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 10-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims disclose an abstract idea that lack practical application, and significantly more.
Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), as the claims are directed towards the abstract idea of “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” and “Mental Processes”
The claimed invention describes a set of game rules that utilizes a computer to provide a game wherein players are participating in answering questions and as a result a specific output is produced. Here, the performance of questioning and providing answers is a basic human activity that is similar to voting which the Federal Circuit deemed to be an abstract idea under managing personal behavior and relationships (see MPEP 2106, stating ‘”The Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation”, which is a “fundamental activity that forms the basis of our democracy” and has been performed by humans for hundreds of years. 887 F.3d at 1385-86, 126 USPQ2d at 1504-05.”) Additionally, the idea of providing answers, analyzing the answers and displaying a result is a form of a mental process in accordance with Electric Power Group wherein “ a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.” For these reasons the claimed invention presents an abstract idea.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims only relate to providing a questioning and answering game. Furthermore, while aiding foster children is useful, such is not an issue based in the history of computer technology. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
3. Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention only recites a generic computer for performing the invention. For those reasons the claims are rejected and are not considered 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.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 13, 17, 21, 23, 24, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMain (U.S. PGPUB 2010/00267450) in view of Official Notice.
Re claims 10 and 21: McMain discloses a method of operating a video game for protecting foster kids, said method comprising:
establishing an interactive video game environment in which the selected game character answers to questions in real time on a mobile electronic device (see paragraph [0070, 0071, 0078]);
receiving answers to the well-being and safety questions in response to the foster child controlling the selected game character in the video game environment (see paragraph [0070, 0071, 0078]); and
determining an emotional score based on his or her answers while playing the video game (see paragraph [0078, 0088-0093]).
Absent from McMain is discussion indicating that the user is a foster child. However, such is reflective of the intended use of the video game, instead of being reflective of structural and functional limitations of said game. Additionally, the characterization of a user as a foster child does not add further requirements of the video game in how it is performed. Thus, said language is not given patentable weight by the examiner.
Absent from McMain is also language stating that the video game enables to enable the foster child to self-report about his or her well-being and safety. However, such is also reflective of intended use of the video games, and particularly the questions and answers exchanged within the game. Here, determining the well-being and safety of a user is only dependent on the questions that are being asked. Thus, there is no structural or functional modification made to the video game based on the changing the context of the questions being asked. Therefore, said language is not given patentable weight as well.
Additionally, the claim states that the video game determines the foster child's well-being and safety based on his or her answers while playing the video game. However, again such is intended use as the determination of the child’s well being and safety is based on the answers given and do not affect structural or functional elements within the game. Similarity to as stated previously, the answers given do not require structural or functional requirement beyond a question and answer exchange and thus, the context of said questions are not given patentable weight.
Lastly, McMain fails to specifically disclose enabling a player to select a game character. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is longstanding in the history of computer gaming for players to select a character at the beginning of a game from a character to select page. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McMain with a character selection mechanism for the purpose of allowing a player to select from a multitude of characters that are more suited for their preferences.
Re claim 12 and 23: McMain discloses with respect to the method according to claim 10, wherein establishing the interactive video game environment includes creating features that move, the features being associated with possible answers to questions and with which the selected game character is to interact for the foster child to select as answers to questions (see paragraph [0094]).
Re claim 13 and 24: McMain discloses with respect to the method according to claim 10, wherein establishing the interactive video game environment includes scenes of an adventure for the selected game character to travel and answer questions while the foster child is playing the video game (see paragraph [0019]: “In my method, and by way of use of my controller device wherein the choices of either anger or placation can be introduced into charact]er dialog, a game player moves through a scene of a video game and encounters another character.’).
Re claim 17 and 28: McMain discloses with respect to the method according to claim 10, further comprising displaying and/or generating audible questions within the video game to which the foster child is self-reporting in real-time about his or her well-being within residential care by when playing the video game on the mobile electronic device. (see paragraph [0019]: the dialog between the player and the npc are audibly played to the player).
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.
Claim(s) 11, 14, 22, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMain in view of The Sims 4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XkB1zx6lLM).
Re claims 11, 14, 22, 25: McMain fails to disclose with respect to the method according to claim 10, wherein establishing an interactive video game environment includes creating scenes of a house, foster parents, school, and streets in which the selected game character is able to be moved. However, The Sims 4 discloses a open world game that includes a house (see 18:51)., a school (see 18:00), streets (see 05:30: streets), and a scene with parents (see 18:51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the game of McMain with the various scenes of the Sims 4, for the purpose of adding diverse scenes to the game that maintain player attention.
Re claims 15 and 26: McMain fails to disclose with respect to the method according to claim 14, wherein the scenes show other characters of similar types to the selected game character. However, The Sims 4 discloses selecting a player wherein in a scene there are other characters of similar types (see 14:25: the selecting of the character as indicated by the green shape, who then talks with the other character; 15:02: shows a dancing event with other similar characters).
Claim(s) 16 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMain in view of Catizens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzuF5ZaAnKs).
Re claims 16 and 27: McMain fails to disclose with respect to the method according to claim 15, wherein the selected game character is an animal, and the other characters include at least one of the same type of animal. However, Catizens discloses a game wherein animals interact with other animals. (see 07:18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the characters of McMain for animals as taught by Catizens, as such would have produced the predictable results of an interactive game with animals.
Claim(s) 18 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMain in view of Hill (U.S. Patent No. 9,953,486).
Re claims 18 and 29: McMain fails to disclose with respect to the method according to claim 10, further comprising capturing, by the mobile electronic device, an indicia from the foster child when the foster child is playing the video game, thereby providing a validation that the foster child self-reported in real-time. However, Hill discloses a game machine with biometric features that tracks the user identity during gameplay to authenticate that the player is the individual playing the game (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the game of McMain with the authentication feature of Hill for the purpose of ensuring that the player presently playing the game.
Claim(s) 19, 20, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMain in view of Hudson (U.S. PGPUB 20070226648)
Re claims 19, 20, 30, 31: McMain fails to disclose with respect to the method according to claim 10, further comprising automatically selecting a first scene or a second scene in response to the foster child causing the game character to answer a well-being or safety question with a corresponding first answer or a second answer. However, Hudson discloses a similar video game dialog system wherein user answers result in different scenes being produced and subsequent scenes involve different questions that provide different game scenarios (see paragraph [0026, 0027, 0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the game dialog system of McMain with the scene determination feature of Hudson, for the purpose of adding dynamic game play which maintains excitement within the game.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights