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 .
Status of Application Contents
Document
Date
Not Accepted
Accepted
Oath
2/13/24
X
Oath
10/23/23
X
ADS
11/16/23
X
ADS
2/15/24
X
Abstract
11/16/23
X
Specification
11/16/23
X
Specification
10/7/24
X
Drawings
11/16/23
X
Drawings
2/13/24
X
Drawings
10/7/24
X
Claims
11/16/23
X
Claims
7/21/25
X
The above table provides an accounting of Applicant’s submission to benefit Applicant and the Office in identifying which of Applicant’s submissions have been accepted and are considered for examination purposes. Examiner’s notes that while a document may be “accepted” there still may be formal matters that need correction.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text in Fig 1 and 2 is too small to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
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.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(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: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to because it does not include any reference sign(s)/character(s) to identify parts of the invention that correspond to the figures depicting the invention in the drawings. In accordance with MPEP 608.01(f), when there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures, and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter).
Appropriate correction is required.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it fails to provide a
concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should
include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. A
corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on
a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits of the invention.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than 150 words and is more than one paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-7 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):
Claims 1 and 5 include limitations directed towards " playing an active turn of the game with an active player of the plurality of players, the active player performing dice-rolling that includes rolling the dice and determining a dice total that includes determining a total of between two and twelve of showing die values of the rolled plurality of dice, which corresponds to one of the plurality of board numbers that becomes the rolled board number of the active turn or the missing number that is the number seven, and taking an action including:
if a chip of the plurality of chips of the active player has been placed during a previous turn of the game by the active player on the rolled board number, the rolled board number is considered taken and the turn ends;
if both the rolled board number is not taken and the dice total is different from the missing number that is the number seven, then the active player performs chip-placing that includes placing a chip from the plurality of chips of the active player on the rolled board number; and
if the dice total is the same as the missing number that is the number seven, the active player removes one chip of the plurality of chips from the game board if the active player has already placed at least one chip on the game board;
wherein if the showing die values of the rolled plurality of dice are the same, the active player performs dice-rolling again including taking the action again; and
wherein the plurality of players take turns being the active player. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claims 3 and 6 include limitations directed towards " after the turn ends when the chip of the plurality of chips of the active player was previously placed by the active player on the rolled board number, the next turn is taken by a next player of the plurality of players who has the rolled board number as not taken, with the next player placing a chip of the plurality of chips of the next player on the rolled board number, and then the next player becoming the active player and playing the next active turn of the game; and
if all the plurality of players have the rolled board number as taken, then the active player performs dice-rolling again including taking the action again."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claims 4 and 7 include limitations directed towards “wherein the game ends when the active player has the plurality of chips of the active player on all of the plurality of board numbers during the active turn.”
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
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 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.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Moreover, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea wherein if computer elements are claimed they are additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea(s) identified above (and their respective dependent claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of the claims identified above (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea 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 courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the additional elements in the claim(s) identified above (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements (if any are present) nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide 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 itself.
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 § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thistle et al. (US 8561991), hereinafter: “Thistle”.
In Regard to Claim 2
Thistle teaches:
A method for playing a game(Col 1, ln. 29-48), comprising:
providing a game board(10; Fig 1) having a plurality of board numbers including a number two, a number three, a number four, a number five, a number six, a number eight, a number nine, a number ten, a number eleven, and a number twelve(Fig 1), wherein a missing number is a number seven omitted from the plurality of board numbers(visually apparent from Fig 1);
providing dice(14; Fig 1) including a plurality of 6-sided die(two six-sided die; Fig 1; Col 2, ln. 40-50), each 6-sided die including a plurality of die values valued between a value of one and a value of six(“standard dice” - Fig 1; Col 2, ln 40-50);
providing a plurality of chips to each of a plurality of players(Fig 1; Col 2, ln. 40-50);
playing an active turn of the game with an active player of the plurality of players(“first player” – Col 2, ln. 50-67), the active player performing dice-rolling that includes rolling the dice and determining a dice total that includes determining a total of between two and twelve of showing die values of the rolled plurality of dice(Col 2, ln. 50-67), which corresponds to one of the plurality of board numbers that becomes the rolled board number of the active turn(“corresponding number 12”- Col 2, ln. 50-67) or the missing number that is the number seven(Col 3, ln. 5-12), and taking an action including:
if a chip of the plurality of chips of the active player has been placed during a previous turn of the game by the active player on the rolled board number, the rolled board number is considered taken and the turn ends(Col 2, ln. 60-67);
if both the rolled board number is not taken and the dice total is different from the missing number that is the number seven, then the active player performs chip-placing that includes placing a chip from the plurality of chips of the active player on the rolled board number(Col 2, ln. 60-67); and
if the dice total is the same as the missing number that is the number seven, the active player removes one chip of the plurality of chips from the game board if the active player has already placed at least one chip on the game board(Col 3, ln. 5-12);
wherein if the showing die values of the rolled plurality of dice are the same, the active player performs dice-rolling again including taking the action again(“doubles” – Col 3, ln. 13-26); and
wherein the plurality of players take turns being the active player(Col 2, ln. 60-67; Col 3, ln. 1-26).
