DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 13, 19 and 20 as the representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
acquire object information including at least position information and category information of an object based on an image of an object corresponding to a game item, included in the image,
based on the object information, perform a first combination determination to determine a combination that satisfies a predetermined first combination condition among combinations of any of first objects located in a first area in the captured image and any of second objects located in a second area in the captured image, and
generate image including a first combination indication indicating the combination that satisfies the first combination condition,
(per claim 19) [show] the image on the field.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (also see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
(a) It is worth noting that mental processes encompass concepts that can be performed in the mind (and/or using a pen and paper). Accordingly, while observing object information—namely, position and category information—of an object based on image of the object corresponding to a game item, a human—e.g., a game coach—can determine whether there is a combination that satisfies at least a predetermined first combination condition among combinations of (i) any of first objects located in a first area in the image, and (ii) any of second objects located in a second area in the image. Of course, once making the above determination, the game coach sketches an image that includes a first combination indication, which indicates the combination that satisfies the first combination condition.
The test above confirms that the claims do recite an abstract idea; namely, a mental process (e.g., an observation, an evaluation, and/or a judgment process).
(b) Similarly, the claims are also reciting the presentation of assistance regarding a game; and this indicates—at least implicitly—that the assistance is presented to a user based on evaluating the user’s performance. In particular, based on the analysis of image/information gathered regarding game objects in a field, the user is presented with pertinent information—namely, a first combination indication indicating the combination that satisfies the first combination condition; and thereby, guiding or teaching the user regarding the correct/acceptable combination. Note that the interpretation above is consistent with the specification (e.g., see [0050]).
The observation above confirms that the claims also correspond to the group certain methods of organizing human activity—such as, managing personal behavior (e.g., teaching).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong Two:
The claim(s) recite additional element(s), wherein a computer-based system that comprises computer components (e.g., a processor, a memory, etc.), including a camera and a projector; and the computer-based system is utilized to facilitate the recited functions/steps regarding: capturing an image of a field (“a camera configured to capture an image of the field”); acquiring information from the captured image (“acquire object information including at least position information and category information of an object based on an image of an object corresponding to the game item, included in the captured image”); analyzing the information to determine one or more results (“based on the object information, perform a first combination determination to determine a combination that satisfies a predetermined first combination condition among combinations of any of first objects located in a first area in the captured image and any of second objects located in a second area in the captured image”); generating one or more relevant results based on the analysis (“generate the projection image including a first combination indication indicating the combination that satisfies the first combination condition”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions.
Accordingly, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole (e.g., see the discussion under Prong Two above regarding such consideration of the claim as a whole), none of the claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth noting—per the original disclosure—that the claimed invention is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the original specification describes a conventional arrangement set using commercially available everyday objects (e.g., a mat, a table, game cards, etc.) and commercially available electronic devices—namely, a personal computer, a camera(s), and a projector, etc. (see [0028] to [0032]); and accordingly, based on the analysis of images of objects—e.g., images of cards placed on the mat—captured via the camera(s), the computer determines relevant information (e.g., an image representing the desired position/combination of one or more of the cards, etc.); and wherein the relevant information determined above is displayed—via the projector—to at least one user/player ([0042]; [0050]).
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the process of presenting, based on the analysis captured images/video of a task(s) that a user is performing (e.g., a board game or a card game that the use is playing, etc.), pertinent information to the user (e.g., text-based information, image-based information, etc.), is already directed to well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., US 2019/0351319; US 2013/0123009, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-12 and 14-18). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
● Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b) or 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(a) Each of claims 1, 13, 19 and 20 recites the term “the game item”; however, it is unclear what the above limitation encompasses since it lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In addition, given the context of the term “object” and “game item”, it is unclear whether the two terms above are referring to the same element or two distinct elements.
(b) In addition, each of claims 1, 13, 19 and 20 also recites, “acquire object information including at least position information and category information of an object based on an image of an object” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether the term “an object”, as recited above, is representing the same object or two different objects.
(c) Claim 2 further recites the limitations, “the first object”, “the second object” and “the object”; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of the above terms in the claim.
(d) claim 5 recites the terms, “a 1P-side combination” and “a 2P-side combination”; however, it is unclear what each of the terms above is representing since the claim fails to define each of the above terms.
Applicant is further advised to evaluate each of the claims and make appropriate corrections if additional discrepancies are discovered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maharbiz 2013/0123009.
Regarding each of claims 1, 13, 19 and 20, Maharbiz teaches the following claimed limitations: a game progress assistance system (or a computer-readable non-transitory medium, per claim 13; or a method, per claim 19; or a facility, per claim 20) for providing assistance in a game that progresses using game items placed in a field, the game progress assistance system comprising: a camera configured to capture an image of the field; a projector configured to project a projection image on the field (see [0001]; [0064] lines 1-12; [0067] lines 16-20; [0144]: e.g., a computer-based system, method and/or facility for enhancing board and/or tabletop games; wherein the system comprises various components, including: game objects, one or more cameras for capturing image of the game objects, a projector for projecting one or more images on one or more areas on the board/table, etc. Note that the Office is relying on the embodiment described per FIG 23); and one or more processors configured to acquire object information including at least position information and category information of an object based on an image of an object corresponding to the game item, included in the captured image (see [0064] lines 12-25; [0070] lines 1-10; [0146]: e.g., the system already incorporates a processor or a controller—such as, a personal computer; and furthermore, each of the game objects/pieces has a corresponding visual marker; and accordingly, based on analyzing the images captured via one or more of the cameras, the processor recognizes the type and position/location of each of the game objects on the game board/table. In this case, is understood in the art that board games—such as a chess game—typically involve at least two players; thus, there are two or more categories, each category involving a number of game objects; such as, (i) a first player with his/her set of game objects, (ii) a second player with his/her set of game objects, etc. Thus, the computer already acquires object information that includes at least position information and category information of an object based on the captured image); based on the object information, perform a first combination determination to determine a combination that satisfies a predetermined first combination condition among combinations of any of first objects located in a first area in the captured image and any of second objects located in a second area in the captured image; and generate the projection image including a first combination indication indicating the combination that satisfies the first combination condition; and (per claim 19) output the projection image to a projector configured to project the projection image on the field ([0071] lines 1-14; [0095] to [0097]; [0147] lines 1-7; [0151]: e.g., based on the current state of the game—such as, the players starting a new game or resuming a previous game, the computer determines, based on the information it already acquired regarding each of the game objects and the game board/table itself, a corresponding proper location to place each of the game objects; and thereby, it generates an image that depicts each of the game objects placed in its corresponding proper location; and subsequently, the computer sends the generated image to the projector and the projector projects the image onto one or more surfaces of the board/table, so that each player would know the proper location to place each of his/her game objects, etc. It is understood that each player has his/her set of game objects while facing a corresponding area of the game board/table. Thus, the above process of determining and providing the proper location of each game object of the plurality of game objects already indicates the process of performing, based on the object information, a first combination determination to determine a combination that satisfies a predetermined first combination condition among combinations of any of first objects located in a first area in the captured image and any of second objects located in a second area in the captured image. Similarly, the process of generating the image that depicts each game object being placed in its corresponding proper location and subsequently projecting this image onto one or more areas of the board/table indicates the process of generating the projection image including a first combination indication indicating the combination that satisfies the first combination condition; and further output the projection image to a projector configured to project the projection image on the field).
Regarding each of claims 2 and 14 Maharbiz teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 13 respectively.
Maharbiz further teaches, based on the position information, detect that each of the objects included in the determined combination of the first object and the second object which satisfies the first combination condition is moved to a third area in the captured image, and generate a projection image including a third area indication regarding the third area, when it is detected that the object is moved to the third area ([0095]; [0096]: e.g., when the players are resuming a previous game in progress, the system generates and projects an image that depicts at least one of the plurality of game objects being moved—from its original position during the very start of the game—to at least one different area on the game board/table; and thus, the projected image depicts at least one game object being moved to a third area, etc. The above confirms that the system does detect, based on the position information, that each of the objects included in the determined combination of the first object and the second object that satisfies the first combination condition is moved to a third area in the captured image; and subsequently, projects a corresponding image depicting the change above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 8, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Maharbiz 2013/0123009.
Regarding each of claims 8 and 17, Maharbiz teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 13.
The limitation, “in the generation of the projection image, a placement position of the first combination indication in the projection image is determined based on the position information about each of the objects included in the combination that satisfies the first combination condition, to generate the projection image”, above is referring to the content—namely, a pictorial element—being displayed as part of the projected image in order to indicate to the user where to move a given game object.
Although Maharbiz does not teach the above form of indication, Maharbiz does project—as part of its indication regarding the position of a game object(s)—an image on one or more surfaces of the game board/table—such as, image being projected onto “the surface of the sensors, showing where the intelligent game piece objects are to be initially placed to begin game play”(see [0095]; [0096], emphasis added); and further, the players “relocate” the game objects “to the locations shown by the projected image” ([0097], emphasis added).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maharbiz’s system; for example, by incorporating one or more common pictorial elements—such as an arrow—that are typically used to denote a direction; and the system further displays, as part of the image it is projecting on the game board/table, at least one arrow that indicates the desired area where a given game object is required to be placed; such as, the tail of the arrow denoting the current spot of the game object, which the player(s) is required to move, and the head of the arrow denoting the new spot where the game object is required to be moved, etc., so that the player(s) would have supplemental information that helps him/her to readily recognize the correct position for the game object, etc.
Regarding claim 9, Maharbiz teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 8.
The limitation, “the first combination indication includes a line connecting frame indications corresponding to where the objects that satisfy the first combination condition are located” (emphasis added), is merely describing the particular pictorial element—namely, a connecting line—that is being projected.
Accordingly, the modification discussed above per claim 8 already addresses claim 9. This is because the modified system already generates and projects one or more common pictorial elements—such as an arrow—that connects the current spot of the game object with the new spot where the game object is required to be moved (note also that the same motivation discussed per claim 8 applies to claim 9 since claim 9 is dependent on claim 8).
● Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Maharbiz 2013/0123009 in view of Emori 2012/0080845.
Regarding each of claims 12 and 18, Maharbiz teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 13 respectively.
Maharbiz further teaches, the game items are game items of which designs on at least one side are different from each other, and in the acquisition of the object information, the category information is acquired based on the designs of the game items ([0146]; e.g., each of the game object involves a corresponding unique visual marker; such as, a marker placed on the upward facing side of the game object; and accordingly, the system recognizes, via image analysis of the captured images of the visual markers of the game objects, the position where each of the one or more game objects is placed relative to one another and/or relative to the board/table, etc. In this regard, as already pointed out per claim 1, such recognition of the position on the board/table where a given game object, or a set of game objects, is placed corresponds the category information; such as, a first set of game objects that relates to a first player, a second set of game objects that relates to a second player, etc.).
Maharbiz does not expressly teach that the game items are of card-type game items.
However, Emori teaches a game system that allows players to play a game on a game table using card-type game items ([0003]; [0009]); wherein the system implements a camera that captures details of each card—such as, marks and symbols on each of the card; and thereby the system identifies each of the one or more cards using image processing ([0086]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Maharbiz in view of Emori; for example, by incorporating one or more additional types of game objects/items—such as, well-known game cards that players typically use to play poker, Baccarat, etc., wherein the system’s algorithm is also upgraded with information for identifying each of the game cards, including one or more rules for playing one or more types of card games using the game cards; and accordingly, besides allowing the players to play board games—such as, a chess game, the system further allows the players to play one or more card games; wherein the system also provides—during each of the card games—relevant guidance to each of the one or more players in the same fashion discussed with respect to the board game; so that the payers would have additional opportunity to expand their skills regarding various type of indoor or table-based games.
● Considering each of claims 3-7, 10, 11, 15 and 16 as a whole, the prior art does not teach or suggest each of the above claims as currently presented (regarding the state of the prior art, see the analysis presented under section §102 and section §103).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (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.uspto.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.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights