009/0036196) at paragraph [0060]); Terrell, IV et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0080128) at paragraph [0003]; Koneru et al. (US Pat. No. 10,437,637) at columns 28-29; Hagedoorn (US Pub. No. 2018/0240262) at paragraph [0036] and Bhiravabhatla (US Pub. No. 2017/0091893) at paragraph [0118]; Suzuki et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0050118) at paragraph [0008]; Kim (US Pub. No. 2010/0069158 – paragraph [0002]); and Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0213353.
Regarding the printed matter and non-descriptive material analysis under step 2b analysis, the examiner reiterates the reasoning from above in step 2A, Prong Two.
Thus, claims 15 and 18-19 is held to claim an abstract idea without sufficient limitations to transform the judicial exception into eligible subject matter, and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible subject matter because the claims are not directed merely to a set of game rules, but to a specific technological and structural implementation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the notch and bump of the tiles, these limitations are directed to non-descriptive material intended for purposes of conveying game related message or meaning to a human reader independent of the computer system it in implemented on. It is not a structural configuration as alleged by applicant, but rather software renderings. Applicant further argues that the server integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires specific machine implemented data management and synchronization architecture. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The server is merely providing basic arithmetic and rudimentary game calculations. Indeed, these calculations by the server are so basic the specification fails to provide any detailed description on how they are accomplished by the server. This strongly suggests the server is merely a basic game server, falling well short of qualifying as “Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)” or “Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b)”. Applicant argues that the claims should be eligible under step 2b since they impose “specific structural and machine-based constraints”. Examiner notes the claims do not require any structure that is not routine and conventional in the art. The notch and bump are directed to a graphical display of the tile, not a tangible tile. Further, a machine-based constraint is not an additional element within the context of Step 2B; rather it is merely a programmed rule, which is an abstract element. Claim 18 is merely directed to specific graphics content of a computer display, which has been shown to be unpersuasive in 101 analyses. The limitations of claim 19 largely repeats the calculator like functionality of the server, merely implementing software rules to display and conduct a spelling game. Examiner further directs applicant to newly introduced references Suzuki et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0050118) at paragraph [0008]; Kim (US Pub. No. 2010/0069158 – paragraph [0002]); and Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0213353) at paragraph [0011] further establishing the routine and conventional nature of the claimed server. A server configured to update, track and synchronizes game scores in accordance with defined game rules is routine and convention.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272 4463. 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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711