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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “amounts” should be “amount”
In claim 3, “invitro” should be “in vitro”
In claim 12, “advances a” should be “advanced to”
In claim 17, “turns” should be “turn”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In this case independent claim 1 is directed to an idea in the form of rules for playing a game. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because tracks, game boards, pay coins, and player tokens do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they are routine in any board game. This claim is essentially an abstract idea in the form of rules for participating in/playing a board game.
Under Step 2A Prong i, independent claim 1 recites providing additional elements including a game board, token, and pay coins. The rest of the limitations are directed towards that abstract idea of organizing human activity with the limitations directed towards initiating different phases of a game. These steps describe the concept of steps and rules for playing/participating in a game. This is similar to the concepts held to be abstract by the courts in In re Brown, 645 Fed. Appx. 1014 (Fed Cir. 2016). Non-precedential with opinion. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Webb, 609 Fed. Appx. 643 (Fed. Cir. 2015), where steps for performing a task and steps for playing a game were held to be patent ineligible. As stated supra, the examiner interprets the limitations to claim 1 to fall under methods of organizing human activity so that the above-identified claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong ii, the abstract idea in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in combination with the above abstract idea is merely using known means (game board, token, etc….) to play a particular game that involves rules to playing the particular game.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements of tracks, game boards, pay coins, and player tokens are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic functions. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is nothing particular to the tracks, game boards, pay coins, and player tokens, how they interact, or that makes them specific to this method. They are simply conventional and routine game board elements.
The dependent claims 2-20 add no additional elements not already in the independent claims. The dependent claims simply add further abstract steps (rules/organizing human activity) in the form of determination of points, various additional indicia on cards and dice, and further rules for gameplay. The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract concept of rules for participating in/playing a sporting event/game. These abstract concepts are not patent eligible as outlined in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-7 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.
The steps recited in the claims often refer to abstract concepts, rather than physical pieces or directed actions for gameplay. The steps for gameplay are generally confusing. Some examples are given below. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the vaccine antigenic formula" in lines 17-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references disclose inventions similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 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.
/SAMANTHA M BERRY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711