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 non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses a board game in claims 1-15 and a card game in claims 16-20. The claims are drafted in a way making it unclear if the claims are directed to an apparatus to play the game or a process to play the game, thus failed passing the step 1 of the analysis.
Examiner’s Note
Even assuming the claims passes the Step 1 analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The instant invention is broadly “relates generally to the field of educational board games and card games, particularly in the field of teaching financial literacy and independence.” ([0002]). Claims 1-20 recites the steps and rules for playing a board/card game. A human -using the mind, pen and paper- is capable of playing this game based on the calculation steps and rules. Thus, these claims are directed to mathematical concept, certain way of organizing human activity and mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a computerized system. The claims are drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. Without any details on computerized system, the conventional computers presented are directed to the components of a system amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to data gathering for calculating parameters and generating a score. The present claims have been analyzed both individually and in combination and, the instant claims do not provide any improvement of the functioning of the computer or improvement to computer technology or any other technical field. There do not appear to be any meaningful limitations other than those that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Thus the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more," and thus not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KIM et al. [KR101548201], hereinafter KIM, discloses a board/card game for teaching financial literacy and independence with many similar claimed limitations as being disclosed by instant invention. However, KIM does not disclose “wherein each of the plurality of sets of game indications represents a respective time period, the time periods sequentially advancing through the plurality of sets of game indications” as being claimed in claim 1, and “a deck of time period cards, each time period card indicating the passage of a respective time period” as being claimed in claim 16.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights