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.
The subject matter of a claim must be directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If it is not, the claim is not eligible for patent protection. The subject matter which courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention is limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (i.e., the judicial exceptions) (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013))). There are two criteria for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 and both must be satisfied. The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception. Claims 2-20 are directed to rules governing a game/activity. Methods of managing a game/activity are abstract ideas (See: Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and a set of rules for a game are drawn to abstract ideas (See: In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Based on the subject matter eligibility test for products and processes, claims 2-20 are not eligible for patent protection because:
(Step 1) claims 2-20 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(Step 2A) claims 2-20 are directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (a judicially recognized exception). Claims 2-20 fall within the subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and are directed to methods of organizing human activity (following instructions/rules governing an activity/game). If a claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea), the claim is evaluated as to whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Integration into a practical application is evaluated by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: a game board having a planar surface with contiguous tiles; vertically extending pegs poisoned on the tiles; magnetic game pieces that are disk-shaped and having a center hole; a pair of dice; a stack of instruction cards; a marker. The recited judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
(Step 2B) claims 2-20 do not recite provide an inventive concept because the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See: Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965-66 (2012)). The examiner takes official notice that the additional elements (a game board having a planar surface with contiguous tiles; vertically extending pegs poisoned on the tiles; magnetic game pieces that are disk-shaped and having a center hole; a pair of dice; a stack of instruction cards; a marker) are well-understood, routine, and conventional and are widely prevalent and in common use in the relevant field (See for example: Brotz (5209486); Manno (4328970); Currie (3556526); Smith (5421581); Smith (20200094129), Douglas (10300367), Hale (5183256), Fung (20120086167), McGetrick (2020026179)), comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Further, it is noted that applicant’s specification (Para. 041) discloses: “cards, dice and marker are conventional and therefore are not shown in the perspective of FIG. 1”.
Therefore, claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currie (3556526) in view of McGetrick (20200261791) and Manno (4328970).
Regarding claim 2, Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches a method of playing a board game, the method comprising: providing a game board (11) with a planar surface (12) (Col. 3, Lines 36-42); providing a pattern of playing position areas (Col. 3, Lines 38-42); providing a plurality of vertically extending pegs (13), each peg positioned along the playing positioned areas; providing at least two sets of magnetic game pieces (15), each set having a distinct color, wherein each magnetic game piece comprises: a disk-shaped body with a top surface and a bottom surface, a center hole configured to slide down the vertically extending pegs, and magnetic properties such that the top surface and bottom surface have opposite magnetic polarities (Col. 3, Lines 48-62); determining a play order among players (Col. 3, Lines 73-75; Col. 4, Lines 1-9); each player, in turn: selecting one of their magnetic game pieces to move (Col. 4, Lines 1-9); assigning each player a set of magnetic game pieces; (Col. 4, Lines 1-9).
Currie does not teach providing a racetrack on the game board, the race track comprising a plurality of contiguous tiles including a designated starting tile and a designated finishing tile; each peg positioned in the center of one of the plurality of contiguous tiles along the race track; providing at least one pair of dice; providing a stack of instruction cards; rolling the dice to determine a number of tiles to move; moving the selected piece along the race track according to the dice roll; if landing on an occupied peg, allowing magnetic interaction between pieces; if landing on a designated tile, drawing a card and following its instructions; continuing play until one player moves all their pieces to the finishing tile or until all players' pieces reach the finishing tile, at which point the player with the most pieces on the finishing tile wins.
McGetrick teaches providing a racetrack on the game board, the race track comprising a plurality of contiguous tiles (26) including a designated starting tile and a designated finishing tile (Para. 0020, 0026, 0028); providing at least one pair of dice (Para. 0026); providing a stack of instruction cards (Para. 0027); drawing a card and following its instructions (Para. 0027); rolling the dice to determine a number of tiles to move (Para. 0020, 0026); moving the selected piece along the race track according to the dice roll (Para. 0026); if landing on a designated tile, drawing a card and following its instructions (Para. 0027); continuing play until one player moves all their pieces to the finishing tile or until all players' pieces reach the finishing tile, at which point the player with the most pieces on the finishing tile wins (Para. 0026).
