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 .
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 significantly more.
The claims are directed to providing game objectives and presenting indications according to responses (mental processes and organizing methods of human activity) involving:
receiving linear media in the form of a game show (presentation of a game);
receiving metadata with the linear media (game data);
present a live or prerecorded game show (presentation of a game);
using the metadata, presenting at least one objective;
receiving a response to the objective;
based on the response being correct, presenting a first indication;
based on the response being incorrect, presenting a second indication;
using criteria used in a game show, determine whether the response is correct; and
present an indication consistent with the determination of whether the response is correct.
Claims 1, 12, and 19 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of providing game objectives and presenting indications according to responses.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claims 12 and 19 recite “processor system”; claim 12 recites “computer memory that is not a transitory signal”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (remote player device, processor system computer memory) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (remote player device, processor system, computer memory that is not a transitory signal) performing the receiving and presenting of data are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic devices, processors, memories, and data receiving/sending as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mental process and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of providing game objectives and presenting indications according to responses, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
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.
(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, 2, 6-9, 11-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. 6340159 to Giangrante.
Claims 1 and 19. Giangrante discloses a device comprising:
(as required by claim 19) at least one computer memory that is not a transitory signal and that comprises instructions executable by at least one processor system for:
receiving linear media in the form of a game show (col. 3 line 58 to col. 4 line 29, col. 8, 5-9 “players to guess words and/or letters that form part of the solution to a crossword puzzle”, “Double Cross.TM. Game Show”, “phase of a crossword puzzle game show”);
receiving metadata with the linear media (col. 1, 8-14, “new rules and elements are added to the crossword puzzle game show”);
using the metadata, presenting at least one objective on a remote player device (Fig. 13, element 8c, and col. 7 line 67 to col. 8 line 4, col. 9, 7-20 “answer the clue s5 or double-crossing an opponent s14 continues until the crossword puzzle has been filled in completely”, “players can play along on their standard home computers or televisions 8a-8c simultaneously with the game show being shown live on television”);
(as required by claim 19) using the metadata, presenting information on a display of a remote player device allowing a user of the remote player device to interact with the linear media (Fig. 13, element 8c, and col. 9, 7-20 “players can play along on their standard home computers or televisions 8a-8c simultaneously with the game show being shown live on television”);
receiving a response to the objective (col. 6 line 61 to col. 7 line 21);
based on the response being correct, presenting a first indication on the remote player device (col. 7, 22-34 “answers correctly); and
based on the response being incorrect, presenting a second indication on the remote player device (col. 7, 22-34 “answers incorrectly”).
Claim 12. Giangrante discloses a processor system configured to:
present a live or prerecorded game show on at least one remote player device (col. 3, 29-34 “allow those watching the game show from home to interact with the show and to participate in the game. It is another feature and advantage that the game show will be shown live”);
present on the remote player device at least one objective of the game show as the objective is being presented in the game show (Fig. 13, element 8c, and col. 9, 7-20 “players can play along on their standard home computers or televisions 8a-8c simultaneously with the game show being shown live on television”);
receive a response to the objective at the remote player device (Fig. 13, element 8c, and col. 7, 22-34 “player chooses to attempt to answer the clue himself s5, and he answers correctly s6, a certain number of dollars or points is added to his score”);
using criteria used in the remote game show, determine whether the response is correct (Fig. 4, and col. 7, 22-34, col. 11, 23-24 “That's correct”); and
present an indication on the remote player device consistent with the determination of whether the response is correct (Fig. 4, and col. 7, 22-34, col. 11, 23-24 “That's correct”).
Claims 2 and 13. Giangrante discloses comprising determining whether the response is correct based at least in part on a timer (col. 2, 35-43 “a player may use for each turn is limited by a timer”, and col. 7, 35-45 “players be given only a limited amount of time to answer a clue”).
Claim 6. Giangrante discloses comprising presenting the linear media on the remote player device (Fig. 13, element 8c, and col. 9, 7-20 “players can play along on their standard home computers or televisions 8a-8c simultaneously with the game show being shown live on television”).
Claims 7 and 16. Giangrante discloses comprising synchronizing presentation of the linear media on the remote player device with presentation of the objective, such that the objective is presented at the same time in the linear media and on the remote player device (col. 9, 7-20 “using the Internet 23, 24 to interact with the game show central office 7, the home player could play along on his own screen”).
Claims 8 and 17. Giangrante discloses comprising assessing a penalty responsive to a determination that the response is incorrect (col. 3 line 63 to col. 4 line 8 “the opponent guesses incorrectly he loses the value of the word or letter”).
Claims 9 and 18. Giangrante discloses comprising awarding a reward responsive to a determination that the response is correct ((col. 3 line 63 to col. 4 line 8 “opponent guesses correctly he earns the value of the relevant word or letter”).
Claim 11. Giangrante discloses comprising executing the method using at least one computer system (Fig. 13 and and col. 9, 7-20).
Claim 20. Giangrante discloses wherein the linear media comprises a game show (see claim 1 above).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. 6340159 to Giangrante in view of US Pub. 20130158984 to Myslinski.
Claims 3 and 14. Giangrante fails to explicitly disclose comprising determining whether the response is correct based at least in part on the response matching a ground truth response contained in the metadata (emphasis added).
Myslinski determining matching a ground truth (¶¶4-7, 79 “fact checking”). The gaming system of Giangrante would have motivation to use the teachings of Myslinkski in order to ensure answers associated with clues are accurate data which would provide game participants confidence that information used in the game is factually correct.
It would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Giangrante with the teachings of Myslinkski in order to ensure answers associated with clues are accurate data which would provide game participants confidence that information used in the game is factually correct.
Claim 4. Giangrante in view of Myslinski teaches comprising determining whether the response is correct based at least in part on a timer (see Giangrante col. 7, 35-45) and based at least in part on the response matching a ground truth response contained in the metadata (see Myslinski ¶¶4-7, 79 “fact checking”).
Claims 5 and 15. Giangrante in view of Myslinski teaches comprising executing at least one machine learning (ML) model to determine whether the response matches the ground truth response contained in the metadata (see Myslinski ¶¶135 “learning”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. 6340159 to Giangrante in view of US Pat. 5697844 to Von Kohorn.
Claim 10. Giangrante fails to explicitly disclose comprising notifying a showrunner sourcing the linear media of play input via the remote player device (emphasis added).
Von Kohorn teaches a showrunner sourcing the linear media of play input (col. 16, 49-64 “describing or defining responses that have been determined by the producer of a program to be acceptable in the context of a task so as to qualify for a reward”). The gaming system of Giangrante would have motivation to use the teachings of Von Kohorn in order to verify answers meet specific criteria within game rules prior to awarding winners in doing so would help avoid errors in the game play answering and awarding processes.
It would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Giangrante with the teachings of Von Kohorn in order to verify answers meet specific criteria within game rules prior to awarding winners in doing so would help avoid errors in the game play answering and awarding processes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715