Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 9-1 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. With respect to claim 9. Step 1- Claim 9 is directed to a method. Step 2a-Prong 1 - Claim 9 recite the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: obtaining the collaborative game described in Claim 1, gathering a group of participants; identifying a selected participant from the group of participants; the selected participant advancing a STEM subject indicator marker of the plurality of STEM subject indicator on the game board to a first STEM subject indicator; the selected participant revealing a written question on a game card of the plurality of game cards associated with the first STEM subject indicator to the group of participants; participants of the group of participants individually providing a written answer to the question; the selected participant revealing their written answer to the question; participants who gave a correct answer to the question are given points; the group of participants discuss the question and answer so that all participants of the group of participants understand the answer to the question; each participant of the group of participants awarding points to their individually chosen participant of the group of participants deemed to be most collaborative during the game. The above limitations when given their broadest reasonable interpretation are considered to be abstract ideas as they fall into the judicial exceptions of certain methods of organizing human activity as defined in MPEP 2106 .04 (a)2 (II) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) 1 . All the limitations listed above are directed to the rules/instructions for playing a game. Therefore, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations 1 of claim 9 are considered to certain methods of organizing human activity . Step 2a-Prong 2 - Claim 9 at best recites additional elements of the game pieces, as a game board, game cards and subject indicator marker. These limitations when given their BRI are considered to be generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use, in which to apply the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(h) ) which is no more than nominal recitation, and therefore does not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way. As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 9 do not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way to achieve integration into a practical application . See MPEP 2106.04 Step 2B- The additional elements identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 9 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible subject matter such that the claims amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05. With respect to claims 10-11 they further narrow the abstract idea and are deemed in-eligible for the same reasons. 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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Goodrich et al US Patent 2010008114, hereinafter referred to as Goodrich. With respect to claim 1 Goodrich discloses: a game board comprising a plurality of STEM subject indicators associated with a STEM subject; (See Fig 1 Gameboard 20, subject indicators 30-45 [0065] a plurality of question cards for each of the plurality of STEM subject indicators of the game board, each question card presenting a different question and answer to the question, the question cards comprising STEM subject indicators matching STEM subject indicators of the game board; and (Fig 6-9 [0070-0073] STEM subject indicator markers constructed and arranged to move progressively along the plurality of STEM subject indicators formed on the game board. (Fig 2 game pieces, [0023] and [0067]) With respect to the TYPE printed matter of subjects being STEM, the prior art has been shown to disclose indicia on the board that relates or enables matching the board location to a specific subject, with respect to the specifics of STEM subject matter, this is deemed nonfunctional descriptive material and is not given patentable weight ( See MPEP 2112.01 III.2 With respect to claim 2 See Fig 1, 6 and 9 [0070-0073]. 2 With respect to claims 3-8 Fig. 6-9 [0070-0073] disclose the cards with questions answers separated, front and back of cards with different cards corresponding to the different topics on the board indicia. 2 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim(s) 9 -11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodrich as applied to claim s 1-8 above, in view of DIAZ US P g Pub 20140011594 and in further in view of Verfaillie et al US Patent 993737, hereinafter referred to as Diaz and Verfaillie respectively. With respect to claim 9- Goodrich teaches obtaining the collaborative game described in Claim 1, (see entire rejection of claim 1) gathering a group of participants; (See Pg. 6 [0074] the game can be played with 2-4 players or teams of players) identifying a selected participant from the group of participants; the selected participant advancing a STEM subject indicator marker of the plurality of STEM subject indicator on the game board to a first STEM subject indicator; (See Pg 6 [ 00756] Player rolls dice to see who goes first and play beginning ) the group of participants discuss the question and answer so that all participants of the group of participants understand the answer to the question; (See Pg. 7 [0086] As a group, a game device user, such as a moderator, can choose to discuss the different regional breakdown of activities contributing to a person's footprint. ) While Goodrich discloses the participants selecting cards and answering the questions and being awarded points for correct answers, but fails to disclose the particulars of: However, Diaz discloses: the selected participant revealing a written question on a game card of the plurality of game cards associated with the first STEM subject indicator to the group of participants; participants of the group of participants individually providing a written answer to the question; the selected participant revealing their written answer to the question; participants who gave a correct answer to the question are given points; ( Pg. 4-5 [0059-0065] disclose the rules of the collaborative questions/response game (that can be played individually or in teams) in which all participants can answer the question and correct answers receive points) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Goodrich’s game rules/instructions to include all individuals being able to answer a question and earn points for correct answers. One would have been motivated to make the modification as this type of play is a simple substitution of one known way to play a question answer game with another known way while yielding predictable results . Goodrich/Diaz fail to teach each participant of the group of participants awarding points to their individually chosen participant of the group of participants deemed to be most collaborative during the game. However, Verfaillie teaches a social network game platform including response generated game inputs (question/answer) games, in which the users’ participants can vote for the most valuable player. The examiner is interpreting the most valuable player to be equivalent to the most collaboratives, applicant does not disclose a particular process or limit what/how a participant made the subjective determination of “most collaborative. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the well-known step of voting for an MVP in competitions with the collaborative game play of Goodrich/Diaz, one skilled would have been motivated to make to include the MVP as results of a game that additionally rewards individuals by peer recognition and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. With respect to claim 10, claim 10 is deemed alternative and is not required to be taught. The scenario could be the person got the question correct and there is not further discussion. However, Goodrich teaches regardless of whether a person answers correctly or not play moves on to the next person. Which would read on if the selected person answers the question correctly. (See [0076]) With respect to claim 11 continuing the collaborative learning process until a question card from each of the game board STEM subject indicators in a defined set of gameboard STEM subject indicators is selected and collaboratively answered. (See Goodrich [0076 and 0079] disclosing continuing the game until one participant has all the counters are covered (all sets of indicators) and that participant wins the game). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review the additional citations on the PTO-892 which demonstrate the state of the art for educational collaborative game systems and platforms. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TRACI CASLER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6809 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Thursday 6:00am - 4:30pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amanda Abrahamson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1376 . 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. /TRACI CASLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6217