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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Claims 1-33 were canceled in a preliminary amendment received on 02/09/24, claims 34-53 were added and are now pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 39, 44, 47 and 48 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 35-51 are dependent claims and recite the limitations “A computer-implemented method according to claims …” ,the “A” needs to be replaced by --The-- since the claims depend on previous claims making the limitations as follows “The computer-implemented method according to claims …”
Furthermore, claim 39, line 2 recites the words “synchronisation”, it should be replaced by the word --synchroniztion--.
Claim 44, line 3 recites the words “categorised”, it should be replaced by the word -- categorized --.
Claim 47, line 2 recites the words “categorised”, it should be replaced by the word -- categorized --.
Claim 48, line 4 recites the words “categorised”, it should be replaced by the word -- categorized --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 34-53 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 34, 52 and 53 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claims 34, 52 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “providing and operating an interactive computer-implemented word-puzzle that is solved by selecting letters.”
The limitations of “storing, by one or more processors, in an internal database that includes a data structure, a plurality of words that are categorized in the data structure according to the number of letters forming each word thereby enabling the plurality of words to be arranged in groups such that each word in the same group has the same number of letters, wherein: each word includes one or more identification clues, each word in one group is linked to at least one other word in a different group according to the words having a minimum number of letters arranged in a corresponding sequence, each linked word having a letter count that increases sequentially by an increment of one letter from a first linked word associated with a first group of words with a minimum number of letters up to a final linked word associated with a final group of words with a maximum number of letters, each subsequent linked word beyond the first including one additional letter as compared with the preceding linked word, and the subsequent linked word including all letters of the preceding linked word with one additional letter at the beginning, internally, or end thereof; receiving, by the one or more processors, from one or more user devices, a request to operate a word puzzle; selecting, by a game module associated with the one or more processors, for inclusion in the word puzzle, a set of linked words which includes at least a first linked word and a final linked word; providing, for display on the one or more user devices, a graphical user interface including: empty letter fields associated with a number of words that corresponds with the number of words present in the selected set of linked words, and an identification clue associated with one or more of the words included in the selected set of linked words to assist a user to identify each of the words and thereby spell each word by allocating letters to the empty letter fields” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “storing, receiving, selecting, and providing” in the context of this claim encompasses providing and operating an interactive computer-implemented word-puzzle that is solved by selecting letters. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited on PTO form 892.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 6-4:30 ET.
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, David L Lewis can be reached on 5712727673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/Ronald Laneau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715