It is noted that the combination of Currie and McGetrick teaches the claim recitation of “each peg positioned in the center of one of the plurality of contiguous tiles along the race track” as providing the board game of Currie with the tiles of McGetrick would result in pegs placed on the tiles. The position of the tiles on the track is merely a matter of rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), where claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device; See: In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), where the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
As an alternative rejection, it is noted that the claim recitation of “providing a stack of instruction cards; drawing a card and following its instructions” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. An example in which a product merely serves as a support would occur for a deck of playing cards having images on each card. See In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished). In Bryan the applicant asserted that the printed matter allowed the cards to be “collected, traded, and drawn”; “identify and distinguish one deck of cards from another”; and “enable the card to be traded and blind drawn”. However, the court found that these functions do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and were instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. See also: In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339, 70 USPQ2d at 1864, where in a kit containing a set of chemicals and a printed set of instructions for using the chemicals, the instructions are not related to that particular set of chemicals. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Manno teaches (Figures 1-4) if landing on an occupied peg (16), allowing magnetic interaction between pieces (Fig. 2, Part No. 17) (Col. 2, Lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Currie with providing a racetrack having a plurality of contiguous tiles as taught by McGetrick as a means of providing a game board with tiles that form a path for moving playing pieces (McGetrick: Para. 0020); to provide Currie with rules/instructions that govern a board game as taught by Smith as a means of providing a board game with rules that govern play of the board game (Smith: Para. 0032, 0037, 0039, 0041), and to provide Currie with if landing on an occupied peg, allowing magnetic interaction between pieces as taught by Manno as a means of allowing magnetic game pieces to attach to each other by attraction while on a pin/peg in a game (Manno: Col. 2, Lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing at least two sets of magnetic game pieces (15).
The modified Currie does not teach the magnetic properties of each magnetic game piece are not visually indicated, adding an element of chance to magnetic interactions.
Manno teaches the magnetic properties of each magnetic game piece are not visually indicated, adding an element of chance to magnetic interactions (Abstract, Lines 1-9; Col. 2, Lines 3-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Currie with the magnetic properties of each magnetic game piece are not visually indicated as taught by Manno as a means of dropping magnetic discs on a pin/peg so that the discs are either attracted or repelled to another magnetic disc (Manno: Abstract, Lines 1-9; Col. 2, Lines 3-26).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing at least two sets of magnetic game pieces (15).
The modified Currie does not teach the step of strategically choosing the orientation of a magnetic game piece's polarity before introducing it into play.
Manno teaches the step of strategically choosing the orientation of a magnetic game piece's polarity before introducing it into play (Abstract, Lines 1-9; Col. 2, Lines 3-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Currie with the step of strategically choosing the orientation of a magnetic game piece's polarity as taught by Manno as a means of dropping magnetic discs on a pin/peg so that the discs are either attracted or repelled to another magnetic disc (Manno: Abstract, Lines 1-9; Col. 2, Lines 3-26).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing at least two sets of magnetic game pieces (15).
The modified Currie does not teach when a player's magnetic game piece lands on a designated tile, the player draws an instruction card and follows its directions.
McGetrick teaches when a player's magnetic game piece lands on a designated tile, the player draws an instruction card and follows its directions (Para. 0027).
As an alternative rejection, it is noted that the claim recitation of “when a player's magnetic game piece lands on a designated tile, the player draws an instruction card and follows its directions” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Currie with when a player's game piece lands on a designated tile the player draws an instruction card and follows its directions as taught by McGetrick as a means of providing a board game with a rule by which a player draws a card having instructions/tasks on the card when a game piece lands on a space/tile in the game (McGetrick: Para. 0027).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing at least two sets of magnetic game pieces (15).
The modified Currie does not teach magnetic interaction between magnetic game pieces includes attraction resulting in capture of one piece by another.
Manno teaches magnetic interaction between magnetic game pieces includes attraction resulting in capture of one piece by another (Abstract, Lines 1-9; Col. 2, Lines 3-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Currie with magnetic interaction between magnetic game pieces includes attraction as taught by Manno as a means of dropping magnetic discs on a pin/peg so that the discs are either attracted or repelled to another magnetic disc (Manno: Abstract, Lines 1-9; Col. 2, Lines 3-26).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches magnetic interaction between magnetic game pieces includes repulsion resulting in levitation of one piece above another (Col. 3, Lines 63-72) (See fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing at least two sets of magnetic game pieces (15).
The modified Currie does not teach the step of a player designating which magnetic game piece will be moved before rolling the dice.
McGetrick teaches the step of a player designating which magnetic game piece will be moved before rolling the dice (Para. 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Currie with designating which magnetic game piece will be moved before rolling the dice as taught by McGetrick as a means of rolling dice before moving game pieces in a board game (McGetrick: Para. 0026).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing at least two sets of magnetic game pieces (15).
The modified Currie does not teach captured pieces belonging to the player with the top piece count when reaching the finishing tile.
Manno teaches captured pieces belonging to the player with the top piece count toward winning the game (Abstract, Lines 1-9; Col. 2, Lines 3-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Currie with captured pieces belonging to the player with the top piece count as taught by Manno as a means of dropping magnetic discs on a pin/peg so that the discs are either attracted or repelled to another magnetic disc (Manno: Abstract, Lines 1-9; Col. 2, Lines 3-26).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing at least two sets of magnetic game pieces (15).
The modified Currie does not teach captured pieces not belonging to the player with the top piece do not count when reaching the finishing tile.
Manno teaches captured pieces not belonging to the player with the top piece do not count toward winning the game (Abstract, Lines 1-9; Col. 2, Lines 3-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Currie with captured pieces not belonging to the player with the top piece do not count as taught by Manno as a means of dropping magnetic discs on a pin/peg so that the discs are either attracted or repelled to another magnetic disc (Manno: Abstract, Lines 1-9; Col. 2, Lines 3-26).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing at least two sets of magnetic game pieces (15).
The modified Currie does not teach the step of flipping a magnetic game piece when instructed by a drawn card, potentially changing the magnetic interaction with other pieces.
Manno teaches the step of flipping a magnetic game piece, potentially changing the magnetic interaction with other pieces (Abstract, Lines 1-9; Col. 2, Lines 3-26).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “when instructed by a drawn card” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Currie with the step of flipping a magnetic game piece as taught by Manno as a means of dropping magnetic discs on a pin/peg so that the discs are either attracted or repelled to another magnetic disc (Manno: Abstract, Lines 1-9; Col. 2, Lines 3-26).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches the number of magnetic game pieces per player is adjustable (Col. 2, Lines 34-43) to modify the duration of gameplay.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currie in view of McGetrick.
Regarding claim 13, Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches a method of playing a magnetic board game, the method comprising: providing a game board with a planar surface; forming on the planar surface a pattern of playing position areas (Col. 3, Lines 38-42) defined by vertically extending pegs (13); providing at least two sets of magnetic game pieces (15), each set distinguished by color (Col. 3, Lines 48-56) and each magnetic game piece having (i) a center hole sized to slide freely down any of the pegs and (ii) two opposite-polarity surfaces (Col. 3, Lines 48-61); assigning a first of the sets to a first player and a second of the sets to a second player (Col. 3, Lines 73-75; Col. 4, Lines 1-9); alternately, for each player's turn: selecting one magnetic game piece of that player's set for movement (Col. 3, Lines 73-75; Col. 4, Lines 1-9); when the moved magnetic game piece lands on a peg already occupied by at least one other magnetic game piece, allowing magnetic interaction between the moved magnetic game piece and the at least one other magnetic game piece (Col. 3, Lines 73-75; Col. 4, Lines 1-9) such that: (a) the moved magnetic game piece magnetically attaches to another of that player's magnetic game pieces, whereby the attached pieces move together in later turns, (b) the moved magnetic game piece magnetically attaches to an opponent's magnetic game piece whereby the attached pieces move together in later turns, (c) the moved magnetic game piece magnetically repels another of that player's magnetic game pieces (Col. 3, Lines 73-75; Col. 4, Lines 1-9), whereby the repelled pieces move separately in later turns, or (d) the moved magnetic game piece magnetically repels an opponent's magnetic game piece (Col. 3, Lines 73-75; Col. 4, Lines 1-9), whereby the repelled pieces move separately in later turns.
Currie does not teach forming on the planar surface a racetrack of contiguous tiles defined by vertically extending pegs, the race track being bounded by a designated starting tile and a designated finishing tile; providing at least one pair of dice and a stack of instruction cards; rolling the dice to generate a movement value; moving the selected magnetic game piece from a current peg to another peg along the race track toward the finishing tile in accordance with the movement value; when the moved magnetic game piece lands on a tile designated for card play, drawing an instruction card from the stack and performing the action specified on the drawn card; and continuing the alternating turns until one of the players moves all of that player's magnetic game pieces from the starting tile to the finishing tile.
McGetrick teaches forming on the planar surface a racetrack of contiguous tiles (26), the race track being bounded by a designated starting tile and a designated finishing tile (Para. 0020, 0026, 0028); providing at least one pair of dice (Para. 0026) and a stack of instruction cards (Para. 0027); rolling the dice to generate a movement value (Para. 0026); moving the selected game piece along the race track toward the finishing tile in accordance with the movement value (Para. 0026); when the moved game piece lands on a tile designated for card play, drawing an instruction card from the stack and performing the action specified on the drawn card (Para. 0027); and continuing the alternating turns until one of the players moves all of that player's magnetic game pieces from the starting tile to the finishing tile (Para. 0026).
As an alternative rejection, it is noted that the claim recitation of “drawing an instruction card from the stack and performing the action specified on the drawn card” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Currie with forming on the planar surface a racetrack of contiguous tiles as taught by McGetrick as a means of providing a game board with tiles that form a path for moving playing pieces (McGetrick: Para. 0020).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing a game board with a planar surface.
The modified Currie does not teach upon drawing an instruction card that directs flipping of attached magnetic game pieces so as to reverse, when present, a captor-captive relationship between the attached magnetic game pieces.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “upon drawing an instruction card that directs flipping of attached magnetic game pieces so as to reverse, when present, a captor-captive relationship between the attached magnetic game pieces” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing a game board with a planar surface.
The modified Currie does not teach when a magnetic game piece that is magnetically attached to an opponent's magnetic game piece lands on a tile that requires drawing an instruction card, both of the attached magnetic game pieces are subject to the instructions on the card.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “when a magnetic game piece that is magnetically attached to an opponent's magnetic game piece lands on a tile that requires drawing an instruction card, both of the attached magnetic game pieces are subject to the instructions on the card” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currie in view of McGetrick, Fung (20120086167), and Manno.
Regarding claim 16, Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches a method of playing a board game, the method comprising: providing a pattern of playing position areas (Col. 3, Lines 38-42), each playing position area having a peg (13); providing at least two sets of magnetic game pieces (15), each set having a distinct color and each magnetic game piece being configured to slide over a peg (Col. 3, Lines 48-56); selecting one of the player's magnetic game pieces to move (Col. 3, Lines 73-75; Col. 4, Lines 1-5); determining winners by counting each player's magnetic game pieces that are not captive of other player's game pieces, that reach the finish position (Col. 4, Lines 10-23).
Currie does not teach providing a game board having a plurality of contiguous tiles arranged to form a track from a start position to a finish position, each tile having a peg; prior to the start of play, selecting at least one set of designated tiles according to color, wherein landing upon a designated tile requires the active player to draw a card from a shuffled stack of cards; on a player's turn; rolling dice to determine movement along the tiles; drawing and following a card instruction when a game piece lands on a designated tile, the instruction including at least one of: moving forward, moving backward, returning to the start, or flipping the orientation of the magnetic game piece such that its magnetic polarity reverses; wherein magnetic interaction between game pieces on the same peg includes attraction resulting in capture such that one game piece becomes a captor positioned above a captive game piece, and wherein flipping the captor causes cooperative flipping of attached game pieces.
McGetrick teaches providing a game board having a plurality of contiguous tiles arranged to form a track from a start position to a finish position (Para. 0020, 0026, 0028); wherein landing upon a designated tile requires the active player to draw a card from a shuffled stack of cards (Para. 0026-0027); on a player's turn; rolling dice to determine movement along the tiles (Para. 0026); drawing and following a card instruction when a game piece lands on a designated tile (Para. 0027), the instruction including at least one of: moving forward (Para. 0027), moving backward (Para. 0027), returning to the start, or flipping the orientation of the game piece.
As an alternative rejection, it is noted that the claim recitation of “following a card instruction when a game piece lands on a designated tile, the instruction including at least one of: moving forward, moving backward, returning to the start, or flipping the orientation of the magnetic game piece such that its magnetic polarity reverses” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
It is notes that the combined teachings of the prior art of Currie and McGetrick teaches the claim recitation of “each tile having a peg”.
Fung teaches prior to the start of play, selecting at least one set of designated tiles according to color (Para. 0038-0039, 0045, 0049).
Manno teaches wherein magnetic interaction between game pieces on the same peg includes attraction resulting in capture such that one game piece becomes a captor positioned above a captive game piece (See fig. 2) (Col. 2, Lines 1-9), and wherein flipping the captor causes cooperative flipping of attached game pieces (See fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Currie with a plurality of contiguous tiles arranged to form a track as taught by McGetrick as a means of providing a game board with tiles that form a path for moving playing pieces (McGetrick: Para. 0020), to provide Currie with selecting at least one set of designated tiles according to color as taught by Fung as a means of providing a board game with rules that indicate movement along color coded tiles (Fung: Para. 0045, 0049), and to provide Currie with magnetic interaction between game pieces on the same peg includes attraction resulting in capture as taught by Manno as a means of allowing magnetic game pieces to attach to each other by attraction while on a pin/peg in a game (Manno: Col. 2, Lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing a pattern of playing position areas (Col. 3, Lines 38-42), each playing position area having a peg (13).
The modified Currie does not teach the designated tiles comprise tiles of a particular color, and the players collectively agree prior to the start of play which color tiles require card draws during the game.
Fung teaches the designated tiles comprise tiles of a particular color, and the players collectively agree prior to the start of play which color tiles require card draws during the game (Para. 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Currie with the designated tiles comprise tiles of a particular color as taught by Fung as a means of providing a board game with rules that indicate movement along color coded tiles (Fung: Para. 0045, 0049).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing a pattern of playing position areas (Col. 3, Lines 38-42), each playing position area having a peg (13).
The modified Currie does not teach at least one card instruction directs a player not only to flip the orientation of a magnetic game piece, but also to select whether the game piece is introduced into play with its polarity oriented in a first orientation or a second orientation.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “at least one card instruction directs a player not only to flip the orientation of a magnetic game piece, but also to select whether the game piece is introduced into play with its polarity oriented in a first orientation or a second orientation” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currie in view of McGetrick, Fung, and Manno, further in view of Poulos (20130168924).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing a pattern of playing position areas (Col. 3, Lines 38-42), each playing position area having a peg (13).
The modified Currie does not teach before rolling dice on a player's turn, the player is required to indicate with a marker which one of their magnetic game pieces is intended to be moved during that turn.
Poulos teaches before rolling dice on a player's turn, the player is required to indicate with a marker which one of their game pieces is intended to be moved during that turn (Para. 0388-0390).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Currie with before rolling dice on a player's turn the player is required to indicate with a marker which one of their game pieces is intended to be moved as taught by Poulos as a means of providing a board game with rules that require planned game play and planned movement prior to rolling dice in the game (Poulos: Para. 0388-0390).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currie in view of McGetrick, Fung, Manno, and Poulos, further in view of Herman (20210016156).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Currie (Figures 1-4) teaches providing a pattern of playing position areas (Col. 3, Lines 38-42), each playing position area having a peg (13).
The modified Currie does not teach a player may strategically decline to move a selected captor game piece in order to prevent one or more captive game pieces or one or more controlled game pieces beneath it from advancing toward the finish position.
Herman teaches a player may strategically decline to move a selected captor game piece in order to prevent one or more captive game pieces or one or more controlled game pieces beneath it from advancing toward the finish position (Para. 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Currie with a player may strategically decline to move a selected captor game piece in order to prevent one or more captive game pieces or one or more controlled game pieces beneath it from advancing toward the finish position as taught by Herman as a means of providing a board game with rules by which a player loses a turn when an opposing player’s game piece is stacked on the player’s game piece (Herman: Para. 0036).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, EUGENE KIM can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
