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 .
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 15-20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “down” in claim 15 is used by the claim to mean “up,” while the accepted meaning is “down.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Figures 8a and 8b of applicant clearly demonstrate upward ball movement, which contradicts with the claim limitation “down”. For examining purposes, the examiner is analyzing the claim based on an upward movement of the ball, as indicated by Figures 8a and 8b of applicant.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of the claim(s) has/have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 15 includes limitations directed towards “assigning a player or a team to a plurality of balls from the game of claim 1; selecting a first player to roll a ball down the ramp, from the first end to the second end, wherein the ball travels a length of the ramp and exits the ramp to travel in attempt to reach a middle portion of at least one ring; rolling the ball; scoring the roll based on the number of points assigned to the ring in which the ball landed; wherein if the ball fails to land within the center portion of a ring, no points are awarded; repeating the steps with successive players; wherein the game ends when one player or team reaches a preset number of points.”
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 16 includes limitations directed towards “wherein each player or team rolls all of their assigned balls before the turn is passed to the next player or team.”
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 17 includes limitations directed towards “wherein each player or team has their own ramp, rings, or both.”
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 18 includes limitations directed towards “wherein all players roll simultaneously.”
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 19 includes limitations directed towards “wherein the winner is determined by the player or team that has the highest number of points after a preset amount of time has elapsed.”
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 20 includes limitations directed towards “wherein the winner is determined by the player or team that has the most balls in the center portion of the rings at the end of the game.”
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, each of the claim(s) recited above recite an abstract idea.
Further, the dependent claim(s), if present, merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Prong Two Considerations
This/these judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application because the examiner does not find one of the following to exist:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Furthermore, limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of the claims indicated above (and their respective dependent Claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally do not link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims indicated above (and their respective dependent claims) do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do the additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the above identified claim(s) (and their respective dependent claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the claim(s) indicated above (or their dependents) include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Prong Two Considerations (as indicated above) are not met and the examiner does not find a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to exist in the claim(s) to render the claim(s) significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, none of the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the claim(s) indicated above (and their dependent claims) are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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.
Claims 1,2,4,5,7,8-11,13-16,19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 20210252362 A1) in view of Hauck (US 20200215423 A1) further in view of Dyor (US 10549162 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Allen teaches a game defined by: a pair of supports (112) that cooperate with a runway (108) to form a ramp (102) (Fig. 1; Abstract) with a first elevation at a first end (116) and a second elevation at a second end (118), wherein the elevation between the first ramp end and the second ramp end differs (Fig. 1; paragraph 39); a runway (108) defined by opposed first (116) and second (118) ends (Fig. 1), a top surface, and a pair of side edges (Fig. 1); a plurality of rings (element-104; paragraph 46); a plurality of balls (106).
Allen does not teach wherein each support includes a slot that spans the distance from a first end of the top face to a second end of the top face, and wherein each side edge of the runway is positioned within a slot, and wherein each support includes a horizontal bottom face, a curvilinear opposed top face, a front face with a first height and a rear face with a second height that is greater than the first height, and a single side face.
However, Hauck teaches wherein each support (60) of a game includes a slot that spans the distance from a first end of the top face to a second end of the top face, wherein each side edge of a board is positioned within a slot (Figs. 6 and 13; paragraph 47), and wherein each support includes a horizontal bottom face, an opposed top face, a front face with a first height and a rear face with a second height that is greater than the first height, and a single side face (Figs. 6 and 13). Hauck does not teach a curvilinear top face of each support. However, Dyor teaches a curvilinear ramp (“first curve”, Figs. 1 and 5) (column 3, lines 16-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute support-112 of Allen with a pair of supports as taught by Hauck, and additionally adjusting the shape of the support taught by Hauck to adopt the curvilinear slope taught by Dyor, to enable inserting runway-108 of Allen into the slots of Hauck to obtain a ball rolling apparatus that enables a ball to smoothly roll from a first lower end to a higher lower end, ultimately exiting the inclined ramp to reach a ring.
Regarding claim 2, Allen teaches a storage device (502) (Fig. 5) to house the pair of supports, plurality of rings, and plurality of balls (paragraph 65).
Regarding claim 4, modified Allen, teaches wherein the top face is sloped (Figs. 6 and 13; paragraph 47 of Hauck).
Regarding claim 5, modified Allen teaches wherein the slope of the top face is about 30-70 degrees (paragraph 47 of Hauk).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Allen teaches wherein the second elevation (length of element-112) (Fig. 1) is about 5-25 inches (paragraph 37, second sentence, “2 feet”).
Regarding claim 8, Allen does not teach wherein the slot has a thickness of about 0.1-0.5 inches. However, Hauck teaches slots (Figs. 6 and 13) with a particular thickness that was not disclosed (paragraph 47) and was used to mount a game board. See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), for which the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the runway of Allen with supports having slots as taught by Hauck and a curvilinear shape as taught by Dyor, with a thickness of the slot sufficient to support the insertion of the runway-108 of Allen to provide a portable game playing apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, Allen teaches wherein the rings (104) are permanently attached to each other (paragraph 44, last two sentences).
Regarding claim 10, Allen teaches wherein the rings (104) are permanently attached to each other and the top surface of the runway (102) (paragraph 43, first sentence). The examiner is relying on BRI as the rings 104 are disclosed as being connected to ramp 102 which examiner interprets to read on “permanently attached”.
Regarding claim 11, Allen teaches wherein each ring (104) can be independently positioned relative to the other rings (paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 13, Allen teaches about 2-10 rings (104) (Fig. 1; paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 14, Allen teaches wherein 1 ball (paragraph 51) differs from at least one other ball in exterior appearance (paragraph 26, second half).
Regarding claim 15, Allen teaches a method of playing a game, the method comprising: assigning a player or a team to a plurality of balls (106) (paragraph 51) from the game of claim 1; selecting a first player to roll a ball down the ramp (paragraph 51, sentence 3), from the first end (116) to the second end (118), wherein the ball (106) travels a length of the ramp and exits the ramp to travel in attempt to reach a middle portion of at least one ring (paragraph 49); rolling the ball; scoring the roll based on the number of points assigned to the ring in which the ball landed (paragraph 50); wherein if the ball fails to land within the center portion of a ring, no points are awarded (paragraph 51, sentence 4); repeating the steps with successive players (paragraph 51, sentence 3); wherein the game ends when one player or team reaches a preset number of points (paragraph 52, sentence 5).
Regarding claim 16, Allen does not explicitly teach wherein each player or team rolls all of their assigned balls (106) before the turn is passed to the next player or team. However, one player completing their turn by finishing their pieces before another player proceeds is not a novel concept in a game method; such an example can be found in the common game of bowling. This step of rolling all assigned balls before passing to the next player or team is inherent for games that involve taking turns by players. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the method of Allen with an alternative method of game play commonly used in the art, such as one player completing their game pieces before the next player takes a turn, to enable a different experience while playing the game.
Regarding claim 19, Allen teaches wherein the winner is determined by the player or team that has the highest number of points after a preset amount of time has elapsed (paragraph 52, sentence 6).
Regarding claim 20, Allen teaches wherein the winner is determined by the player or team that has the most balls in the center portion of the rings at the end of the game (paragraphs 51-52).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Hauck, further in view of Dyor, further in view of Cloud (US 8376871 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Allen does not teach wherein each support has a length of about 5-25 inches and a width of about 1-5 inches. However, regarding the length of the supports, Cloud teaches wherein the length of the side support (23) is 24 inches long (column 4, lines 18-20). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to make the length of each support to match that taught by Cloud. Regarding the width of the supports, Hauck teaches supports with a particular width that was not disclosed (Figs. 6 and 13). However, see In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), for which the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the runway of Allen with a pair of supports as taught by Hauck, with each support having sufficient dimensions to support a length of the ramp as taught by Cloud, to stably and portably support the ramp and runway surface when rolling a ball up the ramp.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Hauck, further in view of Dyor, further in view of Wood (US 5529304 A).
Regarding claim 6, Allen does not teach wherein the first elevation (116) is about 0.1-3 inches. However, simply placing the runway of Allen on the ground would provide a first elevation of near 0.1-3 in. due to the mere thickness of the material used for the runway, as Allen teaches use of a flexible material (paragraph 64) that can be rolled for storage. Furthermore, Wood teaches wherein the first elevation (116) is about 0.1-3 inches. Referring to Figs. 1 and 2 of Wood, element-28 is carpet, which typically has a thickness of 0.25-0.75 in. upon conducting a general search, element-26 is 1/8 in. thick according to Wood, element-22 is 1/8 in. thick according to Wood, and element-20 is 0.5 in. thick according to Wood, which equals a total of 1.5 in. maximum (Figs. 1-3; column 2, lines 38-58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide Allen with a first elevation ranging between 0.1-3 in., as implicitly taught by Allen and explicitly taught by Wood, to enable the ball to roll from a lower elevation, that is near the ground, to a higher elevation to enable a ball to go airborne.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Hauck, further in view of Dyor, further in view of Bahash (US 11065519 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Allen does not teach each support comprising a plurality of extensions positioned to contact the side edges of the runway. However, Bahash teaches the support comprising a plurality of extensions (142) positioned to contact the side edges of the runway (Fig. 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide modified Allen with the extensions taught by Bahash to enable a flexible length of the runway during game play.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Hauck, further in view of Dyor, further in view of Thiemann (US 20030116917 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Allen does not teach wherein each player or team has their own ramp, rings, or both. However, Thiemann teaches each player (Fig. 4) (elements 2 and 4) having their own playing equipment, such as balls and targets (elements 6 and 7) (Fig. 4; paragraph 43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide Allen with a duplication of the playing equipment, as taught by Thiemann, to enable players to simultaneously perform.
Regarding claim 18, Allen does not teach wherein all players roll simultaneously. However, Thiemann teaches all players throwing the balls (4) simultaneously (Fig. 3, paragraph 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the method of Allen with the alternative game method of Thiemann, such as multiple players simultaneously rolling the ball, to enable a more engaging environment for all the players at the same time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABA ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0268. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
/SABA N. ALI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711