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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 6/11/2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
The Drawings filed 6/11/2024 are noted.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
The claims are drawn to apparatus categories.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Representative Claim 1 is analyzed below:
Claim 1: “A live trivia game system comprising: a networked computer system, the networked computer system comprising a server processor and a server memory; player mobile devices, each player mobile device comprising a mobile device processor, a mobile device memory, and a mobile device display; a gathering place, a plurality of the player mobile devices being located at the gathering place; an external network; and trivia game software executable by one or more of the networked computer system and the player mobile devices; the networked computer system being operatively connected to the player mobile devices via the external network; the trivia game software comprising instructions for the networked computer system to register a plurality of player accounts, to define a plurality of teams, assign player accounts to each team, and enter the plurality of teams into a live trivia game session in response to requests transmitted from the mobile devices; the networked computer system memory storing a database of trivia questions, the database identifying, for each trivia question, all player accounts that have been presented that trivia question in a previous live trivia game session; the trivia game software comprising instructions for the networked computer system to select at random a plurality of trivia questions from a subset of trivia questions in the database that have not been presented to any player accounts assigned to a team entered in the current live trivia game session, and to present the selected trivia questions to the teams.”
The italicized limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG1, “certain methods of organizing human activity”, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The claims are drawn to managing a live trivia game. Management and organizational steps recited include registering player accounts, defining teams, assigning accounts to teams, entering teams into a live trivia game, identifying repeat trivia questions, selecting/presenting questions to teams, receiving answers and awarding points based on correct answers. The claimed invention is thus drawn to managing interactions between people playing a trivia game and a social activity. The claimed invention is also drawn to following rules/instructions defining how the claimed trivia game is played.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations including a networked server, memory and mobile devices, collectively, these limitations represent a GUI in communication with a server.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional computer implementation.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract process. However, these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, the prior art relied on in the prior art rejection, infra, shows the conventionality of networked GUIs in communication with a server used to implement games. These elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Additionally, Applicant’s Specifications acknowledge that generic devices including smartphones are used to implement the claimed invention.2
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions provide conventional computer implementation of an abstract process.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they only recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit precedent controls3:
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. 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. 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, 9 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston (U.S. Patent No.: 10,561,947 B1) in view of Van Luchene (U.S. Pub. No.: 2009/0149234 A1).
Johnston discloses a live trivia game system (abstract), comprising: a networked computer system, (Fig. 3 and related description), the networked computer system comprising a server processor and a server memory, (Fig. 3 and related description); player mobile devices, each player mobile device comprising a mobile device processor, a mobile device memory, and a mobile device display, (Fig. 3 and related description); a gathering place, (Col. 8. Lines 6-15), a plurality of the player mobile devices being located at the gathering place, (Id.); an external network; and trivia game software executable by one or more of the networked computer system and the player mobile devices; the networked computer system being operatively connected to the player mobile devices via the external network, (Fig. 3 and related description.)
Johnston discloses the networked computer system memory storing a database of trivia questions, the database identifying, for each trivia question, (Col. 7. Lines 65-67, Col. 8. Lines 16-38), all player accounts that have been presented that trivia question in a previous live trivia game session; the trivia game software comprising instructions for the networked computer system to select at random a plurality of trivia questions from a subset of trivia questions in the database that have not been presented to any player accounts assigned to a team entered in the current live trivia game session, and to present the selected trivia questions to the teams, (Col. 9. Lines 12-26).
Johnston discloses trivia teams for a live session (Col. 7. Lines 42-60) but does not make explicit registering player accounts to define teams, assigning accounts to teams and entering teams into a live trivia game session in response to requests transmitted from the mobile devices, and allowing a participant to submit an answer as a team representative (voting). However, as evidenced by Van Luchene in a related trivia invention, these elements are well-known in trivia game systems, (Van Luchene, e.g., ¶¶ 72, 98, 192, 256, 403, 408, 466, 470, 476).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have provided Van Luchene’s team formation and voting mechanism in Johnston’s system for the purpose of enabling friends and those with like-interests to join the same team and obtain a majority answer to a trivia question. Changes to the prior art utilizing known methods yielding predictable and expected results are considered obvious.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston (U.S. Patent No.: 10,561,947 B1) in view of Van Luchene (U.S. Pub. No.: 2009/0149234 A1) and Martin et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2025/0296002 A1).
Johnston and Van Luchene show the invention substantially but do not make explicit, the time-based point allocation required by Claim 2. However, as evidenced by Martin in a related trivia invention, this is well-known in the art, (Martin e.g., ¶ 26). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have provided the time-based point allocation taught by Martin in Johnston’s system for the purpose of increasing competition thereby maintaining interest.
Time-based point allocation incentivizes players/teams to respond promptly to gain maximum points. This fosters competition and makes the trivia game interesting. Changes to the prior art utilizing known methods yielding predictable and expected results are considered obvious. It is noted that the claims recite awarding a third number of points for an incorrect or untimely answer -this is satisfied by
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, generally 9am-5:30 pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached on 571-272-7673. 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.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 See MPEP 2106
2 Specifications: [0012] As illustrated in the accompanying drawings and described herein, the present disclosure provides a system and method to host and play an accessible, fast-paced, and engaging live trivia game in a gathering place, such as a pub, bar, restaurant, or other food venue. With reference to the simplified block diagram of FIG. 1, a live trivia game system 10 integrates electronic large-format presentation displays 12 (e.g., a television set, a computer monitor, or a video projector projecting images onto a screen, wall, or other viewing area at the gathering place 16) with game play on a mobile app running on player mobile devices 14 at a gathering place 16. The gathering place 16 typically comprises a suitable local area network (LAN) that is connected to a networked computer system 18 via an external network 20, such as the Internet. The player mobile devices 14 can for example comprise smartphones, smart watches, tablets, wearable computers, and/or other suitable devices which comprise a user input device, a display (a touchscreen display 26 typically serving as both an input device and a display), a microprocessor and memory, and a network adapter, so as to enable the device to perform the functions of a player mobile device 14 according to this disclosure. The computer system 18 comprises a microprocessor, memory, and a network adapter, so as to enable the computer system 18 to perform trivia game server functions according to this disclosure. The presentation displays 12 and, optionally, the player mobile devices 14 are connected to the LAN at the gathering place 16. For example, the presentation displays 12 can connect to a suitable router 22, such as via wi-fi or wired ethernet. (Emphasis Added.)
3: Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015)