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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 11/21/2025. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-14 remain pending, Claims 2-14 have been newly added, and no Claims have been currently canceled. Currently, Claim 1 has been amended.
The amendment to claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the corresponding claim objection. The claim objection has been withdrawn.
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 2-3 and 9-10 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 term “a degree of comparative difficulty” in claims 2-3 and 9-10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a degree of comparative difficulty” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, paragraph 133 of Applicant’s published specification states, “In addition to receiving prospective participant registration/identification information, the game entry receiving device 235 may be usable to interact with the user's gaming device 280 to a user selection of one or more of the plurality of lexicons and Wordios contained therein, and to select, for example, from a matrix that includes a plurality of potential opponents.” However, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of “a degree of comparative difficulty.”
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected as they depend from rejected claims 2 and 9.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-14 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of […] displaying information regarding the multi-player word logic game; and […] direct display of the information […] including information defining lexicon parameters, event parameters, and a plurality of opposing players; receive user selection of a lexicon and an individual opposing player among the plurality of opposing players […]; receive a first word logic puzzle from the user and a second word logic puzzle from the selected individual opposing player; receive a first solution to the first word logic puzzle from the selected individual opposing player; assign a first point value to the first solution according to a stored scheme; receive a second solution to the second word logic puzzle from the user; assign a second point value to the second solution according to the stored scheme; compare the first point value and the second point value to determine a winner of the word logic game; and direct output to the user of a result of the determination. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1 (substantially similar to claim 8). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of “A system for implementing multi-player word logic game, comprising: a display device […]; and a gamification device that is configured to: direct display of the information on the display device […]; […] transmitted from a user-controlled electronic device; […]; […]; […]; […]; […]; […]; and […]”. These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to generate data, compute a result, and return the result to a user amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
Additionally, the specification makes it clear that the device for implementing the multi-player word game can be implemented on a generic computer.
[0005] Today, there is further expansion in the media by which to reach the consuming public, including via delivery of all versions of advertising-supported media to individual users' personal electronic devices. These include desktop, portable and tablet computers, mobile cellular telephones, smart phones, and all manner of, for example, fixed-location changeable electronic displays...
As such, the device, for implementing the abstract idea, may require no more than generic, conventional, and well-known computer devices such as a general purpose computer (as evidenced in Para. 5).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Thus, Claims 1 and 8 are rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 2-7 and 9-14 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 1 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-7 and 9-14 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1, Claims 2-7 and 9-14 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Small (US 2014/0106835 A1) (henceforth, “Small”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Small teaches a system and method for implementing multi-player word logic game (e.g., Internet-based, on-line, word game for building words on an electronic grid, wherein the game can be played with one, two, or more players competing against themselves or against all of the other Internet players in Para. 28), comprising:
a display device for displaying information regarding the multi-player word logic game (e.g., player consoles 195, 201, 203 in Fig. 28 and Para. 121-122 and home screen in Fig. 1 and Para. 106); and
a gamification device (e.g., game implemented on a system server 193 in Fig. 28 and Para. 121) that is configured to:
direct display of the information on the display device including information defining lexicon parameters (e.g., a fourth screen 115, which displays "play-in-English" and "play-in-Spanish" buttons (i.e., selectable vocabularies of differing languages) in Para. 107), event parameters (e.g., prior to entering the play screen, a "letter values" button 125 and an instructions button 127 appear at the bottom left of the screen (i.e., for displaying event parameters) in Para. 108), and a plurality of opposing players (e.g., challenging a plurality of friend on Facebook in Para. 115);
receive user selection of a lexicon (e.g., selecting play in English in Para. 107) and an individual opposing player among the plurality of opposing players transmitted from a user-controlled electronic device (e.g., challenging a friend in Para. 115);
receive a first word logic puzzle from the user (e.g., each player is given the same electronic grid and the same tiles to play (i.e., a first logic puzzle) in Paras. 29-34) and a second word logic puzzle from the selected individual opposing player (e.g., each player is given the same electronic grid and the same tiles to play (i.e., a second logic puzzle) in Paras. 29-34);
receive a first solution to the first word logic puzzle from the selected individual opposing player (e.g., a game is ended by the election of a player, who has completed building his/her words, and who wants his/her results submitted for a final score in Para. 39);
assign a first point value to the first solution according to a stored scheme (e.g., instructions/rules for scoring (i.e., stored scheme) and player’s scoring report in Para. 38, Para. 108, and Para. 112);
receive a second solution to the second word logic puzzle from the user (e.g., a game is ended by the election of a player, who has completed building his/her words, and who wants his/her results submitted for a final score in Para. 39);
assign a second point value to the second solution according to the stored scheme (e.g., instructions/rules for scoring (i.e., stored scheme) and player’s scoring report in Para. 38, Para. 108, and Para. 112);
compare the first point value and the second point value to determine a winner of the word logic game (e.g., score value and who ranks in the top 5 scores and/or rank within the top 5 scores in Para. 34-35 and Para. 112); and
direct output to the user of a result of the determination (e.g., scores may be posted to a respective FACEBOOK wall or game results are published in Abstract, Para. 34, Para. 36, Para. 132).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Small teaches the lexicon parameters include a degree of comparative difficulty of a vocabulary of available words contained within the lexicon to inform the user selection of the lexicon (e.g., English or Spanish language words in Para. 107).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Small teaches the stored scheme accounts for the degree of comparative difficulty in assigning the first point value and the second point value (e.g., scoring method and mix of letters in relation to selected language in Para. 31, Para. 38, Para. 103, and Para. 107).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Small teaches the gamification device being further configured to record and store, for the user and the plurality of players, a record of interaction with the gamification device (e.g., database for storing score information in Para. 131).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Small teaches the displayed information defining the plurality of players including at least an indication of the record of interaction with the gamification device for each of the displayed plurality of players (Para. 131).
