Detailed Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4-6, 8-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4-6, 9, 10, 14 and 15, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites “an array of game devices according to claim 1.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected for incorporating this error from claim 8 through dependency.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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. If this application names joint inventors, 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 1-4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barney (US 2004/0204240 A1) in view of Krauthamer et al (US 2021/0289597 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barney discloses a portable handheld screenless electronic game device comprising at least one proximity sensor (Fig. 1), the proximity sensor being configured to detect a proximity of the game device to an object and/or to detect a proximity of the object to the game device, such that the game device is configured to detect a relative proximity between the game device and the object (¶ [0067]: wand is preferably fitted with an RFID … transponder or tag that is operable to provide relatively short-range RF communications (less than about 200 cm)), wherein the game device is configured to change game state or configuration in dependence on a proximity trigger signal (¶ [0068]), the proximity sensor providing the proximity trigger signal when the object is detected within a minimum threshold relative proximity to the game device object (¶ [0067]: about 200 cm), and wherein the object comprises a second portable handheld screenless electronic game device such that a first game device is configured to detect a proximity of a second game device relative to the first game device (Fig. 23), with the first game device being configured to change game state or configuration in dependence on the proximity detection (¶ [0068]: RFID transponder is preferably used to store certain information identifying each play participant and/or describing certain powers or abilities possessed by an imaginary role-play character … players may advance in a magic adventure game by finding clues, casting spells and solving various puzzles presented. … may also gain or lose certain attributes, such as magic skills, magic strength, fighting ability, various spell-casting abilities, etc., based on game play, skill-level and/or the purchase of collateral play objects … some or all of this information is preferably stored on the RFID transponder), wherein the game device is configured to emit light (¶ [0116]). Krauthammer suggests—where Barney does not disclose—wherein the game device is configured to emit light omnidirectionally (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Barney and Krauthammer in order to give visual game feedback.
Regarding claim 2, Barney discloses wherein the minimum threshold comprises a distance range of the game device and a temporal element, whereby the minimum threshold comprises the object being within a minimum distance range of the game device for a minimum length of time (¶ [0067]: inherent to RFID communications; transmitter and receiver require a nonzero synchronization time).
Regarding claim 3, Barney discloses wherein the game device comprises a discrete electronic device configured for use only in proximity-based games, the proximity-based games being dependent on the physical proximity of the actual device relative to the object, and wherein the game device is devoid of a graphical user interface (Figs. 6 and 23).
Regarding claim 4, Barney discloses wherein the game device comprises a movement or motion sensor (Abstract) and wherein the game device is configured to change game state or configuration in dependence on a trigger event, the trigger event comprising a movement or action with or on the game device, such as a change in orientation of the game device (Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Barney discloses an array comprising at least a first game device and a second game device (Figs. 22-24), wherein the first game device is configured to detect a proximity of the second game device when it is within the proximity threshold of the first game device (¶ [0067]: about 200 cm) and wherein the second game device is configured to detect the first game device when it is within a second proximity threshold, the second proximity threshold being associated with the second device (¶ [0067]: about 200 cm).
Regarding claim 9, Barney discloses wherein the proximity threshold of the first device and the second proximity threshold of the second device are the same, such as where the proximity threshold of both devices is configured to be triggered by a same signal strength and/or relative distance therebetween (¶ [0067]: about 200 cm).
Regarding claim 11, Barney discloses wherein the proximity detection comprises an identification element and mutual proximity detection by both the first and second game devices prior to performing an action based upon the proximity trigger (¶ [0067]: UPIN), and wherein a role and/or score of each device is dependent upon a proximity event and the game devices are each configured to perform mutual proximity detection to ensure synchronized triggering of each device simultaneously (¶ [0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Barney discloses wherein the status or configuration of each game device is indicated by one or more of visually indicated, an emission of light, audio and/or haptic indication, continuously indicated, temporarily or periodically indicated (¶ [0116]).
Regarding claim 14, Barney discloses wherein each game device is configured for use without requiring any display or screen-based feedback, such as via an external device (Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Barney discloses wherein the game device is configured to emit different colours of light in dependence on the state or configuration of the game device, with the emitted colour varying as the game device status or configuration changes (¶ [0109]).
Regarding claim 20, Barney discloses wherein the game device is configured to be used in one or more of: an indoor setting, an outdoor setting, a swimming pool (Abstract: play facility).
Regarding claim 21, Barney discloses wherein the game device is configured to be incorporatingly housed in an article, wherein the article is one or more of: a pre-existing household article, at least partially transmissive for light and/or sound, partially translucent, semi-transparent, or transparent (¶ [0116]).
Regarding claim 22, Barney discloses wherein the game device is configurable to be used in multiple modes of operation, the modes of operation selected from one or more of: “copycat” type game mode, “treasure hunt” game mode, blindfold games, standard games, night-time games, chase-type games, tag or tig, ‘Last-man-standing’, Zombie tag, proximity rugby, proximity American football, proximity handball (¶ [0172]: magical quest or treasure hunt).
Regarding claim 23, Barney discloses wherein the game device comprises an aerial for proximity sensing, the aerial being located within the game device such that the aerial is not masked by a user when the user holds or uses the game device (245).
Claim 24 subsumes the limitations of claim 1 above and is accordingly rejected for the same reasons given supra. Further regarding claim 24, Barney discloses a wearable electronic game device (¶ [0110]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 5, 6, 10 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Barney et al (US 2017/0348593 A1) discloses an interactive wand game.
Barney et al (US 2012/0270657 A1) discloses a wireless game controller.
Holt (US 2002/0058459 A1) discloses a motion-sensing wand toy.
Weston et al (US 2001/0034257 A1) discloses an RFID interactive gaming system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights