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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6, 11 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 18 are drawn to a device/server/system.
Claims 19 and 20 are drawn to a method.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 5 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims. Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. (Currently Amended) A computing device, selectively connected through a network to a computer-based server having a server memory configured to store a solution to a current anagram as a final game state to conduct a game played by a first user to solve the current anagram, comprising:
a first processor configured to execute a first code stored therein;
a clock;
a first memory configured to store a plurality of game states including an initial game state and the final game state, wherein the final game state comprises the scrambled current anagram received from the computer-based server;
an input device configured to receive a plurality of inputs from the first user;
a display configured by the first code to display a first plurality of screen elements arranged in a first screen region as a work area for the first user, wherein all of the screen elements of the first plurality of screen elements in the work area are initially blank as the initial game state, and to display a plurality of alphabetical symbols in a second plurality of screen regions elements arranged in a second screen region with the plurality of alphabetical symbols scrambled to display the current anagram; and
wherein the first processor is configured to receive the scrambled current anagram from the computer-based server;
wherein the display is configured to display the scrambled current anagram;
wherein the first processor is configured to start a timer using the clock;
wherein the first processor is configured to interactively process the plurality of inputs and to generate corresponding control signals,
wherein the display, responsive to the control signals, is configured to modify the first plurality of screen elements from the initial game state having all of the first plurality of screen elements in the work area being blank to a plurality of intermediate game states,
wherein the first processor, responsive to one of the plurality of intermediate game states matching the final game state, is configured to stop the timer, and
wherein the display, responsive to the matching, is configured to provide a reward to the first user in the form of a display of a congratulatory message indicating the solution of the current anagram in the elapsed time between the starting and the stopping of the timer.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent . For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards a word matching game that is represented by a plurality of game states wherein responsive to a correct match a user is provided a reward. This represents a mental process such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for a game).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): processor configured to execute code, memory storing game states…; an input device to receive game inputs…; a display configured to display…. and computer based server.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed servers, processors, memory, input devices, and displays. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, The Applicant’s specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0032] Referring to FIGS. 1-4, the system 10 includes various components configured to implement display screens on the computing device 40, as shown in FIGS. 5-12. The system 10 operates according to the method 1000 and procedures shown in FIGS. 13A-15. As shown in FIG. 1, the system 10 includes a server 12 operatively connected to at least one computing device 14, 16, 18 through a network 20. The server 12 is described in greater detail below with regard to FIG. 2. The network 20 can be the Internet. Alternatively, the network 20 can be a wide area network (WAN). In another embodiment, the network 20 can be a local area network (LAN). Furthermore, the network 20 can be any known communication device interconnecting the server 12 to the at least one computing device 14, 16, 18. Each computing device 14, 16, 18 is associated with a respective user, such as User 1,User 2, through User N. The system 12, though the network 20, provides a distributed online anagram game to the plurality of users using associated computing devices 14, 16, 18. The computing devices 14, 16, 18 is described in greater detail below with regard to FIG. 3. The server 12 is also operatively connected to a reward provisioning subsystem 22, as described in greater detail below with regard to FIG. 4.
[0033]… Through the communication interface 34, the server 12 is operatively connected to the computing devices 14, 16, 18 through the network 20. In addition, through the communication interface 34, the server 12 is operatively connected to the reward provisioning subsystem 22. The communication interface 34 can be any known hardware configured to operate a known communication protocol….
[0035] As shown in FIG. 3, each of the computing devices 14, 16, 18 can be embodied as a computing device 40. The computing device 40 includes a processor 42 executing code stored therein, a memory 44, and a communication interface 46. The processor 42 can include a clock. Alternatively, the computing device 40 can include a clock separate from but operatively connected to the processor 42. The communication interface 46 can be any known hardware configured to operate a known communication protocol. Through the communication interface 46, the processor 42 is operatively connected to an input device 48 and a display 50. The input device 48 and the display 50 are configured to interact with a respective user associated with the computing device 40. In one embodiment, the input device 48 and the display 50 can be integrated in an interactive touchscreen of the computing device 50. The touchscreen can be any known type of touch sensitive user interface. For example, the game screens shown in FIGS. 5-11 can implement graphical user interfaces (GUIs) with actuatable and selectable screen regions, such as icons. By implementing a touchscreen as the input device 48 and the display 50, the computing device 50 can receive and respond to user inputs; for example, when the user taps an icon selected by the user to control and play the anagram game. The computing device 40 can be a smartphone. Alternatively, the computing device 40 can be a tablet. Furthermore, the computing device 40 can be a personal computer. The processor 42 can be a microprocessor. The code executed by the processor 42 can be an ANDROID-based application, app, or applet. Alternatively, the code executed by the processor 42 can be an APPLE IOS-based application, app, or applet. In still other implementations, the input device 48 can be separate from the display, such as a keyboard having alphanumerical keys and control keys. The control keys of the keyboard can include a TAB key. Alternatively, the input device 48 can be a mouse used in conjunction with a cursor displayed on the display 50. The mouse can be any known type of mouse, such as having clickable buttons. Alternatively, the mouse can have a roller wheel or a roller ball.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 11 – 13, 15 – 17 and 19 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al (US 5,921,864) in view of Jacobs (US 5,860,653).
As per claim 1, Walker discloses:
A computing device selectively connected, through a network to a computer-based server having server memory configured to store a solution … as a final game state to conduct a game played by a first user to solve the current anagram, comprising: (Walker col 1, In 56-60 - "From the start of this game, the players always know the exact number of letters that make up the word to be discovered as they take turns attempting to unscramble the scrambled words to find clues that help solve the main word."; col 3, In 48-54 - "Referring now to the several views of the drawings,. there are depicted several embodiments of the present invention, principally comprised of a game computer 10 having a processor 12 for executing at least one program from associated memory 14, a display 16 and an I/0 interface 18. As the operation of game computers is well-known in the art, it need not be described here in detail."):
a first processor configured to execute a first code stored therein; (Walker col 3, In 48-54)
a clock; (Walker col 4, In 46-48 - "A three hundred (300) second countdown timer 36 appears at the top right corner of the display 16.")
a first memory configured to store a plurality of game states including an initial game state and the final game state, wherein the final game state comprises the scrambled current … received from the computer-based server; (Walker col 4, In 65-col 5, In 3 -"To start each game, a player can select up to three (3) letters. After the start, the player can select only one letter for every ten (10) second interval. In accordance with the exemplary embodiment, letter purchasing privileges may not be saved. The display 16 provides the player with a time interval status 44."; Walker col 5, In 11-15 - "If the selected/purchased letter matches a letter in the hidden phrase/quotation, that letter is revealed in the appropriate grid box 28. Points are automatically deducted from the player's total points for every grid box 28 in the puzzle where the selected letter appears."; Walker col 5, In 63-65 - "If the solution is correct, the game ends and the player's final score is displayed in the points score 38 when the clock was stopped."; Walker col 6, In 8-14 - "In another embodiment shown schematically in FIG. 3, the electronic word puzzle game may be made available on-line over a data network shown generically at 50 (of the types well known in the art such as AMERICA ON-LINE, COMPUSERVE, the INTERNET, or even a dedicated game network), and thereby accessible to players via game computers 10 at any location.")
an input device configured to receive a plurality of inputs from the first user; (Walker col 4, In 18-22 - "The objective of the electronic word puzzle game is to solve a hidden phrase or quotation as quickly as possible . To begin a game, the player presses the NEW GAME key 30 of the keyboard 26 as shown in FIG. 1A, ·or the numeric key "3" and ENTER as depicted in the embodiment of FIG. 2. ")
a display configured by the first code to display a first plurality of screen elements arranged in a first screen elements arranged in a first screen region as a work area for the first user, wherein all of the screen elements of the first plurality of screen elements in the work area are initially blank as the initial game state, (Walker discloses a grouping of grid boxes that are initially blank that correspond to the phrase format (i.e. not rendered or displayed letters)) Walker 4:29 -35), and to display a plurality of alphabetical symbols in a second plurality of screen elements arranged in a second screen region with the plurality of alphabetical symbols scrambled as the current …; and (Walker col 4, In 6-13 - ''The game computer display 16 is enabled by a suitable driver (not shown) operating under control of the processor 12, and is adapted to display a plurality of solution phrase constituent display areas such ·as, for example, grid boxes 28 in accordance with game program instructions and the player's selections. Each grid box 28 corresponds to at least one of a letter, blank space, and punctuation mark in the solution phrase 22." Walker col 4, In 29-35 - "A randomly or deterministically chosen phrase or quotation relating to the topic beading is then generated by executing the game program 24, and the phrase format is partially rendered in a grid of empty boxes 28 in, for example, two (2) or three (3) .lines as shown in the sample embodiment, depending on the length of the phrase/quotation." see also col 4, In 65-col 5, In 3)
wherein the first processor is configured to receive the scrambled current … from the computer-based server; (Walker col 4, In 29-35 and col 6, In 8-14)
wherein the display is configured to display the scrambled current …; (Walker col 1, In 56-60 and col 4, In 29-35)
wherein the first processor is configured to start a timer using the clock; (Walker col 3, In 48-54 and col 4, lo 46)
wherein the first processor is configured to interactively process the plurality of inputs and to generate corresponding control signals, wherein the display, responsive to the control signals, is configured to modify the first plurality of screen elements from the initial game state having all of the first plurality of screen elements in the work area being blank , (Walker discloses a grouping of grid boxes that are initially blank that correspond to the phrase format (i.e. not rendered or displayed letters)) Walker 4:29 -35), to a plurality of intermediate game states, wherein the first processor, responsive to one of the plurality of intermediate game states matching the final game state, is configured to stop the timer, and wherein the display, responsive to the matching, is configured to provide a reward to the first user in the form of a display of a congratulatory message indicating the solution of the current … in the elapsed time between the starting and the stopping of the timer. (Walker col 5, ln 61 -col 6, In 4 - "In FIG. 2, the cursor is controlled by the standard key controls associated with the keyboard 26. If the solution is correct, the game ends and the player's final score is displayed in the points score 38 when the clock was stopped. If the solution is incorrect, the sum of points from the time-out period, and a penalty of X points are deducted from the player's total score. The game restarts and continues until the five-minute clock has elapsed. After the time period has expired, the player is allotted a specified amount of time to enter the correct solution. The player's score is adjusted to zero (0) if the wrong solution is entered." - The player will receive a reward of points. Should they not complete the puzzle, the user will be rewarded with zero. see also Walker col 4, In 6-13, col 4, In 29-35, col 4, In 65-col 5, In 3, col 5, In 11-15 and col 5, In 63- 65).
In the event that it can be argued that Walker is not an anagram game or that Walker does not disclose displaying a current scrambled anagram word that a player must unscramble and enter into a separate area of spaces, the Examiner points to Jacobs.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jacobs teaches a word game that specifically teaches the use of scramble words in one portion of the display and a second portion of the display that enables a user to solve the word by means of unscrambling the initially scrambled word (Jacobs Fig 1, 8 – 9, 14 – 15). As can be seen from Figures 8 – 13, Jacobs discloses the use of a plurality of intermediate states wherein a player attempts to guess the answer to the displayed current scrambled anagram (Jacobs Fig 8 – 14).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Walker in view of Jacobs to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way by displaying a scrambled word that a user utilizes as a clue to guess the correct word. This would be beneficial to a player as some phrases may be difficult for a player to guess. Walker specifically discloses the use of clues that are displayed to the player to help them to guess the final correct word or phrase (Walker 5:28-36)
Regarding claim 2, Walker discloses the computing device of claim 1. Walker further discloses: wherein the first memory is configured to store a predetermined plurality of rules; wherein the first processor is configured to generate a plurality of intermediate scores and a final score corresponding to each of the intermediate game states, respectively, using the predetermined plurality of rules, and wherein the display, responsive to the matching, is configured to display the final score (Walker col 4, In 6-13, col 4, In 29-35, col 4, In 65-col 5, In 3, col 5, In 11-15 and col 5, In 63-65).
Regarding claim 3, Walker discloses the computing device of claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein the first memory is configured to store a predetermined plurality of rules, wherein the first processor is configured to generate a plurality of intermediate scores .and a final score corresponding to each of the intermediate game states, respectively, using the predetermined plurality of rules, wherein the first processor is further configured to influence each of the intermediate scores and the final score in view of a value of the timer, wherein the value of the timer used to influence each of the intermediate scores is determined locally, on the computing device, for each game state starting with a presentation of the initial game state on the display and ending upon the inputs from the user correspond to achieving the final game state, and wherein the display, responsive to the matching, is configured to display the final score (Walker col 4, In 6-13, col 4, In 29-35, col 4, ln 65-col 5, In 3, col 5, In 11-15, col 5, In 63-65 and col 5, In 61-col 6, In 4).
Regarding claim 4, Walker discloses the computing device of claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein the congratulatory message is a visual message or an audio message reproduced at the computing device (Walker col 5, In 61-col 6, In 4).
Regarding claim 5, Walker discloses the computing device of claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein each of the first and second plurality of screen regions is arranged in first and second rows of screen regions on the display, respectively (Walker col 4, In 57-64 - "The timer begins counting down after the player selects/buys a letter from the letter keys 26. Each letter is assigned a corresponding pre-set point value represented on the letter keys 26 (see FIG. 1A), or in a point value chart 40 on the display 16 (see FIG. 2) Common letters (e.g. vowels, t's and s's), cost the player more points. Once a letter has been purchased/chosen, the selected letter appears in a letter status chart 42 disposed just below the puzzle grid boxes ·28." - FIG. 2 shows that the areas of the screen are arranged in rows.; see also col 4, in 29-35 , col 4, In 65-col 5, In 3).
Independent claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are made obvious by the combination of Walker and Jacobs based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Regarding claim 12, Walker discloses the system of claim 11, Walker further discloses wherein the matching intermediate game state corresponds to a predetermined plurality of words as the current anagram in an unscrambled configuration (Combination of Walker and Jacobs, Walker col 1, In 56-60 and col 4, In 29- 35; Jacobs Fig 1, 8 – 9, 14 – 15)).
Regarding claim 13, Walker discloses the system of claim 11, Walker further discloses wherein each of the first and second plurality of screen regions is arranged in first and second rows of screen regions on the display, respectively (Walker col 4, In 6-13 , col 4, In 29-35 and col 4, In 65-col 5, In 3).
Regarding claim 15, Walker discloses the system of claim 11, Walker further discloses wherein the reward is selected from the group consisting of an audio message to the user, a visual message to the user, a monetary value stored in the second memory and associated with the user, and a physical token delivered to the user (Walker col 6, In 33-36 - "The central computer 50 may be associated with a managing authority that runs tournaments and contests, wherein the players who attain the highest scores are rewarded with prizes or cash.")
Regarding claim 16, Walker, disclose the system of claim 15, Walker further discloses wherein the visual message is a final score, wherein the first memory is configured to store a predetermined plurality of rules, and wherein the first processor is configured to generate a plurality of intermediate scores and the final score corresponding to each of the intermediate game states, respectively, using the predetermined plurality of rules (Walker col 4, In 6-13, col 4, in 29-35, col 4, in 65-col 5, In 3, col 5, In 11-15, col 5, In 63-65 and col 5, In 61-col 6, In 4).
Regarding claim 17, Walker discloses the system of claim 11, Walker further discloses wherein the server further includes a clock configured to measure a passage of time, and wherein the server, responsive to a predetermined time passing, is configured to provide a new anagram to be the current anagram (Walker col 4, In 18-22, col 4, In 29-35, col 4, in 46-48 and col 5, In 67-col 6, In 4).
Regarding claim 20, Walker discloses the method of claim 19, Walker further discloses comprising:
storing a predetermined plurality of rules in the first memory (Walker col 4, In 6-13, col 4, In 29-35, col 4, In 65-col 5, In 3, col 5, In 11-15, col 5, In 63-65 and col 5, In 61-col 6, In 4); and
generating a plurality of intermediate scores and a final score corresponding to each of the intermediate game states, respectively, using the predetermined plurality of rules, wherein the visual message is the final score (Walker col 4, In 6-13, col 4, In 29-35, col 4, In 65-col 5, In 3, col 5, In 11-15, col 5, In 63-65 and col 5, In 61-col 6, In 4).
Claim(s) 6 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al (US 5,921,864) in view of Jacobs (US 5,860,653) in view of “Sliding Puzzle Leaderboard” by Ypanos posted 12/16/2022 (hereinafter “Ypanos”).
Regarding claim 6, Walker discloses:
a communication interface operatively connected through a network to a plurality of computing devices each associated with a corresponding one of a plurality of users, including the first user; (Walker discloses the use of a central computer (i.e. server) that administers a game to a plurality of users) (Walker 6:8 – 30)
a processor configured to execute a code stored therein to provide the current anagram to be current during a first predetermined time; and (Walker discloses the system providing a current puzzle to a plurality of users that engage in a tournament. Walker discloses the transmitting of at least three puzzles to the plurality of users engaged in the tournament) (Walker 6:8 – 64)
a memory configured to store a solution to the current anagram and to store a first leaderboard of scores of the plurality of users, (Walker discloses the central computer managing the game such as the tournament wherein tournament winners are awarded prizes, thus Walker stores a listing of some sort of the player scores (i.e. leaderboard) and the solutions to the anagram puzzles in order to determine which player correctly answered the anagram) (Walker 6:8 – 30, 45 – 64)
wherein the solution is an unscrambled current anagram, (Walker discloses the solution being an unscrambled anagram) (Walker 4:57 – 5:10)
wherein the processor, through the communication interface, is configured to transmit the current anagram, the solution, and the first predetermined time transmits the current anagram and the solution to each of the plurality of computing devices, (Walker discloses the transmitting of the current puzzle, the solution (i.e. grid boxes that the player fills in that corresponds to the correct solution) and an amount of time to solve the puzzle to the plurality of users) (Walker 6:8 – 30, 45 – 64)
wherein the processor, through the communication interface, is configured to receive scores of the users who attained the solution of the current anagram received solution matching the received current anagram as determined by each computing device associated with a respective user during the first predetermined time, ( Walker discloses the multiple users transmitting their game data such as point scoring back to the central computer) (Walker 6:25 – 30)
Walker fails to disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to populate the first leaderboard with the received scores, and
wherein the processor is configured to transmit the populated first leaderboard to at least a first computing device of the plurality of computing devices including a display configured to display the first leaderboard.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ypanos discloses a puzzle game wherein multiple players compete by means of a leaderboard that is transmitted and displayed on each player’s device, wherein the leaderboard displays usernames , points and elapsed times to solve the puzzles. (Ypanos pages 1-3)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Walker in view of Ypanos to use a known technique to improve similar games in the same way wherein a leaderboard is transmitted and displayed to each client device showing the current standings of the players of the game. This would be beneficial as it would promote a spirit of competition between players as they can see how they rank against other players.
Regarding claim 7,
wherein the memory is configured to store a second leaderboard, wherein the processor, through the communication interface, is configured to receive completion times of the users who attained the solution of the current anagram during the first predetermined time, wherein the processor is configured to populate the second leaderboard with the received completion times, and wherein the processor is configured to transmit the populated second leaderboard to at least a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices including a display configured to display the second leaderboard. (The combination of Walker in view of Ypanos wherein Ypanos teaches the transmission of a first leaderboard to a first user and a second leaderboard to a second user of the multiuser game) (Ypanos pages 1-3)
Regarding claim 8, wherein, in the case that the first predetermined time has expired, the processor is configured to provide a new anagram as the current anagram to be current during a second predetermined time. (Walker teaches wherein, in the case that the first predetermined time has expired, the processor is configured to provide a new puzzle as the current puzzle to be current during a second predetermined time (Walker col 5, In 67-col 6, In 4 - "The game restarts and continues until the five-minute clock has elapsed. After the time period has expired, the player is allotted a specified amount of time to enter the correct solution. The player's score is adjusted to zero {O) if the wrong solution is entered." - The user may start a new game once the timer has run out. This will result in a new puzzle word being presented to the user.; see also col 4, In 18-22 and col 4, In 29- 35)
