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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 is missing the term “the” preceding “electronic badge”. 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a mechanism for providing an activity pack to the child” in claim 11.
“a mechanism for awarding a physical badge to the child upon completion of the activity” in claim 11.
“a mechanism for connecting the physical badge to the backpack” in claim 11.
“a mechanism for awarding an electronic badge to the child upon completion of the activity” in claim 11.
“a mechanism for connecting the electronic badge to the webpage” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
It is noted that the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function in “a mechanism for connecting the physical badge to the backpack” in claim 11 is found in at least para. 24 of the specification which examples a hook and loop type of mechanism, a stitching or sewing engagement between physical badge and attachment section of the backpack, or any common or reasonable method for connecting physical badge with backpack.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Interpretation
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 11-15 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.
Claim limitation “a mechanism for providing an activity pack to the child” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is silent what this mechanism is within the system. It is noted that dependent claim 12 and the specification each recite that the non-descript mechanism includes mailing the activity pack to the child, but it is silent regarding what this structure within the system is that performs the function of mailing. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 12-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a mechanism for awarding a physical badge to the child upon completion of the activity” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is silent what this mechanism is within the system. It is noted that dependent claim 13 and the specification each recite that the non-descript mechanism includes mailing the physical badge to the child, but it is silent regarding what this structure within the system is that performs the function of mailing. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 12-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a mechanism for awarding an electronic badge to the child upon completion of the activity” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is silent what this mechanism is within the system. Related language is found in para. 34 of the specification which recites that there is a computer system associated with the webpage. However, it is silent regarding this computer system performing the function of awarding an electronic badge. The disclosure is further silent regarding any electronic means, steps, calculations, or algorithms for determining whether a child has completed an activity or not and identifying which electronic badge to award upon completion. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 12-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a mechanism for connecting the electronic badge to the webpage” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is silent what this mechanism is within the system. Related language is found in para. 34 of the specification which recites that there is a computer system associated with the webpage. However, it is silent regarding this computer system performing the function of connecting the electronic badge to the webpage. Para. 25 recites that an electronic badge associated with the activity is “delivered electronically via a link or QR code or any common mechanism for connecting participant with electronic badge” and that “[o]nce the activity is completed, electronic badge (15) may be digitally placed onto webpage… associated with participant”. However, the disclosure is silent regarding any electronic means, steps, calculations, or algorithms for determining whether a child has completed an activity or not, identifying which electronic badge to award upon completion of that activity, and how the electronic badge is “digitally placed onto the webpage” after it is “connected with the participant”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 12-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a mechanism for providing an activity pack to the child” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 12-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a mechanism for awarding a physical badge to the child upon completion of the activity” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 12-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a mechanism for awarding an electronic badge to the child upon completion of the activity” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 12-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a mechanism for connecting the electronic badge to the webpage” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 12-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-20 are 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 including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The instant claims are directed to methods and a product which fall under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A method for motivating children to engage in activities, the method comprising:
(a) providing an activity pack to a child, wherein the activity pack includes at least one instruction associated with an activity to perform;
(b) upon completion of the activity by the child, providing a physical badge to the child, wherein the physical badge is associated with the activity; and
(c) upon completion of the activity, providing an electronic badge to the child, wherein the electronic badge is associated with the activity, wherein the electronic badge is viewable on a webpage associated with the child.
Independent claim 6 recites:
A method for motivating children to engage in activities, the method comprising:
(a) providing an activity pack to a child, wherein the activity pack includes at least one instruction associated with an activity to perform;
(b) upon completion of the activity by the child, disposing a physical badge onto a backpack associated with the child, wherein the physical badge is associated with the activity; and
(c) upon completion of the activity, disposing an electronic badge onto a webpage associated with the child, wherein the electronic badge is associated with the activity.
