Patent Application
20140110901
The field of the invention is game technologies.
There exist multiple games that relate to inventions. For example, the game “U.S. Patent Number 1” (released in 2001) is a simple board game where players move around the board to collect parts of a time machine. When their time machine invention is complete, the player travels back in time to file for a patent on the time machine. The tongue in cheek premise of the game is that any reasonable inventor of a time machine would have filed for the first patent (see URL www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2297/us-patent-number-1).
Another example of a game that indirectly relates to patents includes “Patential: Prescription for Success” (released in 2004). The main focus of this game is to develop marketable drugs in order to be the first player to generate $1B in revenue. As the players develop their drugs, they have the option of obtaining a patent on the drug. Similar to U.S. Patent Number 1, the main element of the game (prescription drugs) is an invention (see URL www.boardgamegeek.com/images/thing/14338/patential-prescription-for-success).
“The Inventors” (released in 1974; see URL www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3378/the-inventors) has the players operate as investors that invest in inventions. The inventions game components include “patent claim clips” that represent royalties to be paid for the invention. Although the game references “patent claim clips”, the clips represent aspects of the invention rather than an actual patent prosecution.
Still another example includes “Edison & Co.” (released in 1998). In Edison & Co., players operate as mad professors attempting to try out their innovative racing machines (see URL www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/417/edison-co). Although this game at best indirectly relates to inventions, the game fails to provide insight into patenting processes.
“The Game of Inventions” (released in 1984) utilizes a book where pages of the book include reproductions of patent figures. Game players attempt to guess the goals or purposes of the corresponding invention depicted in the figures (see URL www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5695/inventions).
Still another example includes “Inventus-Patentus” (released in 1965), which presents a Monopoly® style board game where players collect patents to generate royalties. Although Inventus-Patentus provides game elements that reference patents, the game also lacks gaming elements that mimic or mirror a patent prosecution process.
Although the above games provide enjoyable or even educational experiences associated with inventions, the games fail to provide insight into the patent prosecution process by which one obtains a patent. The Applicant has appreciated, as described below, that a gaming system can be constructed which provides players an accessible simulation of the patent prosecution process. Thus players can learn more about patent prosecution while deriving enjoyment from strategic or tactical game play.
Thus, there is still a need for gaming elements having features representative of patent prosecution.
The inventive subject matter provides systems, methods, apparatus, or other gaming elements that give rise to providing a simulation of a patent prosecution process. One aspect of the inventive subject matter includes a game component, preferably a physical game component, comprising one or more component features. The component features can be constructed to represent patent prosecution features. In some embodiments, the component features include printed indicia while other embodiments can include physical features. The game component can also include a computer readable memory (e.g., flash, ROM, RFID tag, etc.) configured to store one or more patent feature objects representative of an aspect of a patent. Example game components include game cards, a die or dice, a game board, a token, a figurine, or other items. In some embodiments, the game component comprises a collectible item produced or distributed according to a rarity policy.
Various objects, features, aspects and advantages of the inventive subject matter will become more apparent from the following detailed description of preferred embodiments, along with the accompanying drawings in which like numerals represent like components.
It should be noted that while the following description is drawn to a computer/server based gaming system, various alternative configurations are also deemed suitable and may employ various computing devices including servers, interfaces, systems, databases, agents, peers, engines, controllers, or other types of computing devices operating individually or collectively. One should appreciate the computing devices comprise a processor configured to execute software instructions stored on a tangible, non-transitory computer readable storage medium (e.g., hard drive, solid state drive, RAM, flash, ROM, etc.). The software instructions preferably configure the computing device to provide the roles, responsibilities, or other functionality as discussed below with respect to the disclosed apparatus. In especially preferred embodiments, the various servers, systems, databases, or interfaces exchange data using standardized protocols or algorithms, possibly based on HTTP, HTTPS, AES, public-private key exchanges, web service APIs, known financial transaction protocols, or other electronic information exchanging methods. Data exchanges preferably are conducted over a packet-switched network, the Internet, LAN, WAN, VPN, or other type of packet switched network.
One should appreciate that the disclosed techniques provide many advantageous technical effects including production of gaming components that can be used to simulate patent prosecution.