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) 6-7 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small in view of Narayanan (US 2009/0089157 A1) (henceforth, “Narayanan”).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Small teaches direct display of advertising content (e.g., a business can promote its trade names and/or products to be shown on various game screens, marketing messages could be shown on the crossword grid where a game selection is made, video advertisements can be shown and coupons could be distributed, and virtually any type of advertising could be created in Para. 42).
But Small although teaching the display of advertising content (Para. 42), lacks in explicitly teaching: direct display of a query regarding the displayed advertising content; request user input in response to the displayed query; accept a user responsive input; evaluate a correctness of the user responsive input; and direct output of an indication of a bonus for an evaluated correct response. In a related disclosure, Narayanan teaches rendering of a user avatar at the landing zone, wherein the landing zone may be an advertiser sponsored area within the virtual environment, and the landing zone may be related to one or more of advertiser products, objects and trademarks including where those products/objects/trademarks are placed in the virtual environment, including placement with relation to the user avatar (see abstract). More particularly, Narayanan teaches direct display of a query regarding the displayed advertising content (e.g., login/drop initiation in Para. 23 and Para. 28); request user input in response to the displayed query (e.g., login in Para. 24); accept a user responsive input (Para. 24); evaluate a correctness of the user responsive input (e.g., correct login in Para. 24); and direct output of an indication of a bonus for an evaluated correct response (e.g., compensation in Para. 28). Narayanan states that by “advertisers may be assured of receiving additional traffic since they get avatars to land directly to their areas” and “since the users, via their avatars are also profiled to have a particular interest in the services offered by the brand, the brand can more effectively engage the avatar” (Para. 30). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the game of Small to include the brand engagement features of Narayanan in order to provide increased benefits to players and advertisers, as beneficially taught by Narayanan.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Small as modified by Narayanan teaches the displayed information defining event parameters includes a time limit for receiving the second solution to the second word logic puzzle from the user (Small – e.g., a clock 137 and time limit for the game in Para. 109), and the directed output of the indication of the bonus for the evaluated correct response is additional time added to the time limit for the user (Narayanan - e.g., compensation in Para. 28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “The Office Action, further on page 2, rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §101, as allegedly being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant believes that the amendments to at least independent claim 1 render that claim, and the claims newly depending therefrom, statutory as adding a concrete output, i.e., significantly more than simply implementing an abstract idea as asserted by the Office Action.
This is particularly so with providing a real-world output from the features of the claim that is significantly more than simply an abstract idea, in a form, for example, of a mathematical algorithm.
Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §101, as allegedly being directed to non-statutory subject matter are respectfully requested.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regard to the argument that the claimed invention is patent-eligible because the claims add a concrete output, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. “[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible” (see p. 8 of OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)). "While the claimed system and method certainly purport to accelerate the process of analyzing audit log data, the speed increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself." (see p. 8 of Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. The additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, such as, directing an output. Unlike in DDR in which the claimed invention solved the business challenge of retaining website visitors that is particular to the internet, here the claimed invention amounts to merely reciting the performance of a business practice along with the requirement to perform it on the internet. The claimed invention here is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. “We caution, however, that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent” (see p. 22 of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Thus, the claimed invention encompasses the process of rules/steps for playing a game including: selecting a lexicon and an opposing player, receiving puzzle solutions, assigning point values for said solutions, comparing point values and determining a winner. These steps are carried out by conventional and well-known components. However, each of these elements defines steps of game rules in conjunction with field of use and/or extra-solution activities, which are not patent eligible under the framework set forth by the Supreme Court in at least the Alice decision, nor under the recently updated 2019 PEG guidelines outlined above. In light of the above analysis, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claimed invention fails to demonstrate patent-eligibility.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached at (571)272-7673. 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715