DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of the claim(s) has/have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 17 includes limitations directed towards "provide each team a chance to serve the at least one low compression ball against an opposing team by hitting the at least one low compression ball with a paddle against the topside of the octagon-shaped foldable table; provide each opposing team a chance to receive the serve by contacting the at least one low compression ball with at least one paddle nor more than three times before hitting the at least one low compression ball with a paddle against the topside of the octagon-shaped foldable table; and keep track of each time a team misses returning service of the at least one low compression ball back onto the topside after no more three contracts, wherein the team reaching a predetermined score wins the multiplayer game."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 18 includes limitations directed towards "18. The method of playing a multiplayer game of claim 17, wherein the team serving the at least one low compression ball must serve the at least one low compression ball overhanded with the paddle."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Accordingly, each of the claim(s) recited above recite an abstract idea.
Further, the dependent claim(s), if present, merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Prong Two Considerations
This/these judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application because the examiner does not find one of the following to exist:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Furthermore, limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
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)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of the claims indicated above (and their respective dependent Claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims indicated above (and their respective dependent claims) do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do the additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the above identified claim(s) (and their respective dependent claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Moreover, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea wherein if computer elements are claimed they are additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea(s) identified above (and their respective dependent claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of the claims identified above (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the claim(s) indicated above (or their dependents) include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the additional elements in the claim(s) identified above (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements (if any are present) nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Prong Two Considerations (as indicated above) are not met and the examiner does not find a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to exist in the claim(s) to render the claim(s) significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, none of the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the claim(s) indicated above (and their dependent claims) are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khan (US 20070215011 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Khan teaches 1. A multiplayer game, comprising: an octagon-shaped foldable table provided in two halves each having a topside, an underside, and an outer edge, and at least one hinge mounted onto and connecting the two halves at the underside, wherein the at least one hinge hold the two halves together forming an octagon shape during gameplay and enables the two halve to fold against each with the underside of each halve facing each other and forming a four-sided, half octagon shaped storage compartment within the underside of each halve once the octagon-shaped foldable table is folded; and See Fig. 1 and 4, legs retractably mounted onto the underside of each halve of the octagon-shaped board, wherein the legs are extendable away from the underside to support the octagon-shaped foldable table above ground during gameplay and are retractable flat against the underside of their respective halve for storage prior to the octagon-shaped foldable table being folded at the hinge and closed. See Fig. 1 and 4.
Regarding claim 2, Khan teaches 2. The multiplayer game of claim 1, further comprising a locking mechanism mounted onto at least one side of at least one of the two halves, opposite the at least one hinge, said locking mechanism configured to keep the two halves together in a closed position and release the two halves by operation of the locking mechanism to enable full deployment of the octagon-shaped foldable table for gameplay. See Fig. 5; (50)(52).
Regarding claim 3, Khan teaches 3. The multiplayer game of claim 2, further comprising a handle mounted onto at least one side of at least one of the two halves, opposite the at least one hinge, said locking mechanism configured to facilitate carrying of the octagon-shaped foldable table when the halves are in the closed position and held together by the locking mechanism. See Fig. 5; (54).
Regarding claim 4, Khan teaches 4. The multiplayer game of claim 1, further comprising a rubber mat mounted onto the topside of each of the two halves within the outer edge of each of the two halves. See Fig. 3; [0024+].
Regarding claim 5, Khan teaches 5. The multiplayer game of claim 1, further comprising a slip-reducing surface material layer covering the topside of each of the two halves. See Fig. 3; [0024+].
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20070215011 A1) in view of Brodmann (US 20090209373 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Brodmann teaches 6. The multiplayer game of claim 5, wherein the slip-reducing surface material further comprises grit material having a grit rating of about 24 grit to about 80 grit. See [0032+].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Khan with Brodmann to provide a playing surface with friction for contact with a ball.
Regarding claim 7, Brodmann teaches 7. The multiplayer game of claim 5, wherein the slip-reducing surface material further comprises grit material having a grit rating of 60. See [0032+].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Khan with Brodmann to provide a playing surface with friction for contact with a ball.
Regarding claim 8, Brodmann teaches 8. The multiplayer game of claim 5, further comprising more than one paddle, wherein the more than one paddle is stowable in the storage compartment. See Fig. 1 which shows a paddle that can be stowed in the compartments of Khan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Khan with Brodmann to provide a paddle for playing table tennis.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20070215011 A1) in view of Krause (US 20210291027 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Krause teaches 9. The multiplayer game of claim 5, further comprising at least one low compression ball, wherein the at least one ball is stowable in the storage compartment. See (478).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Khan with Krause to provide an object ball that can be used with the table.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20070215011 A1) in view of Brodmann (US 20090209373 A1) and Krause (US 20210291027 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Khan teaches 10. A multiplayer game, comprising: an octagon-shaped foldable table provided in two halves each having a topside, an underside, and an outer edge, an apron formed onto the underside of each halve around a perimeter of each halve near the outer edge, and at least one hinge mounted onto and connecting the two halves at the underside, wherein the at least one hinge hold the two halves together forming an octagon shape during gameplay and enables the two halves to fold against each with the underside of each have facing each other and forming a four-sided, half octagon shaped storage compartment within the apron and underside of each halve once the octagon-shaped foldable table is folded; See Fig. 1 and 4, legs retractably mounted onto the underside of each halve of the octagon-shaped board, wherein the legs are extendable away from the underside to support the octagon-shaped foldable table above ground during gameplay and are retractable flat against the underside of their respective halve for storage prior to the octagon-shaped foldable table being folded at the at least one hinge and closed; See Fig. 1 and 4.