In Regard to Claim 3
Thistle teaches:
The method of claim 2(see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein:
after the turn ends when the chip of the plurality of chips of the active player was previously placed by the active player on the rolled board number, the next turn is taken by a next player of the plurality of players who has the rolled board number as not taken, with the next player placing a chip of the plurality of chips of the next player on the rolled board number, and then the next player becoming the active player and playing the next active turn of the game(Col 2, ln. 60 to Col 3, ln. 5); and
if all the plurality of players have the rolled board number as taken, then the active player performs dice-rolling again including taking the action again(Col 2, ln. 60 to Col 3, ln. 5).
In Regard to Claim 4
Thistle teaches:
The method of claim 2(see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the game ends when the active player has the plurality of chips of the active player on all of the plurality of board numbers during the active turn(Col 2, ln. 20-29; Col 3, ln. 15-26).
In Regard to Claim 5
Thistle teaches:
A method for playing a game(Col 1, ln. 29-48), comprising:
providing a game board(10; Fig 1) having a plurality of board numbers(Fig 1), wherein a missing number is omitted from the plurality of board numbers(the number “7” is missing as is visually apparent from Fig 1);
providing dice(14; Fig 1) including a plurality of die(two six-sided die; Fig 1; Col 2, ln. 40-50), each die including a plurality of die values (“standard dice” having die values from 1 to 6 - Fig 1; Col 2, ln 40-50);
providing a plurality of chips to each of a plurality of players(Fig 1; Col 2, ln. 40-50);
playing an active turn of the game with an active player of the plurality of players(“first player” – Col 2, ln. 50-67), the active player performing dice-rolling that includes rolling the dice and determining a dice total that includes determining a total of showing die values of the rolled plurality of dice(Col 2, ln. 50-67), which corresponds to one of the plurality of board numbers that becomes the rolled board number of the active turn(“corresponding number 12”- Col 2, ln. 50-67) or the missing number(Col 3, ln. 5-12), and taking an action including:
if a chip of the plurality of chips of the active player has been placed during a previous turn of the game by the active player on the rolled board number, the rolled board number is considered taken and the turn ends(Col 2, ln. 60-67);
if both the rolled board number is not taken and the dice total is different from the missing number, then the active player performs chip-placing that includes placing a chip from the plurality of chips of the active player on the rolled board number(Col 2, ln. 60-67); and
if the dice total is the same as the missing number, the active player removes one chip of the plurality of chips from the game board if the active player has already placed at least one chip on the game board(Col 3, ln. 5-12);
wherein if the showing die values of the rolled plurality of dice are the same, the active player performs dice-rolling again including taking the action again(“doubles” – Col 3, ln. 13-26); and
wherein the plurality of players take turns being the active player(Col 2, ln. 60-67; Col 3, ln. 1-26).
In Regard to Claim 6
Thistle teaches:
The method of claim 5(see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein:
after the turn ends when the chip of the plurality of chips of the active player was previously placed by the active player on the rolled board number, the next turn is taken by a next player of the plurality of players who has the rolled board number as not taken, with the next player placing a chip of the plurality of chips of the next player on the rolled board number, and then the next player becoming the active player and playing the next active turn of the game(Col 2, ln. 60 to Col 3, ln. 5); and
if all the plurality of players have the rolled board number as taken, then the active player performs dice-rolling again including taking the action again(Col 2, ln. 60 to Col 3, ln. 5).
In Regard to Claim 7
Thistle teaches:
The method of claim 5(see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the game ends when the active player has the plurality of chips of the active player on all of the plurality of board numbers during the active turn(Col 2, ln. 20-29; Col 3, ln. 15-26).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20120139181 A1
Sparago; Merrill
US 20140138911 A1
Cua; John L.
US 8757622 B1
King; Troy Robin
US 10427027 B2
Takacs; Dawn L. et al.
US 20140167355 A1
KING T R
The above references are cited for teaching multi-player dice-board game with similar features to the instant invention.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Other Pro se resources:
Pro se Assistance Center: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patents-ombuds/pro-se-assistance-center
Inventor Assistance Center: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/inventors-assistance-center-iac
Pro Se Assistance Program: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-se-assistance-program
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm. Examiner requests that Applicant call prior to filing a response to this communication.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on 571-270-1775. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711