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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search for publication would reveal publications relating to the other groups. This is not found persuasive because the search for Claims 1-7 is only pertinent to the specifically claimed limitations, which are demonstrably different from those employed in Claims 8-20.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-7 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.
Claims 1-7 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or the rules of a game.
In regard to Claim 1, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., In re: Smith, In re: Guldenaar, and Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] method comprising:
obtaining one or more game parameters from a first user;
setting up a game based on the one or more game parameters;
allowing one or more additional users to join the game;
obtaining unit registration information corresponding to one or more physical game units from the first user and the one or more additional users; and
registering the one or more physical game units to the first user or individual users of the one or more additional users based on the unit registration information.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being, and/or the rules of a game.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., one or more physical game units; employing GPS, location services, Bluetooth detection, Wi-Fi detection, or local network; and/or employing RFID tags, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., one or more physical game units; employing GPS, location services, Bluetooth detection, Wi-Fi detection, or local network; and/or employing RFID tags, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., p124 regarding physical game units and RFID; and otherwise see, e.g., p120 regarding employing GPS, location services, Bluetooth detection, Wi-Fi detection, or local network.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PGPUB US 20170232348 A1 by Williams et al (“Williams”).
In regard to Claim 1, Williams teaches a method comprising:
obtaining one or more game parameters from a first user;
(see, e.g., F1, S110 and p22);
setting up a game based on the one or more game parameters;
(see, e.g., p22);
allowing one or more additional users to join the game;
(see, e.g., F1, S120 and S130);
obtaining unit registration information corresponding to one or more physical game units from the first user and the one or more additional users; and
registering the one or more physical game units to the first user or individual users of the one or more additional users based on the unit registration information
(see, e.g., p29).
In regard to Claims 2-3, Williams teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p22.
In regard to Claims 4-5, Williams teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p31.
In regard to Claim 6, Williams teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p29.
In regard to Claim 7, Williams teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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 http://pair-direct.gov. 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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights