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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 01/12/2026. Presently, claims 14-16 and 20 are pending.
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 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of associating bible scriptures with a bible book name while playing a Bible bingo style game, the method comprising the steps of: providing a plurality of bible bingo style cards, wherein each of said plurality of bible bingo style cards comprises a grid of rows and columns defining a plurality of cells, and further wherein each of said plurality of cells includes a Bible book name printed thereon; providing a plurality of bingo style word chips including a book name and a letter printed thereon, wherein said plurality of bingo style word chips include said book names selected from the group consisting of New Testament word chips and Old Testament word chips; providing at least two players each with at least one Bible bingo style card for playing said Bible bingo style game; selecting randomly said bingo style word chips one at a time; calling out each said selected said bingo style word chip including said book name and said letter printed thereon; and marking at least one of said plurality of cells of said Bible bingo style card corresponding to said called out said bingo style word chip; and providing a plurality of calling cards including said book name, a letter, and a scripture associated with said book name printed thereon; selecting randomly said calling cards one at a time and intermittently with said bingo style word chips; calling out each said selected said calling card including said book name, said letter, and said scripture printed thereon; associating each of said scripture with its respective said book name; awarding a prize to a winner of the Bible bingo style game. Each of the above underlined limitations above are related to certain methods of organizing human activity as they are just rules for how to organize a game and/or a mental process that could be accomplished with only the aid of pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only elements of the claims are all abstract ideas and as such there is no practical application to the claims. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements to the claims in that each of the physical elements claimed, “cards,” “chips,” etc. can all be just pieces of paper.
The dependent claims have been evaluated but do not the cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0222149 to Bentley in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0333636 to Bealke.
With regard to claim 14, Bentley discloses a method of playing a bingo style game, the method comprising the steps of: providing a plurality of bingo style cards, wherein each of said plurality of bingo style cards comprises a grid of rows and columns defining a plurality of cells, and further wherein each of said plurality of cells includes a name printed thereon (fig. 1; 0029-0031); providing a plurality of bingo style word chips including a name and a letter printed thereon (0029); providing at least two players each with at least one bingo style card for playing said bingo style game (0029-0031); selecting randomly said bingo style word chips one at a time (0029-0031); calling out each said selected said bingo style word chip including said name and said letter printed thereon (0031); and marking at least one of said plurality of cells of said bingo style card corresponding to said called out said bingo style word chip (0030); providing a plurality of calling cards including a name and a letter; selecting randomly said calling cards one at a time and intermittently with said bingo style word chips (0029); calling out each said selected said calling card including said name, said letter (0029). Each all elements that have been deleted (bible book name; a book name, and a scripture associated with said book name printed thereon) are viewed as non-functional descriptive material. “Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004)” (MPEP 2112.01 III). Further, the “associating each of said scripture with its respective said book name,” is merely an intended use of the method as the only steps provided here would be entirely done in the human mind.
Bentley does not appear to explicitly disclose a winner of the game. However, Bealke teaches awarding a prize to a winner of the Bible bingo style game (0005). It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Bealke with the disclosure of Bentley in order to 1) encourage player to play the game by offering a prize.
With regard to claim 15, Bentley discloses a step of declaring a winner of said bingo style game when a first player marks a plurality of said cells of said bingo style card in a designated pattern (0031).
With regard to claim 16 Bentley discloses wherein said designated pattern is selected from a group consisting of a complete row, a complete column and a complete diagonal (0031).
With regard to claim 20, Bentley discloses wherein said marking of said at least one of said plurality of cells includes placing a bingo style chip thereon (0030).
Claims 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley in view of Bible Bingo, Bealke and US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0267280 to Gordon.
With regard to claim 14, Bentley discloses a method of playing a bingo style game, the method comprising the steps of: providing a plurality of bingo style cards, wherein each of said plurality of bingo style cards comprises a grid of rows and columns defining a plurality of cells, and further wherein each of said plurality of cells includes a name printed thereon (fig. 1; 0029-0031); providing a plurality of bingo style word chips including a name and a letter printed thereon (0029); providing at least two players each with at least one bingo style card for playing said bingo style game (0029-0031); selecting randomly said bingo style word chips one at a time (0029-0031); calling out each said selected said bingo style word chip including said name and said letter printed thereon (0031); and marking at least one of said plurality of cells of said bingo style card corresponding to said called out said bingo style word chip (0030); selecting randomly said calling cards one at a time and intermittently with said bingo style word chips (0029 wherein it is noted that cards or chips can be used in any combination)..
Bentley does not explicitly disclose that the game is related to the Bible with various book names and scriptures printed on the various areas as described in the claim. However, Bible Bingo teaches using Bible book names for the bingo cards as well as for the calling chips (See the entire reference).
Bentley does not appear to address calling cards with a book name. However, Gordon teaches a plurality of calling cards including said book name, a letter, and a scripture associated with said book name printed thereon (fig. 2)
Bentley and Gordon teaches a step of calling out each said selected said calling card including said book name, said letter, and said scripture printed thereon (Bentley at 0029; Gordon at fig. 2); and associating each of said scripture with its respective said book name (Bentley at 0029; Gordon at fig. 2; this is merely a mental process but as one reads out the words on the card it will become an association to those reading and listening to it).
Bentley does not appear to explicitly disclose a winner of the game. However, Bealke teaches awarding a prize to a winner of the Bible bingo style game (0005).
With regard to claim 15, Bentley discloses a step of declaring a winner of said bingo style game when a first player marks a plurality of said cells of said bingo style card in a designated pattern (0031).
With regard to claim 16 Bentley discloses wherein said designated pattern is selected from a group consisting of a complete row, a complete column and a complete diagonal (0031).
With regard to claim 20, Bentley discloses wherein said marking of said at least one of said plurality of cells includes placing a bingo style chip thereon (0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Bible Bingo into Bentley in order to better understand the Bible (See Bible Bingo in the third paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Gordon into Bentley in order to improve the quality of life by knowing God’s word (See Gordon at 0004).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Bealke with the disclosure of Bentley in order to encourage player to play the game by offering a prize.
Response to Arguments
Applicant first argues, “The amended preamble of claim 14, along with the other amendments to the elements in claim 14, now recite functional descriptive material,” (Arguments, page 6). Applicant seems to misunderstand the non-functional descriptive material rejection as discussed in rejection above (starting at numeral 8). Whether the cards had words from the Bible, words from Harry Potter, the elements of the periodic table, or exercise words does not make a patentable difference. That is merely because Applicant has created a Bingo game, played with regular Bingo rules, but has words printed on the cards that relate to the Bible does not now make the claims patentable.
Next Applicant states that “Gordon in Fig. 2 does not show scriptures (i.e., writings of the Bible,” (Arguments, page 7). Applicant’s argument is not found to be convincing. That is, “Numbers 12:3;” “Philippians 4:14-16;” “Daniel 1:8;” “Luke 6:13;” and “2 Timothy 1:5” are all accepted as scripture. Even if Applicant were to somehow read more into the claims that require the text of said scripture, (which again as mentioned above is purely non-functional descriptive material), each of these cards do in fact include text from the verses (e.g. “meek;” “Philippi;” “meat and wine;” “twelve;” “Eunice;”), while it may not be the entirety of the verse, it is still from the scriptures and therefor part of the scripture. Whether one chooses to cut off the scripture at a book, a chapter, a verse, or a word, is merely a matter of choice.
Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found convincing and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715