DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is Christopher.Legendre@uspto.gov.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31 July 2023 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is hereby considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the Abstract, the first sentence should be should be changed to --A multiplication table card game for two or more players.-- (note: the language of the Abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "This disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "This disclosure describes," etc - see MPEP 608.01(b)).
The specification is objected to since it omits description of the drawings as required by 37 CFR 1.74.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application.
These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase "Not Applicable" should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 -1.825 ). A "Sequence Listing" is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required "Sequence Listing" is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 2, “its” should be changed to --a-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 4, line 2, “the” (before “first line”, 1st instance) should be changed to --a-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 4, line 3, “a” (before “suggested”) should be changed --the respective-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice - see claim 3 reciting “respective suggested solution”).
In claim 4, line 4, “the” (before “double”) should be changed to --a-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 4, line 4, “the” (before “sum”) should be changed to --a-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 4, line 4, “the” (before “rhyme”) should be changed to --a-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 4, line 5, “the” (before “visual”) should be changed to --a-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 4, line 6, “the” (before “calculation”) should be changed to --a-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 4, last line, “method” (2nd instance) should be changed to --of a number-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 4, last line, “method” (1st instance) should be changed to --of small numbers-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
There are no limitations deemed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 3, the term “objective” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite since it 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. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 4.
In claim 3, the term “simple” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite since it 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. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 4.
In claim 4, the recitation of “such as” renders the intended scope of the claim unclear (see MPEP 2173.05(d)).
In claim 4, the recitation of “for example” renders the intended scope of the claim unclear (see MPEP 2173.05(d)).
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frieman (US 2004/0232618; cited in an IDS).
In reference to claim 1
Frieman discloses:
A times table card game (i.e., the multiplication deck - see pars. [0058] through [0059]), CHARACTERIZED BY comprising 64 cards (i.e., 84 or 86) with its respective rules and game tips (i.e., the information printed on the cards amounts to rules and game tips).
In reference to claim 2
Frieman discloses:
The times table card game according to claim 1, CHARACTERIZED in that its cards each contain (see par. [0058]) a multiplication of two numbers, the numbers used (see par. [0058]) in the game are 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9, each of these numbers is individually multiplied (see par. [0058]) by the numbers 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, as in the times tables.
In reference to claim 3 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Frieman discloses:
The times table card game according to claim 2, CHARACTERIZED in that each card contains a multiplication with two numbers and its respective suggested solution, the rules of the game are objective and simple, both for children and for adults.
Regarding the instant limitations, it is noted that where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01. The indicia on the playing cards are functional limitations, rules, or instructions that have no physical tie to the substrate. Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Any differences residing in meaning and information conveyed by printed matter are not considered patentable subject matter. No patentable weight is given to the printed matter unless there is an unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See MPEP 2111.05. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate, the examiner does not find there to be an unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate as the printed matter is merely conveying information to the players in the game in an obvious and routine matter. As such, no patentable weight is given to the claimed printed matter.
In reference to claim 4 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Frieman discloses:
The times table card game according to claim 3, CHARACTERIZED in that each card contains on the first line a multiplication question, beneath the first line, on each card, there is a suggested solution, the suggested solutions use methods such as the double of a number, the sum of small numbers, the rhyme or sonority of multiplying two numbers, the visual memory of two equal numbers multiplied, the calculation method of multiplying with the number 9, some cards have the solution of the multiplication with the use of two methods, for example, the double method and the sum method.
Regarding the instant limitations, it is noted that where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01. The indicia on the playing cards are functional limitations, rules, or instructions that have no physical tie to the substrate. Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Any differences residing in meaning and information conveyed by printed matter are not considered patentable subject matter. No patentable weight is given to the printed matter unless there is an unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See MPEP 2111.05. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate, the examiner does not find there to be an unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate as the printed matter is merely conveying information to the players in the game in an obvious and routine matter. As such, no patentable weight is given to the claimed printed matter.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hata (US 5,242,171).
In reference to claim 1
Hata discloses:
A times table card game, CHARACTERIZED BY comprising 64 cards (see col.2:ll.13-42 establishing various configurations in which there is at least 64 cards - e.g.: a configuration in which each number from 1 to 9 is represented on four cards (“more than three cards” - col.2:ll.24-25) and in which three 0 cards are included (see col.2:ll.39-40), which would total 66 cards (i.e., 36 cards corresponding to “1 to 9”, 27 cards corresponding to “10 to 81”, and 3 cards corresponding to “0”) with its respective rules and game tips (i.e., the information printed on the cards amounts to rules and game tips).
In reference to claim 2
Hata discloses:
The times table card game according to claim 1, CHARACTERIZED in that its cards each contain a multiplication of two numbers (see col.2:ll.13-42), the numbers used (see col.2:ll.13-42) in the game are 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9, each of these numbers is individually multiplied (see col.2:ll.13-42) by the numbers 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, as in the times tables.
In reference to claim 3 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Hata discloses:
The times table card game according to claim 2, CHARACTERIZED in that each card contains a multiplication with two numbers and its respective suggested solution (see e.g. Figure 1A), the rules of the game are objective and simple, both for children and for adults.
In reference to claim 4 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Hata discloses:
The times table card game according to claim 3, CHARACTERIZED in that each card contains on the first line a multiplication question (i.e., “3 x 8 = 24” - Figure 1A), beneath the first line, on each card, there is a suggested solution (i.e., an alternate solution - “4 x 6 = 24” - Figure 1A), the suggested solutions use methods such as the double of a number, the sum of small numbers, the rhyme or sonority of multiplying two numbers (note: “4 x 6” is a “rhyme” of “3 x 8” since they both equate to “24”; the cards can include “6 x 6”, which equals “36”, thereby providing a rhyme when spoken), the visual memory of two equal numbers multiplied (note: the cards can include the same number being multiplied by itself, which provides a visual that can be memorized), the calculation method of multiplying with the number 9, some cards have the solution of the multiplication with the use of two methods, for example, the double method and the sum method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone number is (571)270-3364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-5 PM ET.
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 Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745