The following discussion provides many example embodiments of the inventive subject matter. Although each embodiment represents a single combination of inventive elements, the inventive subject matter is considered to include all possible combinations of the disclosed elements. Thus if one embodiment comprises elements A, B, and C, and a second embodiment comprises elements B and D, then the inventive subject matter is also considered to include other remaining combinations of A, B, C, or D, even if not explicitly disclosed.
As used herein, and unless the context dictates otherwise, the term “coupled to” is intended to include both direct coupling (in which two elements that are coupled to each other contact each other) and indirect coupling (in which at least one additional element is located between the two elements). Therefore, the terms “coupled to” and “coupled with” are used synonymously.
The following discussion presents the inventive subject mainly within the context of a card-based game that is intended to simulate patent prosecution. The reader should appreciate that the inventive concepts are considered to extend beyond game cards or card games to other forms of game components or gaming systems. For example, in some embodiments the inventive subject matter can be applied to electronic or video games, possibly provided over the Internet as a web-based game.
In
Each game component includes component features that represent patent prosecution features. During game play, preferably game play that simulates patent prosecution, the prosecution features 115 can be used to determine if a patent application is rejected or allowed. Patent prosecution features 115 can include “claim elements” that are intended to represent elements of a patent application's claim. Further patent prosecution features 115 can include prior art elements that are intended to represent what a patent application discloses as prior art. By comparing a set of claim elements to prior elements through game play, one can determine if a patent application should be rejected or allowed.
As illustrated game component 110 can include one or more die comprising a number of faces where each face can be considered a component feature that is representative of patent prosecution features 115. Although game components 110 are illustrated as six sided dice, referred to in the gaming community as a d6 (cube), in other embodiments the die can include any number of sides. For example, game components 110 could include other polyhedron: d4 (pyramid), d8 (octahedron), d10, d12 (dodecahedron), d20 (icosahedron), d30 (rhombic tricontahedron), d100, or other number of sides.
Game components 110 are represented as having homogenous faces. However, in other embodiments the faces of a die can include a heterogeneous mix of face shapes, which alter the probability of rolling each face of the die. For example, a d14 can be constructed from a cube by removing the vertices such that each vertex of the cube becomes a triangular face. Thus, the resulting “frusto-cube” could comprise six square faces and eight triangular faces. One should note that the shape of the faces can vary depending on how the cube vertices are removed or shaped. The probability of rolling a triangular face, depending on its area, could be different from the probability of rolling a square face. It should also be appreciated that the previous description of unusual shapes can extend to any form of die. Such shapes are considered useful with respect to the inventive subject matter because the probability of rolling a particular face can be mapped to one or more patent prosecution features 115.
For game play purposes, patent prosecution features 115 can be distributed across game component features to enhance game play. To continue the previous example of dice, patent claim elements can be mapped to high probability game component features while prior art elements can be mapped to lower probability game component features in order to weight game play toward allowance. Consider the previous example of a d14 having square faces and triangular faces. Claim elements can be mapped to higher probability square faces while prior art elements can be mapped to lower probability triangular faces. Such game aspects are useful in patent prosecution game play, especially where aggregated claim elements must overcome aggregated prior art elements. In a very simplistic game example, one can roll multiple dice where the roll could be considered as applying for a patent. After the roll, the player can collect the dice having claim elements then compare the faces of the collected dice to the faces showing prior art elements. If the features of the claim elements collectively exceed the features of the prior art elements, then the player can be considered to have received a patent. In this simple example, the weighted probability of the die faces can be adjusted toward allowance of a player's patent application, or rejection, according to a desirable game play experience.
An additional example of a game component includes game component 120, which is presented as a game card. See also the Appendix of this document, which presents the rules for the Applicant's Patent Pending™ card game. Game component 120 can be considered to represent an abstracted patent application as described in the Appendix. Game component 120 includes multiple patent prosecution features 115 mapped to game component features. In this example, patent prosecution features 115 map to printed indicia on the card. Prosecution features 115 on game component 120 include claim elements distributed along a right side of the card, prior art elements distributed along a left side of the card, a type of patent application at the top, rights 121, office action 122, and event 123. Each of prosecution features 115 can be mapped to game play and could be considered optional.