Independent claim 11 recites:
A system for motivating children to engage in activities, comprising:
(a) a backpack associated with a child;
(b) a webpage associated with the child;
(c) a mechanism for providing an activity pack to the child, wherein the activity pack includes at least one instruction associated with an activity to perform, wherein following the at least one instructions results in completion of the activity;
(d) a mechanism for awarding a physical badge to the child upon completion of the activity;
(e) a mechanism for connecting the physical badge to the backpack;
(f) a mechanism for awarding an electronic badge to the child upon completion of the activity; and
(g) a mechanism for connecting the electronic badge to the webpage.
Independent claim 6 recites:
A method for motivating children to engage in activities, the method comprising:
(a) providing an activity pack to a child, wherein the activity pack includes at least one instruction associated with an activity to perform;
(b) inputting a proof of purchase of the activity pack to a webpage associated with the child;
(c) upon inputting the proof of purchase of the activity pack to the webpage, unlocking a first version of an electronic badge on the webpage, wherein the electronic badge is associated with the activity; and
(d) upon completion of the activity, changing the first version of the electronic badge on the website to a second version of the electronic badge.
All of the foregoing underlined elements identified above, both individually and as a whole, amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). In particular, the steps/functions are directed towards providing and monitoring a reward system for completion of activities which is wholly encompassed in managing personal behavior or interactions between people. The steps/functions of providing/awarding a physical or electronic badge upon completion of an activity, unlocking a version of the badge upon inputting proof purchase, and changing the version of the badge upon completion of an activity also amount to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes as the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind with the aid of pen and paper (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. It is further noted that the mere act of inputting a proof of purchase and then providing the purchased product (i.e., purchasing the activity pack and unlocking a first version of an electronic badge on the webpage, wherein the electronic badge is associated with the activity) is also a certain method of organizing human activity because it is merely a traditional commercial interaction. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
The dependent claims, except for claims 4, 9, 14, and 17, amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: reciting the badge as “physical” or “electronic” (claims 1, 6, 11, and 16), using a webpage (claims 1, 6, 11, and 16), a backpack associated with the child (claims 6 and 11), a system comprising a backpack associated with a child, a webpage associated with the child, and “mechanisms” for performing the claimed functions (claim 11) and wherein the webpage includes a video about the activity (claims 4, 9, 14, and 17). This is evidenced by the nature in which any additional element is described in the drawings and the specification. See, for example, Fig. 1, 4, and 6 which illustrate a common sling-style backpack and badges while Fig. 1 and 3 illustrate a computer screen displaying the same badge information. See also, for example, at least line para. 13-17, 22-25, 28, and 36 which identify that the backpack is merely a canvas for the display of the acquired badges, and thus not particular, and the webpage is merely used to tie the traditionally human-performed process to performance with a computer. It is noted that the mechanisms are merely disclosed in means-plus-language without any meaningful description except for the mechanism for connecting the physical badge to the backpack which is recited in para. 24 of the specification to be hook and loop, stitching, sewing, or any other common or reasonable method for connecting the physical badge with the backpack. Thus, this evidences that components do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed as well as that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the system. In particular, the mere use of a webpage for viewing electronic badges, receiving electronic badges, receiving proof of purchase of the activity pack, and managing versions of an electronic badge are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed as well as that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. Additionally, the method claims are silent regarding any additional elements actively performing the claimed functions indicating that the entire method is performed by a human, including a human operating the recited additional elements. Therefore, the claims merely define the abstract idea identified above, and are focused on the abstract idea rather than an improvement to the computer functionality or another technology. The claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. In particular, the claims are silent regarding any specific treatment or prophylaxis for any specific disease or medical condition. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. Although claims recite computer components associated with performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., storing, processing, and outputting data). This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that Applicant believes the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. This also evidences that the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. Furthermore, the steps are merely recited to be performed by, or using, the elements while the specification makes clear that the system itself is ancillary to the claimed invention as identified above. See, for example, para. 13-17, 22-25, 28, and 36 which, at best, recite in results-based language that the additional elements are merely used. This further evidences that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. Thus, none of the additional elements offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. It is noted that the physical badge and backpack are also not particular as identified in at least para. 13-16 of the specification. In particular, the badge being physical is merely a vessel for displaying the identity of the activity that was completed. See para. 15 which identifies that it serves “as a tangible symbol of the child’s accomplishment.” Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide any meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Thus, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore (US 2013/0132959).
Regarding claim 1, Moore teaches a method for motivating children to engage in activities, the method comprising:
(a) providing an activity pack to a child, wherein the activity pack includes at least one instruction associated with an activity to perform (Moore, para. 19, “a quest story may comprise, for example, a personal, historical, fictional , etc. instruction that may be generated by quest authors or editors, such as one or more designers, advertisers, providers of goods or services, users or members of a social network or virtual community, or the like. In some instances, an instruction may comprise, for example, a task-like instruction asking a user to compete one or more certain tasks or objectives, as will also be seen. At times, an instruction may comprise an adventure-related or story-related instruction, for example. As used herein, "adventure" may refer to a task or objective-related experience that a quest author may wish a user to explore, participate in, or otherwise undertake in connection with a particular quest.”);
(b) upon completion of the activity by the child, providing a physical badge to the child, wherein the physical badge is associated with the activity (Moore, para. 23, “by executing or completing a quest or a particular task or objective within a series of quests, for example, a user may obtain a reward. A reward may comprise, for example, a physical reward, virtual reward, or any combination thereof.”); and
(c) upon completion of the activity, providing an electronic badge to the child, wherein the electronic badge is associated with the activity (Moore, para. 23, “by executing or completing a quest or a particular task or objective within a series of quests, for example, a user may obtain a reward. A reward may comprise, for example, a physical reward, virtual reward, or any combination thereof.”), wherein the electronic badge is viewable on a webpage associated with the child (Moore, at least Fig. 5C illustrates this. See also para. 23, “virtual rewards, such as displayable experience points, titles, badges, avatars, avatar animations, avatar accessories, custom virtual buttons, images, copyrighted or otherwise, or any other suitable digital media rewards.” Para. 24, “a virtual reward may comprise a virtual or digital button, for example, which may include customized artwork and may be displayed on a user's profile page. Displayable badges or titles, as well as avatar clothes, accessories, or animations may also provide higher quality, engaging rewards for users.”).
Regarding claim 2, Moore teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising mailing the activity pack to the child (Moore, para. 27, “documents may comprise… an e-mail”, para. 61, “quest-related story may comprise any suitable instruction including, for example, a navigation or travel-related instruction, task or objective-related instruction, story-related instruction, question or trivia-related instruction, adventure-related instruction, or other instruction that may associate a user with particular content.”).
Regarding claim 3, Moore teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising mailing the physical badge to the child (Moore, para. 24, “a reward may comprise, for example, a physical reward, such as… physical coupon mailed or otherwise provided to a user”).
Regarding claim 4, Moore teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the webpage includes a video about the activity (Moore, para. 28, “a quest may utilize, at least in part, one or more existing non-game-related web pages (e.g.,… videos, etc.) as quest locations”).
Regarding claim 5, Moore teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the webpage includes a fact about the activity (Moore, para. 19, “an adventure-related instruction may comprise, for example, a story-related instruction having one or more fictional narrative elements, a non-fictional narrative elements, a navigational or quest-related clue, etc., or any combination thereof.” The narrative elements and clues are considered facts about the activity.).
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.
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.
Claims 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US 2013/0132959) in view of Clarno (US 2019/0340951).