Regarding claim 9, a clock, wherein the server, using the clock, is configured to initiate a timer measuring time passing during the first predetermined time; wherein the server, responsive to the first predetermined time expiring, is configured to provide the new anagram to be the current anagram, and wherein the server, responsive to the first predetermined time expiring, is configured to determine a second· predetermined time, and wherein the server is configured to reset the timer to measure time passing during the second predetermined time (Walker col 3, In 48-54, col 4, In 18-22, col 4, In 29-35, col 4, In 46-48 and col 5, In 67 - col 6 In 4).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al (US 5,921,864) in view of Jacobs (US 5,860,653) in view of Sliding Puzzle Leaderboard by Ypanos posted 12/16/2022 (hereinafter “Ypanos”) in view of Hughes et al (US 2012/0157177)
Regarding claim 10, Walker fails to disclose explicitly :
wherein each of the first and second predetermined times is a twenty-four hour period, wherein each of the plurality of computing devices is associated with a respective first and second predetermined timer, and wherein the server is further configured to be responsive to a signal from a respective computing device to initiate the timer and measure the passage of time during the first and second predetermined times.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hughes discloses:
wherein each of the first and second predetermined times is a twenty-four hour period, wherein each of the plurality of computing devices is associated with a respective first and second predetermined timer, and wherein the server is further configured to be responsive to a signal from a respective computing device to initiate the timer (Hughes para [0013) - "The contest segments can be fixed durations of equal time, or in some cases certain segments may be different durations of time. The segments can be attributed to a specific date and time (e.g., January 13th at 8:00 pm EST), a range (e.g., sometime between 8:00 pm and 10:00 pm EST), a particular order (e.g., the seventh contest segment) or to a particular event (e.g., halftime of the Super Bowl)."; para [0079] - 'There may be one or more criteria for ending a contest (time 230). For example, the contest may end at a predefined date and time (e.g., midnight on February 1 ). at which time the participant (or team of participants) having performed the best (e.g., visited the most sites, found the most target objects, completed the most puzzles, etc.) is declared the winner. In other cases, the contest may continue until a participant meets a contest objective. In some embodiments, if no participant meets the contest objective by a particular time, the prize may be "rolled over" into a new contest."; para [0095] - "Examples of design parameters that may be used to define the contest include date/time parameters such as a start date/time, end date/time, and/or duration, prize type (money, discounts, goods, services, trips, etc.), prize characteristics (progressive, constant), contest hints, hint locations (within a web site, media file, and/or on a web page), visual characteristics of the hints, and/or the web sites/domains in which the hints are placed."; para [0156] - "The contestant interacts with the puzzle (STEP 1210), and at various intervals (either timed or based on user commands) the contest component determines of the current state of the puzzle matches a predefined solution (STEP 1215)"; The duration of the contest may be any predetermined time, such as 24 hours.), during the first and second predetermined times (para [0013], [0079], [0095] and [0156]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Walker in view of Hughes to use a known technique to improve similar games in the same way to specify that the period of time is a 24 hour period with respect to the timer. This would be beneficial as it would provide as many users as possible a chance to solve the puzzle and attempt to get the best time to solve a game at a time that is convenient with their busy schedules.
Claim(s) 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al (US 5,921,864) in view of Jacobs (US 5,860,653) in view of Dohring et al (US 2014/0248597).
Regarding claim 14, Walker discloses the system of claim 11,
Walker does not disclose wherein the input device and the display are integrated in a touchscreen.
However, Dohring does teach wherein the input device and the display are integrated in a touchscreen (Dohring para [0093] - "In some embodiments, the input device is a touch screen or a multi-touch screen. In other-embodiments, the input device is a microphone to capture voice or other sound input."; para [0127] - "In some embodiments, puzzles also include, by way of non-limiting examples, crosswords, Sudoku, and anagrams.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the-art to disclose wherein the input device and the display are integrated in a touchscreen, as taught by Dohring to the system of Walker, as it would allow the system to take input form a touchscreen device, thus providing an intuitive and convenient manner of providing input by a user (see Dohring para [0093] and [01271).
Regarding claim 18, Walker discloses the system of claim 17,
Walker further discloses for each predetermined time passing (col 4, ln 46- 48).
Walker does not disclose wherein the first memory is configured to store a streak value, wherein the first processor is configured to count a current anagram solved by the user, and configured to store the number of-counted solved anagrams as the streak value·, and wherein the display is configured to display the streak value to the user.
However, Dohring does teach wherein the first memory is configured to store a streak value, wherein the first processor is configured to count a current anagram solved by the user (Dohring para [0084] -"The digital processing device comprises an operating system configured to perform executable instructions, a memory device, a display, a sound output device, and an input device, and is characterized as being suitable for use by the child."; para (0141] - "In some embodiments, the educational system automatically determines the appropriate skill level for a particular child based on, by way of nonlimiting examples, age, level of subject, performance in previously completed activities, or the number of times the child has completed the activity."; para [0147] - "In some embodiments, the progress displays indicate the number of times each activity has been completed. In some embodiments, the number of times each activity has been completed is represented, by way of non-limiting examples, as a number, a percentage, a color, a shape, or by an icon such as a star, checkmark, dot, or smiley face."; see also para [0127]), and configured to store the number of counted solved anagrams as the streak value, and wherein the display is configured to display the streak value to the user (para [0084], [0127], [0141] and [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to disclose wherein the first memory is configured to store a streak value, wherein the first processor is configured to count a current anagram solved by the user, and configured to store the number of counted solved anagrams as the streak value, and wherein the display is configured to display the streak value to the user, as taught by Dohring to the system of Walker, as it would allow the system to determine the reward for the player, as specified by the tenant application (see Dohring para [0084], [0127], [0141] and [0147]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 with respect to the rejection under Walker have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see above rejection in view of Jacobs addressing the amended claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 with respect to the claims being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 the following:
As stated below with regard to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, respectively, the claimed invention of claims 1-20 is directed to an improvement in computer functionality, and such an improvement is shown in the teachings in the specification about how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology to conduct a game played by a user to solve the current anagram, as recited in claims 1-20. Alternatively, such an improvement in computer functionality is shown in the teaching in the specification of a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention, namely, to conduct a game played by a user to solve the current anagram, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. (Remarks page 11).
The Examiner respectfully disagree and notes that the Applicant fails to show what the claimed improvement in computer functionality or computer-related technology is improved by means of the claims. The Applicant alleges that the “improvement” hinges upon improving a computer or other technology by conducting a game played by a user to solve the current anagram which is not an improvement indicative of a practical application. Rather, the Examiner notes that this merely appears to be a variation of rules for conducting an anagram solving game.
Applicant further alleges:
“In addition, as set forth in M.P.E.P. §2106 et seq., although the claimed invention of claims 1-20 may use a generic computer and other components which may not amount to significantly more when considered individually, however when combined, the inventive concept of conducting a game played by a user to solve the current anagram is present in the claimed invention having a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of these and other additional elements. Accordingly, the claimed invention of claims 1-20 recites eligible subject matter, as per BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cited in M.P.E.P. §2106 et seq.” (Remarks page 11 – 12)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that other than the mere allegation, the Applicant fails to show how the utilizing of generic computing elements when combined are non-generic and non-conventional and thus are reciting eligible subject matter. This same reasoning applies to the Applicants arguments found on Remarks pages 12 -13 wherein the Applicant further lists the various generic and conventional computing elements in detail. The Examiner notes that it is clear that these elements are merely be utilized for their generic, conventional functionality such as processors processing data, receive inputs, generate outputs, or displays to display data.
Applicant further states:
“On page 24 of the Office Action, it is stated that "The Examiner respectfully notes that the Applicant is mistaken in applying this definition defined in 35 U.S.C. 201(f) as applying to the PEG analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 as it applies to the 'Evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception'.The definition under 35 U.S.C. 201(f) does not have a bearing on Step 2A, Prong 2." (emphasis added).
Applicant respectfully submits that the definition of "practical application" under 35 U.S.C. §201(f) does indeed have bearing on Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the Examiners position on this point is clear from the previous office action. The Applicant argues that the claimed invention meets the ‘practical application’ standard as defined in 35 U.S.C. 201(f). This argument is unpersuasive. The in § 201(f) is statutory language specific to Chapter 18 of Title 35, concerning federal funding rights and the commercial ‘utilization’ of inventions. This is clearly evident in 35 U.S.C. 201 Definitions as it states clearly “As used in this chapter-“. It does not govern the subject matter eligibility analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101. For the purposes of Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, “practical application” refers to the integration of a judicial exception into a technological context set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The mere fact that an invention could be manufactured or operated (the § 201(f) standard) does not mean the claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Thus the Applicant’s arguments (Remarks pages 13 – 15) based upon this misapplication of the definitions found in § 201(f) are rendered moot. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Regarding Step 2B of the analysis, the Applicant argues “Therefore, claims 1-20 recite displaying messages or leaderboards, or providing a reward to a user, respectively, which are operations and results which are significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), since the claimed invention of claims 1-20 has a real-world, actual, and physical effect beyond any abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1-20 meet Step 2B.” (Remarks pages 15 – 16). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite the use of addition elements that amount to well-understood, routine and convention activity such as receiving data from a server, making comparisons of data and triggering a display of a message (such as a congratulatory message) by means of processors, servers, memories and displays by means of their conventional functions. When looking at the elements individually and as an ordered combination they add nothing to the abstract idea other than the instruction to “apply it” using generic computer technology. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached on (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1/10/2025
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715