The type of patent (e.g., design, plant, utility, model, electrical, mechanical, business method, medical, healthcare, etc.) can be used as a form of suit as illustrated in the example. In some embodiments, the type of patent can be mapped to a patent classification scheme possibly including the USPTO classification scheme, Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) scheme, International Patent Classification scheme, or other schemes offered by patent offices around the world. Further, the type of patent can be mapped to different types of patents based on patent jurisdictions so that games incorporating game elements 100 more closely align with target markets by jurisdiction (e.g., World Intellectual Property Organization, Japan, Europe, Korea, China, India, etc.). A type of patent is considered useful during simulated prosecution games where patents of similar type could be used an prior art during an examination phase of game play.
Rights 121 can include a block of text or other game component feature that represent a granted “power” to a game player should the resulting patent application survive an examination process. Rights 121 can be considered the rights conferred by a patent and take on many different forms. In view that game play is intended to be interesting or fun, rights 121 can map to game play features possibly affecting points, patent value, enforceability, or other game play features. For example, in the Patent Pending™ game described in the Appendix, rights 121 can affect game flow or number of points gained. Still, in other embodiments, rights 121 can be mapped to game play where a player can use one of their issued patents to prevent others from taking actions. This approach is considered useful to align game play with actual patents where patent claims grant an owner a right to prevent others from entering a market.
Office action 122 can include component features that map to aspects of a traditional patent office action. During an examination phase, office action 122 can be used to cause a game player to take further actions. For example, office action 122 can include instructions that require an active player to perfect their application, possibly by playing additional cards, playing tokens, pay addition fees, or other actions depending on the complexity of the patent prosecution simulation game. Office action 122 can include game play features that map to various aspects of an office action including rejections under 35 USC 101, 112, 102, 103, etc.; requests for information; restriction requirements; missing parts; figure objections; or other aspects of patent prosecution. For example, office action 122 could include a game feature representative of a 35 USC 112 rejection that requires an active player to play an additional card to add claim elements to the pending application to simulate clarifying enablement of a claim. Another example for office action 122 could include a restriction requirement where the player must play a different card of the same type but having different claim elements.
Event 123 can include component features representing occurrences that take place which could affect game play. Consider a scenario where the game play focuses on start-up companies attempting to file for patent applications. Events 123 could affect obtaining funds from venture capitalists or other investors, where the funds can be used to pay for patent applications. Event 123 can also simply map to game play; discard cards, reroll dice, require that the pending application go through examination again (i.e., request for continued examination), change a type of patent to a different type (i.e., shift from one USPC to another), or other type of game play.
Patent prosecution features 115 can cover a broad spectrum of features. In particularly interesting patent prosecution game embodiments, patent prosecution features 115 include claim elements and prior art elements. In such embodiments, the claim elements and prior art elements can be selected from a common set of prosecution features. In the examples illustrated, claim elements can be represented by a set including abstracted elements {A, B, C, D}. Thus, claim elements can be placed on faces of dice or sides of cards as shown on game component 120. Further, prior art elements can also be incorporated on faces of dice or cards.
The common set of prosecution features can include any number of members or classes of members. The example illustrated in
As mentioned previously with respect to dice, the distribution of claim elements relative to prior art elements of game component 120 can be distributed across cards of a deck in a manner where the game play is weighted toward generating allowance of patent application. With respect to cards, the claim element side of the card can include, on average, a greater number of claim elements relative to the prior art elements. Such a distribution would require opposing players to play a greater number of cards to reject a patent application, which is considered to enhance game play by increasing interaction among game players or generating more dynamic interaction among point generating cards.
Patent prosecution features 115 can include prosecution elements beyond claim elements or prior art elements. Additional examples of patent prosecution features include an assignee, an inventor, an examiner, an art group, an office action, an event, a law, a rule, a citation, a classification, a filing date, a priority date, a patent figure, or other patent prosecution features. In view that game play should be balanced and fun, each of patent prosecution features 115 can map to game features to increase tactical or strategic game play.
In some embodiments, game component features can also include post-prosecution features of a patent or patent application. Example post prosecution features could include a license, a licensee, a market, a court ruling (e.g., infringement, invalidity, etc.), a royalty, a price, or other type of post-prosecution feature. Such features are considered advantageous when creating games that include post-prosecution aspects of game play. For example, beyond royalties or revenue generation, post-prosecution game play can include development or management of a patent portfolio where each player must achieve a portfolio goal to win the game. Post-prosecution features can enhance game play by giving rise to an economic management game where players manage the portfolio to win the game.
