DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/6/25 has been entered. Claim 1 is pending and under examination.
Applicant’s amendments filed 6/6/25 have overcome the claim objections, specification objections, and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) from the previous Office Action mailed on 5/20/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, as filed on 6/6/25, is blurry, rendering it very difficult to read. Applicant should file any subsequent claims in an easy-to-read font. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The text of the specification, as filed on 6/6/25, is blurry, rendering it very difficult to read. Applicant should file any subsequent claims in an easy-to-read font. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 is narrative in form and comprises multiple sentences. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Additionally, the second sentence recited in claim 1 states “The video game prototype has already been created and is available for viewing by the examiner and was prepared by a professional gaming producer and fully illustrates the inventors creation at a cost of $4,000.00.” It is unclear whether this statement is intended by Applicant to further define the claimed process, as it does not further define the claimed process steps previously claimed, nor does it further define the process by any additional method step. Rather, this statement appears to be an anecdotal remark by Applicant regarding the claimed invention. Therefore, it is unclear what constitutes the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “The video game prototype”, “the examiner”, and “the inventors”. These limitations lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “in a second step, applying dollar values and accounting terminology for a more presenting a physics based illustration”. The phrase “for a more presenting” is nonsensical, and thus renders the claimed subject matter of claim 1 indefinite as it is unclear what constitutes the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1 = YES: Claim 1 recites a “process” defined by a series of steps, and thus falls under one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A, Prong 1 = YES: The claim recites a process comprising assisting a beginning accounting student with understanding the mechanics of double entry accounting defined as “illustrating [mechanics of double entry accounting] in simple terms using a video game that contains no dollar values or accounting terminology and then, in a second step, applying dollar values and accounting terminology for a more presenting a physics based illustration and then, later, applying accounting values and terminology… [t]he video game prototype has already been created and is available for viewing by the examiner and was prepared by a professional gaming producer and fully illustrates the inventors creation at a cost of $4,000.00” which but for defining the process in the context of a “video” game, i.e., computer-based environment, it is interpreted as steps that are practically performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., evaluation)(see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., interactions between two humans, such as a teaching environment). For example, a human teacher could practically perform these rules of the game including each of the three claimed steps as a game on a sheet of paper or whiteboard, including “illustrating [mechanics of double entry accounting] in simple terms using a … game that contains no dollar values or accounting terminology and then, in a second step, applying dollar values and accounting terminology for a more presenting a physics based illustration and then, later, applying accounting values and terminology” on the sheet of paper or whiteboard. These steps can be practically performed by the teacher thinking about what to write down, and then carrying out those actions by writing down a game with no dollar values or accounting terminology, and then subsequently writing down dollar values and accounting terminology, and finally applying accounting values and terminology. Additionally, to the extent the second sentence of claim 1 is intended by Applicant to further define the claimed process (see rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above), the process of creating a game prototype and being prepared by a professional gaming producer also constitutes an abstract idea because it could be practically performed by mental process, e.g., mental evaluation. Therefore, the steps identified above are akin to mental processes and human activity, and thus fall within an enumerated category of abstract ideas. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) to help them complete the recited steps above, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
STEP 2A, Prong 2 = NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claimed additional element is defining the abstract idea in the context of a “using a video game” which merely defines a field of use or technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. In particular, the term “video game” is recited at a high level of generality with no details whatsoever defining any technological implementation details. In other words, but for the generic reference to a “video game”, the claimed process is practically capable of being performed by human analog. Therefore, based on the lack of technical detail, the recited “video game” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: YES).
STEP 2B = NO: The claim recites the additional element of a “video game” to display the claimed process, which as identified under Prong 1 is practically capable of performance by mental process and certain methods of human activity. Furthermore, as provided under Prong 2, the claims lack any technical details defining said “video game”, and thus it is interpreted as merely defining a generic field of use or technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be performed. The “video game” is recited at a high level of generality, referred to by name alone, with no details whatsoever. Instead, the claims merely refer to “using a video game” to illustrate information that is otherwise practically capable of being illustrated using pen and paper or a marker on a whiteboard. Likewise, the written description refers to a “video game” in the same generic manner as claimed, indicating that the “video game” environment is a well-known, routine, and conventional technological environment that no further detail is required to satisfy the requirements under 35 USC 112(a). Thus, the claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter is not a patent-eligible application, and thus claim 1 is not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s response filed 5/5/25 does not include any arguments. Therefore, this Office Action does not include any response to arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7147. 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715