DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2025 has been entered.
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 .
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 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.
This action is a Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 05/16/2024.
Claims 34-36 have been cancelled.
Claims 41-43 have been added.
Claims 21-33 and 37-43 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims in the previous office action has been maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. double patenting rejections of claims in the previous office action has been maintained. As, there is no Terminal Disclaimer filed on record.
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 21-33 and 37-43 are directed towards a method of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 21-33 and 37-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claims 21-33 and 37-43, under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to claims 21-33 and 37-43, the independent claims (claims 21 and 38) are directed managing and determining the play value of an existing or prospective playground (e.g. identify one or more categories of physical play; determining a recommendation for new components). These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental processes which includes concepts preformed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions. The concepts preformed in the human mind and managing personal behavior is entered into when a user identify categories, challenges, and assigning a play value. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts preformed in the human mind and managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element – processor to perform the claim steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of providing and processing information at 0095) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does 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 independent claims are additionally directed to claim elements such as a processor. When considered individually, the processor claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements.
Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at ([pg.5]) “the system may be configured to identify the challenge level of each unique component from within a selected/identified category/type by: (i) prompting a user on a display to input with a user input device particular information about the component and (ii) processing that information to assign an overall challenge level of the component. In some embodiments, for example, identifying the challenge level of each unique component from within a selected/identified category/type may comprise: (a) displaying one or more challenge indicator factors; (b) within each factor, displaying a plurality of component descriptors, each of the component descriptors being assigned a value; (c) prompting a user on the display to select a component descriptor from within each factor with the user input device; and (d) the processor combining the values of the selected component descriptors in order to assess an overall challenge level of the component. Each of the challenge indicator factors may be weighted based on its respective impact on the overall challenge level of the component, information which may be stored in a memory of the system.” [pg.9] “the system may be configured to assign a playground with a challenge level, with the challenge level being based at least in part on the total number of components in the playground that fall within each challenge level, for example beginner, intermediate, and advanced. The challenge level of each component may be determined as described in any of the embodiments disclosed herein.” ([0044]) “The user input device(s) may include any device(s) capable of communicating information from a user and/or at the direction of the user to the processing unit of the computing system, for example. The user input device(s) may include button(s), a touchscreen, near field communication (NFC) readers, radio frequency identification (RFID) readers, motion tracking, orientation detection, voice recognition, a mousing device, keyboard, camera, and/or any other device capable of receiving a user directive. In certain embodiments, one or more of the user input devices may be integrated into other components, such as the display, for example.” ([0045]) “While there is shown and described herein certain specific structures embodying the invention, it will be manifest to those skilled in the art that various modifications and rearrangements of the parts may be made”
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
Dependent claims 22, 23, 25, 37, 41-43 directed to managing and determining the play value of an existing or prospective playground. This process is similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claim which are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include concepts preformed in the human mind and managing personal behavior. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they are directed to abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 24, 26-33 are not directed towards any additional abstract ideas and, are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-33 and 37-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable respectively over claim 1-20 of U.S. Application 11,574,271:
Application 18/103,031
U.S. Patent 11,574,271
Claim 21
Claim 1
Claim 22
Claim 2
Claim 33
Claim 3
Claim 24
Claim 4
Claim 25
Claim 5
Claim 26
Claim 6
Claim 27
Claim 7
Claim 28
Claim 8
Claim 29
Claim 9
Claim 30
Claim 10
Claim 31
Claim 11
Claim 32
Claim 12
Claim 33
Claim 13
Claim 37
Claim 17
Claim 38
Claim 18
Claim 29
Claim 19
Claim 40
Claim 20
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are drawn to the same invention of managing of sales data and communicating and comparable elements used to perform vastly similar functions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 03/12/2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 8-20 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
identifying or receiving one or more categories of physical play opportunities that are present in the existing or prospective playground;
for each category of physical play opportunity, identifying or receiving,
(a) a total number of components in the existing or prospective playground within the category and/or a number of unique components in the existing or prospective playground within the category, and
(b) a challenge level of each unique component in the existing or prospective playground within the category;
determining and presenting a recommendation of one or more new components to be added to the existing or prospective playground based at least in part on an amount the new component would increase a play value of the existing or prospective playground, wherein the play value is based at least in part on (a) the total number of components within each category and/or the number of unique components within each category and (b) the challenge level of the components within each category;
receiving a selection of at least one of the one or more new components to be added to the existing or prospective playground;
presenting in real-time at the display (i) a three- dimensional rendering of the design of the existing or prospective playground modified to include the selected at least one of the one or more new components, (ii) the play value of the existing or prospective playground modified to include the selected at least one of the one or more new components, (iii) an increased amount in the play value of the existing or prospective playground modified to include the selected at least one of the one or more new components over the existing or prospective playground prior to the selection of the selected at least one of the one or more new components, or (iv) any combination of (i) through (iii).
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for managing and determining the play value of an existing or prospective playground, which constitutes methods related to mental processes which includes concepts preformed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The managing and determining the play value of an existing or prospective playground is comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (see 0105) and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
Regarding, “the Applicant respectfully submits that the additional elements provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the exception (e.g., the claims include specific limitations or a combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present).” at pg. 11 that Applicant points to as “significantly more” are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible.
Lastly, at pg. 13 the Applicant recites the following as additional elements " Instead, each of the pending claims are directed to methods for designing or modifying an existing or prospective playground to increase its play value by assigning a play value to the existing or prospective playground, presenting recommendations of one or more modifications that result in an increase to the play value, and presenting at least one of the modifications at a display.." The Examiner respectfully would like to point out that these limitation are not additional elements, but mere instructions that are not indicative of integration into a practical application and are directed towards the following:
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)
Actually these limitation seems to be more of an abstract idea as “methods for designing or modifying an existing or prospective playground to increase its play value by assigning a play value to the existing or prospective playground, presenting recommendations of one or more modifications that result in an increase to the play value, and presenting at least one of the modifications at a display.” are directed to a mental processes which includes concepts preformed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions. The mental process is entered into are entered into when a user identify categories, challenges, and assigning a play value, (see 0009-0012, 0021-0029, 0042)
At pg. 16, Applicant argues that “Furthermore, the claims at issue provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the exception. Indeed, as evidenced by the searched and cited prior art, the claims include specific limitations or a combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, note that whether or not the claims are novel or obvious is evaluated with respect to satisfying the conditions of 35 USC 102 / 35 USC 103, not necessarily determining whether the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. Furthermore, merely adding novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstract idea into something concrete, per Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Regarding the “presenting in real-time at the display, by the at least one processor, (i) a design of the existing or prospective playground modified to include the selected at least one of the one or more new components, (ii) the play value of the existing or prospective playground modified to include the selected at least one of the one or more new components, and/or (iii) an increased amount in the play value of the existing or prospective playground modified to include the selected at least one of the one or more new components over the existing or prospective playground prior to the selection of the selected at least one of the one or more new components; determining, by the at least one processor, one or more modifications that result in an increase to the play value of the existing or prospective playground; and presenting at a display, by the at least one processor, at least one of the one or more modifications to the existing or prospective playground”.
The Examiner would like to point out how the additional elements of displaying on a computer are just instructions to implement on a computer, as supported by the Applicant’s specification at Fig 12. 0081: “the play value score for each of the various types of cognitive play opportunities may be displayed in a graphical format.”; at 0106 “The display may be any device capable of communicating visual information to a user”. Therefore the Examiner is treating the display of this application as just instructions to implement on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to streamlined analysis.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The streamlined eligibility analysis cannot be used if “there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself.” See Interim Guidance, Dec. 2014, pg. 74,625. The example of the type of claim that receives streamlined eligibility analysis is a robotic arm assembly with a control system that operates using certain mathematical relationships. Similarly, here, the improvement is not directed to the computer itself or a robot, nor is it directed to some kind of computing solution. Rather, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of managing and determining the play value of an existing or prospective playground .
At pg. 15, Applicant argues that “Indeed, while assessing a play value may at a high-level involve mathematical concepts, the independent claims do not recite mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or calculations per se. MPEP § 2106.04 cautions that examiners should be "careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which requires further eligibility analysis) and claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)." (Emphasis added). Further, the pending claims do not recite a mental process because the steps are not performed in the human mind. (2019 Guidance at 11.) Instead, each of claims 21-40 is directed to a specific and practical application of methods designing or modifying an existing or prospective playground to increase its play value by at least one processor assigning a play value to the existing or prospective playground, presenting recommendations of one or more modifications that result in an increase to the play value, and presenting at least one of the modifications at a display.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Examiner considered each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole; these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental processes which includes concepts preformed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions. The Examiner did not say the claims are directed to Mathematical Concepts which include mathematical calculations. The mental process and managing personal behavior are entered into are entered into when a user identify categories, challenges, and assigning a play value, (see 0009-0012, 0021-0029, 0042). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mental processes which includes concepts preformed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. As stated above, regarding “Instead, each of claims 21-40 is directed to a specific and practical application of methods designing or modifying an existing…” The Examiner respectfully would like to point out that these limitation are not additional elements, but mere instructions that are not indicative of integration into a practical application and are directed towards the following:
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)
Next, the Examiner would like to direct the Applicant to, DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. case; where the DDR invention was necessarily rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims are not necessarily rooted in computer technology. Rather, Applicant’s invention aims to solve a business problem—for managing and determining the play value of an existing or prospective playground —rather than a technological one. Indeed, the computing elements recited in Applicant’s claims are merely generic in nature and are insufficient to shift the focus or thrust of Applicant’s invention. Moreover, Applicant’s claims resemble a park administrator scheme for solving a commercial solution with merely generic computer implementation.