Regarding claim 6, Moore teaches a method for motivating children to engage in activities, the method comprising:
(a) providing an activity pack to a child, wherein the activity pack includes at least one instruction associated with an activity to perform (Moore, para. 19, “a quest story may comprise, for example, a personal, historical, fictional , etc. instruction that may be generated by quest authors or editors, such as one or more designers, advertisers, providers of goods or services, users or members of a social network or virtual community, or the like. In some instances, an instruction may comprise, for example, a task-like instruction asking a user to compete one or more certain tasks or objectives, as will also be seen. At times, an instruction may comprise an adventure-related or story-related instruction, for example. As used herein, "adventure" may refer to a task or objective-related experience that a quest author may wish a user to explore, participate in, or otherwise undertake in connection with a particular quest.”); and
(c) upon completion of the activity, disposing an electronic badge onto a webpage associated with the child, wherein the electronic badge is associated with the activity (Moore, at least Fig. 5C illustrates this. See also para. 23, “virtual rewards, such as displayable experience points, titles, badges, avatars, avatar animations, avatar accessories, custom virtual buttons, images, copyrighted or otherwise, or any other suitable digital media rewards.” Para. 24, “a virtual reward may comprise a virtual or digital button, for example, which may include customized artwork and may be displayed on a user's profile page. Displayable badges or titles, as well as avatar clothes, accessories, or animations may also provide higher quality, engaging rewards for users.”).
Moore does not explicitly teach (b) upon completion of the activity by the child, disposing a physical badge onto a backpack associated with the child, wherein the physical badge is associated with the activity.
However, in a related art, Clarno teaches upon completion of the activity by the child, disposing a physical badge onto an accessory associated with the child, wherein the physical badge is associated with the activity (Clarno, para. 92, “While it is the intent of the designer to use the Badges on the Sleeve, as noted, it must be acknowledged that the application of the Badges can and will function on any fabric similar to that of the Sleeve. And, so, the application opportunities for the product can be extended to any product meeting the fabric criteria for the adhesive, meaning any clothing or accessory created with cotton or blended material.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the process of Moore to include Clarno’s applying the badge to an accessory of the child in order to connect the physical badge to a backpack associated with a child because a backpack is a common accessory for a child, particularly in a school environment as identified in Clarno (Clarno, at least para. 69, “In an exemplary program, a teacher may carry Badges with them during the class, either in their pockets or a small pack they wear. If a child displays a mastery of a skill, or exhibits a behavior in keeping with the character theme of the week, then the teacher may pull the appropriate Badge from their pocket or pack, peel the backing off the Badge, and adhere the Badge to the Sleeve in the appropriate location and orientation.”).
Regarding claim 11, Moore teaches a system for motivating children to engage in activities, comprising:
(b) a webpage associated with the child (Moore, at least Fig. 5A-5C illustrate this);
(c) a mechanism for providing an activity pack to the child, wherein the activity pack includes at least one instruction associated with an activity to perform, wherein following the at least one instructions results in completion of the activity (Moore, para. 19, “a quest story may comprise, for example, a personal, historical, fictional , etc. instruction that may be generated by quest authors or editors, such as one or more designers, advertisers, providers of goods or services, users or members of a social network or virtual community, or the like. In some instances, an instruction may comprise, for example, a task-like instruction asking a user to compete one or more certain tasks or objectives, as will also be seen. At times, an instruction may comprise an adventure-related or story-related instruction, for example. As used herein, "adventure" may refer to a task or objective-related experience that a quest author may wish a user to explore, participate in, or otherwise undertake in connection with a particular quest.”);
(d) a mechanism for awarding a physical badge to the child upon completion of the activity (Moore, para. 23, “by executing or completing a quest or a particular task or objective within a series of quests, for example, a user may obtain a reward. A reward may comprise, for example, a physical reward, virtual reward, or any combination thereof.”);
(f) a mechanism for awarding an electronic badge to the child upon completion of the activity (Moore, para. 23, “by executing or completing a quest or a particular task or objective within a series of quests, for example, a user may obtain a reward. A reward may comprise, for example, a physical reward, virtual reward, or any combination thereof.”); and
(g) a mechanism for connecting the electronic badge to the webpage (Moore, at least Fig. 5C illustrates this. See also para. 23, “virtual rewards, such as displayable experience points, titles, badges, avatars, avatar animations, avatar accessories, custom virtual buttons, images, copyrighted or otherwise, or any other suitable digital media rewards.” Para. 24, “a virtual reward may comprise a virtual or digital button, for example, which may include customized artwork and may be displayed on a user's profile page. Displayable badges or titles, as well as avatar clothes, accessories, or animations may also provide higher quality, engaging rewards for users.”).
