thNotice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: “user’s” should be “users” in line 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In this case, claim 4 is directed to an idea in the form of rules for playing a game. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because cards, projectiles (bags), and targets (paddles) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they are routine in target games. This claim is essentially an abstract idea in the form of rules for participating in/playing a game.
Under Step 2A Prong i, claim 4 recites the limitations of drawing from a deck of cards, throwing bags at targets, and alternating turns, which are directed towards the abstract idea of organizing human activity. These steps describe the concept of steps and rules for playing/participating in a game. This is similar to the concepts held to be abstract by the courts in In re Brown, 645 Fed. Appx. 1014 (Fed Cir. 2016). Non-precedential with opinion. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Webb, 609 Fed. Appx. 643 (Fed. Cir. 2015), where steps for performing a task and steps for playing a game were held to be patent ineligible. As stated supra, the examiner interprets the limitations to claim 4 to fall under methods of organizing human activity so that the above-identified claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong ii, the abstract idea in claim 4 is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in combination with the above abstract idea is merely using known means (cards, projectiles, targets, etc.…) to play a particular game that involves rules to playing the particular game.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements of bags, cards, and targets/paddles are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic functions. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is nothing particular to the bags, cards, and paddles, how they interact, or that makes them specific to this method. They are simply conventional and routine game elements.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 3690664 (hereinafter “Hauke”).
Regarding claim 1, Hauke discloses a game that has a frame (Fig. 3, 8), the frame having a center rod (Fig. 3, 6) with a plurality of paddles (Fig. 3, 5) rotatably connected to the center rod;
wherein each of the plurality of paddles have a first end (Fig. 3, 22) and a second end (Fig. 3, 23) opposing the first end; wherein each first end has a first marking and each second end has a second marking, the first marking being distinct from the second marking (Col. 1, lines 62-67 and Col. 2, lines 1-3);
and wherein each paddle includes an elongated aperture (Fig. 4, 20), with the center rod passing through the elongated aperture to rotatably connect each of the plurality of paddles to the center rod (Col. 2, Lines 44-54).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4486023 (hereinafter “Tomoff”).
Regarding claim 2, Hauke discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent regarding that the game has a deck of cards, each card having a distinct pattern of markings that is coordinated with an orientation of the plurality of paddles. Tomoff discloses a game in an analogous art that has cards (Fig. 1, 10) with colored elements (Fig. 1, 12) that make up different patterns. These patterns on cards correspond to the physical set up of colored targets in the game (Abstract). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide Hauke with the patterned cards of Tomoff to randomize initial conditions for game set up and increase entertainment.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4116443 (hereinafter “Dorfman”).
Regarding claim 3, Hauke discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose a game having a plurality of bean bags, instead citing balls (Fig. 1, 18). Dorfman, in the analogous art of target games, discloses bean bags (Fig. 1, 40) for throwing at pivoting targets. Thus, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the plurality of balls of Hauke with the plurality of bean bags of Dorfman as a matter of using known projectile means to strike a target.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauke in view of Tomoff and Dorfman.
Regarding claim 4, Hauke discloses and method for playing a game by the first user and second user trying to hit the plurality of rotatable paddles to hit the paddles to cause the paddles to rotate in an attempt to match the user’s pattern (Col. 2, lines 64-67 and Col. 3, lines 1-4, the pattern being all paddles with the specific user’s insignia on top) and repeating alternating attempts (Col. 2, lines 3-4) by the first and second users until one of the users causes the paddles to match the pattern.
However, Hauke does not disclose a method for a game that involves throwing one or more bags, and instead cites “rolling a ball” for gameplay (Abstract). Dorfman, in the same field of endeavor of target games, discloses a method for a game that involves “tossing bags against selective paddles” (Abstract). Throwing bags accomplishes the same task as rolling balls to move pivotable targets. Thus, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the plurality of balls of Hauke with the plurality of bean bags of Dorfman as a matter of using known projectile means to strike a target.
Hauke also does not discloses a method for a game that involves drawing, by each of a first user and a second user, a card from a deck of cards, wherein each card has a distinct pattern of markings that is coordinated with an orientation of a plurality of paddles that are rotatably connected to a frame. Tomoff, in the analogous art of target games, describes a method in which a card with a pattern is drawn and is used to set up the initial pattern of the physical targets (Col. 2, 15-21). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide Hauke with the patterned cards of Tomoff to randomize initial conditions for game set up and increase entertainment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711