Applicant argues at pg. 16 that the claims are similar to Bascom and McRo.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Bascom, the court found that the claims were directed to an abstract idea under step one. Id. at 1347–49. Under step two, the court construed the claims in favor of the non-movant and found that the limitations of the claims, taken individually, recited generic computer, network, and Internet components which were not inventive by themselves. Id. at 1349–52. However, the court found that the ordered combination of these limitations provided the requisite inventive concept. Id. The claimed and described inventive concept was the “installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.” Id. at 1350. This design permitted the filtering tool to have “both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the [Internet Service Provider] server.” Id. This was not conventional or generic, and the claims did not preempt all ways of filtering content on the Internet—instead, the patent claimed and explained how a particular arrangement of elements was “a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.” Id. The court thus distinguished ineligible “abstract-idea-based solutions[s] implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way” from the eligible “technology-based solution” and “‘software-based invention[s] that improve[s] the performance of the computer system itself.’” In this case, the specification fail to describe any improvement on technology. As an alternative, the invention is directed to an improvement on the abstract idea itself, i.e. manipulating and retrieving data.
Regarding McRo, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. On page 23 of McRo the court states “We therefore look to whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Enfish”); see also Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., No. 2015-1570, 2016 WL 3606624, at *4(Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016).”
The Examiner asserts that in the instant case that claims do not focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology. The Examiner asserts that managing and determining the play value of an existing or prospective playground area is not a technology or technical field, but rather a business practice.
Further, on page 22 of McRo the court determined “As the specification confirms, the claimed improvement here is allowing computers to produce “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters” that previously could only be produced by human animators.”
In the instant case there is no such technical improvement disclosed in the Applicant’s specification.
Further, page 24 of McRo states “Claim 1 of the ’576 patent is focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a particular type. We disagree with Defendants’ arguments that the claims simply use a computer as a tool to automate conventional activity. While the rules are embodied in computer software that is processed by general-purpose computers, Defendants provided no evidence that the process previously used by animators is the same as the process required by the claims. See Defs.’ Br. 10–15, 39–40. In support, Defendants point to the background section of the patents, but that information makes no suggestion that animators were previously employing the type of rules required by claim 1. Defendants concede an animator’s process was driven by subjective determinations rather than specific, limited mathematical rules.”
As such, in McRO the rules used by animators is the same as the process required by the claims. In the instant case, the steps recited in the claims are the same steps that a human user would use to perform the process. As such, the claims here are not similar to the claims at issue in McRO.
Furthermore, all improvements recited in the claim are directed towards an existing business process that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claim recites additional elements at a high-level of generality used to execute mere instructions in order to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. Moreover, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which managing and determining the play value of an existing or prospective playground will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
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)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate into a practical application and not similar to McRo, as the Applicant’s specification supports that the claims are not directed to the “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field" (e.g., assigning a play value to the existing or prospective playground based at least in part on the total number of components, the number of unique components, and the challenge level of the components within each identified category of physical play opportunity; presenting recommendations of one or more modifications that result in an increase to the play value, and presenting at least one of the modifications at a display)”. As the specifications recites at 0040 “may alter the manner in which playgrounds are designed, improved, and replaced. For example, in some embodiments, the present disclosure may be directed to a method or system for improving a prospective or existing playground”; at 0084 “The distributions may provide a user with information from which to assess the playground and/or determine what types of improvements may be most beneficial, such as in order to obtain a playground having a desired balance.”; 0085 “the method may also account for beneficial site attributes, or environmental elements, of an existing or prospective playground that may improve, affect, or encourage play or generally promote visitation to the playground and/or enjoyment of the playground. Environmental elements that may improve, affect, or encourage play or generally promote visitation to a playground and/or enjoyment of a playground may include playground location amenities, typically beyond the playground structure itself, that improve the overall ability to use the playground, promote safety of the playground, provide other conveniences for the playground users or care providers of the users, and improve the look and feel of the environment surrounding the playground… Because of the improved ability to use the playground, the promotion of safety, the conveniences provided and the improved look and feel of the environment of the playground due to these types of environmental elements, they are thought to promote use and provide an enhanced benefit to the overall play value of a playground.” Thus, the Applicant’s improving or solving the problems of playground design is not an improvement to a computer or a technical solution.
Regarding, the inventive concept at pg. 18 are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent Number US 7029400, Briggs. (discussed setting up a water amusement park for competition, in which this amusement park is assess based on the elements within the park).
United States Patent Number US 8226493, Briggs, et al. (discussed setting up a water amusement park for competition, in which this amusement park is assess based on the elements within the park).
United States Patent Number US 4856318, Hogan, et al. (discussed determining the suitability of playground).
United States Patent Publication US 20110300522, Faubert, et al. (discussed the evaluating or improving perceptual-cognitive abilities of a subject, which includes evaluating playgrounds).
United States Patent Publication US 20130183647, Miller, et al. (discussed the tracking and analyzing playground installations).
WIPO WO WO2013130894, Gauthier, et al. (discussed the tracking and analyzing of user in an area in real time.).
Dunnett, et al. Improving Urban Parks, Play Areas and Green Spaces Department of Landscape, University of Sheffield, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: London; May 2002. (discussed evaluating and improving parks and playground.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.
/UCHE BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3624