Brodmann does teach what the primary reference is silent on including more than one paddle, wherein the more than one paddle is stowable in the storage compartment; and See Fig. 1 which shows a paddle that can be stowed in the compartments of Khan.
Krause does teach what the primary reference is silent on including at least one low compression ball, wherein the at least one ball is stowable in the storage compartment. See (478).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Khan with Brodmann to provide a paddle for playing table tennis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Khan with Krause to provide an object ball that can be used with the table.
Regarding claim 11, Khan teaches 11. The multiplayer game of claim 10, further comprising a locking mechanism mounted onto at least one side of at least one of the two halves, opposite the at least one hinge, said locking mechanism configured to keep the halves together in a closed position and release the halves by operation of the locking mechanism to enable full deployment of the octagon-shaped foldable table for gameplay. See Fig. 5; (50)(52).
Regarding claim 12, Khan teaches 12. The multiplayer game of claim 11, further comprising at least one handle located near the locking mechanism and mounted onto at least one side of at least one of the two halves, opposite the hinge, said locking mechanism configured to facilitate carrying of the octagon-shaped foldable table when the halves are in the closed position and held together by the locking mechanism. See Fig. 5; (54).
Regarding claim 13, Khan teaches 13. The multiplayer game of claim 10, further comprising a rubber material mounted on the topside of each halve within the outer perimeter of each of the two halves. See Fig. 3; [0024+].
Regarding claim 14, Khan teaches 14. The multiplayer game of claim 10, further comprising a slip-reducing surface material layer covering the topside of each of the two halves. See Fig. 3; [0024+].
Regarding claim 15, Brodmann teaches 15. The multiplayer game of claim 14, wherein the slip-reducing surface material further comprises grit material having a grit rating of about 24 grit to about 80 grit. See [0032+].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Khan with Brodmann to provide a playing surface with friction for contact with a ball.
Regarding claim 16, Brodmann teaches 16. The multiplayer game of claim 14, wherein the slip-reducing surface material further comprises grit material having a grit rating of 60. See [0032+].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Khan with Brodmann to provide a playing surface with friction for contact with a ball.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20070215011 A1) in view of Allen (US 20070298914 A1) and Brodmann (US 20090209373 A1) and Krause (US 20210291027 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Khan teaches 17. A method of playing a multiplayer game, comprising: providing an octagon-shaped foldable table to players representing opposing teams of the multiplayer game wherein each team has at least one player, wherein the octagon-shaped foldable table is provided in two halves each having a topside, an underside, and an outer edge, and at least one hinge mounted onto and connecting the two halves at the underside, wherein the at least one hinge is configured to hold the two halves together forming an octagon shape during gameplay and enables the two halve to fold against each with the underside of each have facing each other and forming a four-sided, half octagon shaped storage compartment within the underside of each halve once the octagon-shaped foldable table is folded, the octagon-shaped foldable table further comprising; See Fig. 1 and 4, legs retractably mounted onto the underside of each halve of the octagon-shaped board, wherein the at least two legs are extendable away from the underside to support the octagon-shaped foldable table above ground during gameplay and are retractable flat against the underside of their respective halve for storage prior to the octagon-shaped foldable table being folded at the hinge and closed; See Fig. 1 and 4.
Brodmann does teach what the primary reference is silent on including more than one paddle, wherein the more than one paddle is stowable in the storage compartment; and See Fig. 1 which shows a paddle that can be stowed in the compartments of Khan.
Krause does teach what the primary reference is silent on including at least one low compression ball, wherein the at least one ball is stowable in the storage compartment; See (478).
Allen does teach what the primary reference is silent on including provide each team a chance to serve the at least one low compression ball against an opposing team by hitting the at least one low compression ball with a paddle against the topside of the octagon-shaped foldable table; provide each opposing team a chance to receive the serve by contacting the at least one low compression ball with at least one paddle nor more than three times before hitting the at least one low compression ball with a paddle against the topside of the octagon-shaped foldable table; and keep track of each time a team misses returning service of the at least one low compression ball back onto the topside after no more three contracts, wherein the team reaching a predetermined score wins the multiplayer game. See [0004+].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Khan with Brodmann to provide a paddle for playing table tennis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Khan with Krause to provide an object ball that can be used with the table. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Khan with Allen to provide a playing area for individuals to play against each other ([0004+]).
Regarding claim 18, Allen teaches 18. The method of playing a multiplayer game of claim 17, wherein the team serving the at least one low compression ball must serve the at least one low compression ball overhanded with the paddle. See [0004+] which teaches the use of the teams with table tennis of which it is known and obvious to serve as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Khan with Allen to provide a playing area for individuals to play against each other ([0004+]).
Regarding claim 20, Khan teaches 20. The multiplayer game of claim 17, wherein the octagon-shaped foldable table further comprises a slip-reducing surface material layer covering the topside of each of the two halves. See Fig. 3; [0024+].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20070215011 A1) in view of Allen (US 20070298914 A1) and Brodmann (US 20090209373 A1) and Krause (US 20210291027 A1) and Porter (US 3521847 A).
Regarding claim 19, Porter teaches 19. The method of playing a multiplayer game of claim 17, wherein the octagon-shaped foldable table further comprises a rubber bumper mounted to the outer edge of each of the two halves. See (60) which is a rubber bumper that can be used on the octagonal table.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Khan with Porter to provide rebounding effects to the table.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schankman US 4041880 - teaches a convertible octagon table.
Murray US 2654647 A - teaches an octagonal table with folding legs.
Chen US 20050104294 A1 - which teaches a game table with bumpers and rubber coverings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711