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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The specification is objected to for reciting reference number 130 when referring to input/output (I/O) devices.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 is unclear in that it recites “the database engine”. The term lacks proper antecedent basis.
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) 1-4, 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouchard US 20110127724 in view of Wilson US 5029871.
Regarding claim 1, Bouchard discloses a game board, comprising:
a game board (1) capable of retaining at least one dart thrown at a front surface (3) of the game board ([0031]), the game board partitioned into a playing card value with corresponding suits (Fig. 1).
However, Bouchard does not teach that a plurality of segments each representing a playing card value, each of the plurality of segments are divided into four sub-segments each corresponding to a suit of the playing card value, and a suit key positioned on the front surface of the game board.
Wilson teaches a board game comprising a plurality of segments (quadrants) corresponding to a suit of the playing cards and a plurality of sub-segments each representing a playing card value. Wilson teaches in order to play standard card games (col. 1 ln. 9). Additionally, it has been held that the mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification. See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the game board as taught by Bouchard by utilizing the reverse layout as taught by Wilson in order to play standard card games on a game board.
It has been held that for an apparatus claim, matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). Here, the suit key is a design aspect of they game board and serves no mechanical function. Therefore, it cannot be used to distinguish a claimed invention over the prior art, and it is not given any patentable weight.
Regarding claims 2-3, Bouchard further discloses that the suits comprise a spade, a heart, a club, and a diamond and that the playing card value is displayed on the front surface.
Regarding claim 4, Bouchard further discloses that the game board is electronic ([0047]).
Regarding claim 7, Bouchard further discloses that the game board is constructed of wood ([0047]).
Regarding claim 18, Bouchard discloses a system for scoring gameplay on a game board, comprising:
a device ([0047]) comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory, computer readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor upon a user selection, cause the device to: score, via a scoring module, a plurality of user actions performed on a game board, the game board capable of retaining at least one dart (virtual) thrown at a front surface of the game board (the board on the screen).
However, it does not teach that the game board is partitioned into a plurality of segments each representing a playing card value, wherein each of the plurality of segments are divided into four sub-segments each corresponding to a suit of the playing card value; and a suit key positioned on the front surface of the game board. See claim 1 above for a combination with Wilson.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouchard US 20110127724 in view of Wilson US 5029871 as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Assa US 20130244784.
Regarding claim 5, Bouchard further discloses that the electronic game board is in communication with an application program (inherent to run on the electronic devices listed in ([0047]). However, it does not teach that the application program is in communication with a network.
Assa teaches an electronic game board (104) in communication with an application program in communication with a network ([0121], Fig. 2) in order to enable remote play with other users. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic board of Bouchard by utilizing an application program in communication with a network in order to enable remote play with other users.
Regarding claim 6, the combination further teaches that the application program enables a user (104) to compete against other users (102) in communication with the network.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 6 above. Assa further teaches a computer system (Assa, Fig. 2) in operable communication, via a network, to the game board (104), the computer system including a scoring module to receive score data from the game board and process the score for one or more users ([0189]) in order to determine who is winning the game. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the application program as taught by the combination by utilizing a computer system including a scoring module as taught by Assa in order to determine who is winning the game.
Regarding claims 9-10, see claims 2-3 above.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 14, Bouchard further discloses that the scoring module is in operable communication with a display module (the screen of device in [0047]) to display a score of a game played by the one or more users.
Regarding claim 15, Bouchard teaches that the players may use a plurality of methods of play ([0033]). Assa further teaches that the application program is operable to lead the user through a plurality of methods of play ([0118]).
Regarding claim 16, Assa further teaches a database engine (Fig. 2) to store the plurality of methods of play.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745