Moore does not explicitly teach (a) a backpack associated with a child and (e) a mechanism for connecting the physical badge to the backpack.
However, in a related art, Clarno teaches a mechanism for connecting the physical badge to an accessory of the child (Clarno, para. 92, “While it is the intent of the designer to use the Badges on the Sleeve, as noted, it must be acknowledged that the application of the Badges can and will function on any fabric similar to that of the Sleeve. And, so, the application opportunities for the product can be extended to any product meeting the fabric criteria for the adhesive, meaning any clothing or accessory created with cotton or blended material.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the physical badges of Moore to use Clarno’s mechanism for connecting the physical badge to a backpack associated with a child because a backpack is a common accessory for a child, particularly in a school environment as identified in Clarno (Clarno, at least para. 69, “In an exemplary program, a teacher may carry Badges with them during the class, either in their pockets or a small pack they wear. If a child displays a mastery of a skill, or exhibits a behavior in keeping with the character theme of the week, then the teacher may pull the appropriate Badge from their pocket or pack, peel the backing off the Badge, and adhere the Badge to the Sleeve in the appropriate location and orientation.”).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Moore teaches the method of claim 6 and the system of claim 11, further comprising mailing the activity pack to the child (Moore, para. 27, “documents may comprise… an e-mail”, para. 61, “quest-related story may comprise any suitable instruction including, for example, a navigation or travel-related instruction, task or objective-related instruction, story-related instruction, question or trivia-related instruction, adventure-related instruction, or other instruction that may associate a user with particular content.”).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Moore teaches the method of claim 6 and the system of claim 11, further comprising mailing the physical badge to the child (Moore, para. 24, “a reward may comprise, for example, a physical reward, such as… physical coupon mailed or otherwise provided to a user”).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Moore teaches the method of claim 6 and the system of claim 11, wherein the webpage includes a video about the activity (Moore, para. 28, “a quest may utilize, at least in part, one or more existing non-game-related web pages (e.g.,… videos, etc.) as quest locations”).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Moore teaches the method of claim 6 and the system of claim 11, wherein the webpage includes a fact about the activity (Moore, para. 19, “an adventure-related instruction may comprise, for example, a story-related instruction having one or more fictional narrative elements, a non-fictional narrative elements, a navigational or quest-related clue, etc., or any combination thereof.” The narrative elements and clues are considered facts about the activity.).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US 2013/0132959).
Regarding claim 16, Moore teaches a method for motivating children to engage in activities, the method comprising:
(a) providing an activity pack to a child, wherein the activity pack includes at least one instruction associated with an activity to perform (Moore, para. 19, “a quest story may comprise, for example, a personal, historical, fictional , etc. instruction that may be generated by quest authors or editors, such as one or more designers, advertisers, providers of goods or services, users or members of a social network or virtual community, or the like. In some instances, an instruction may comprise, for example, a task-like instruction asking a user to compete one or more certain tasks or objectives, as will also be seen. At times, an instruction may comprise an adventure-related or story-related instruction, for example. As used herein, "adventure" may refer to a task or objective-related experience that a quest author may wish a user to explore, participate in, or otherwise undertake in connection with a particular quest.”);
(b) inputting a proof of purchase of the activity pack to a webpage associated with the child (Moore, para. 46, “individual may pay for a particular quest.” Para. 59, “a listing of available or applicable quests and may prompt a user for a quest selection. As a way of illustration, a user may choose or select any suitable quest”. It is noted that paying for a quest makes it available.);
(c) unlocking a first version of an electronic badge on the webpage, wherein the electronic badge is associated with the activity (Moore, para. 23, “a display may provide an indication or availability of a reward (e.g., via a text, blurred or pixelized image, etc.), for example, but an image of a reward may be hidden or otherwise image-edited until or after a user executes or completes a quest.” This identifies that the first version of the electronic badge is a text, a blurred or pixelized image, image-edited, etc.); and
(d) upon completion of the activity, changing the first version of the electronic badge on the website to a second version of the electronic badge (Moore, para. 23, “a display may provide an indication or availability of a reward (e.g., via a text, blurred or pixelized image, etc.), for example, but an image of a reward may be hidden or otherwise image-edited until or after a user executes or completes a quest.” This identifies that the second version of the electronic badge is the full depiction of the badge itself which is revealed and fully visible after completion of the activity.).
While Moore teaches unlocking a first version of an electronic badge on the webpage, wherein the electronic badge is associated with the activity as identified above, Moore does not explicitly teach the unlocking is performed upon inputting the proof of purchase of the activity pack to the webpage.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the unlocking in Moore to include being performed upon inputting the proof of purchase of the activity pack to the webpage because this is a basic commercial transaction of providing the product once the product has been paid for and, as identified above, Moore teaches paying for the product. Thus, unless the product is provided for free, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the product to be provided in this manner.
Regarding claim 17, Moore teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the webpage includes a video about the activity (Moore, para. 28, “a quest may utilize, at least in part, one or more existing non-game-related web pages (e.g.,… videos, etc.) as quest locations”).
Regarding claim 18, Moore teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the webpage includes a fact about the activity (Moore, para. 19, “an adventure-related instruction may comprise, for example, a story-related instruction having one or more fictional narrative elements, a non-fictional narrative elements, a navigational or quest-related clue, etc., or any combination thereof.” The narrative elements and clues are considered facts about the activity.).
Regarding claim 19, Moore teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising prompting, via the webpage, for information relating to the completion of the activity (Moore, para. 91, “one or more quest-related tasks or objectives comprising a question a user may answer to obtain a reward, such as in connection with a question or trivia-related quest, just to illustrate one possible implementation. For this example, a user may perform a machine-confirmable action, for example, by submitting a typed answer (e.g., correct, corresponding, etc.), a URL, a geo-location, etc. to a suitable server via a "check in" button 804. As a way of illustration, sidebar 802 may, for example, comprise an input-line text box 806, which may allow a user to type a quest-related answer, as one possible option.”).
Regarding claim 20, Moore teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the second version is a full depiction of [the] electronic badge (Moore, para. 23, “a display may provide an indication or availability of a reward (e.g., via a text, blurred or pixelized image, etc.), for example, but an image of a reward may be hidden or otherwise image-edited until or after a user executes or completes a quest.” This identifies that the second version of the electronic badge is the full depiction of the badge itself which is revealed and fully visible after completion of the activity.).
Moore does not explicitly teach that the full depiction of the electronic badge is a full color depiction of the electronic badge.
However, the second version being a full color depiction of the electronic badge as opposed to a full depiction of the electronic badge does not provide any functional difference the changing the first version of the electronic badge to a second version. Thus, these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved. Therefore, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the full depiction of the electronic badge in Moore to be a full color depiction of the electronic badge because the depiction of the electronic device being in color or not is merely a design choice for image editing in the instant context that does not provide any claimed function and has not been disclosed to solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose which does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shinn (US 2009/0106641) discloses a system and method for entering into a computer in an automated manner the fulfillment status of requirements for completing an objective, and references applicability to the merit badge system of the Scouts.
Dumas (US 2013/0097169) discloses an electronic version of the physical merit badge system of the Scouts.
Bogan and Bogan (US 2013/0224706) discloses providing a virtual reward to a user’s webpage and shipping a physical reward to the user for completing an identified task.
Michaelowitz and Yam (US 2021/0234866) discloses a digital personal assistant to a child that allows the provision of badges for the completion of activities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715