At Step 200, an active player whose turn it is, plays a card from their hand as a pending application (left side of
At step 210 opposing players have played three cards as prior art cards. Note the cards are played to the right of the pending application allowing for a side by side comparison of claim elements relative to the collective prior art elements. The prior art cards have been splayed to the right so that all the prior art elements can be seen. The claim elements of the prior art cards are irrelevant when the card is played as prior art, only the prior art elements are relevant.
The pending application has claim elements {A, B, D}. The pending application stands rejected because collectively the prior art cards have {2A, 2B, D}, which more than covers the claim elements. Note that the prior art cards also have element {C}; however, this element does not affect allowance or rejection because the pending application simply lacks {C}. If the prior art cards failed to have at least {A, B, D} then the pending application could issue as a patent. For example, if only the first two prior art cards were played, the prior art would have prior art elements {A, 2B}. Then, the pending application would be allowed as a patent because the prior art failed to disclose the required {D} claim element.
Game play can be designed to enhance allowance or rejection through various techniques. In the Patent Pending™ card game, the active player has the option of playing an additional card of the same patent type after their pending application has been rejected. The second card played by the active player has its claim elements added to the pending application. Further, game play rules could map to actual patent prosecution laws or rules. Consider rejections under 35 USC 102 or 103. For 35 USC 102, if a single prior art card causes rejection of a pending application, the active player could play another card to overcome the rejection or could play an event that represents a successful argument overcoming the rejection. For 35 USC 103 where multiple prior art cards caused a rejection of the pending application, the active player could play an event that changes prior art elements of the prior art cards, possibly representing a successful argument that the prior art card lacks disclosure of the prior art element or representing an indication that the prior art cards and pending application have common ownership.
Although
In other embodiments, the game component can include a component features in the form of a computer readable memory (e.g., RFID, bar code, QR card, FLASH, ROM, RAM, etc.). Such an approach gives rise to computer-based game play where players can obtain the game components and play against others over a computer network on remote computers. The computer readable memory can be configured to store the patent feature data objects representative of the patent prosecution, or even post-prosecution, features. One or more game servers can manage game play where the game server could obtain the patent feature data objects and govern game play. In yet other embodiments, the game components can include virtual game components as represented by data objects within computer games or simulations. For example, the card game described in the appendix can be implemented as a video game on a computer, a game console, a hand-held game system, a browser based game, a cell phone, a smart phone, or other suitable computing device.
Contemplated game components can be a member of a larger collection of patent related game components. As mentioned previously, the game component can be one card in a deck, or one die in a collection of dice. Further, the collection or plurality of patent related game components could include figurines or miniatures (e.g., patent examiners, famous inventors, patent prosecutors, etc.), multiple game boards representing prosecution tracks (e.g., normal prosecution, priority examination, accelerated examination, etc.), tokens representing different types of claim or prior art features, or other collections of patent related game components.
In view that the patent related game components can form collections, the collection of game component can be collectible items. For example, the game components can be produced according to a multi-level production rarity policy in a manner where the collection of game components adheres to a distribution governed by the policy. The rarity policy can include rules governing production of common items, uncommon items, rare items, ultra-rare items, chase items, unique items, set items, or other levels of rarity of an item. The distribution of game components for each level can be adjusted for a desirable market. Thus, a game component can comprise a collectible game component.
Of specific interest, contemplated rarity policies can be based on patent prosecution features. For example, patent types can be mapped to rarity. Perhaps business methods patents, applications, or claim elements can be rare while mechanical patent features could be common. Further, in embodiments having office actions, patent related game components having office actions representing 35 USC 112 rejections could be common, 35 USC 102 rejections could be uncommon, 35 USC 103 rejection could be rare, or rejections requiring a terminal disclaimer could be ultra-rare. The rarity policy could be mapped to patent technology classes (e.g., IPC, USPC, CPC, etc.), possibly based on an actual distribution of patent applications in each class, or even based on art group.
Construction of a rarity policy for patent game components is considered useful to increase enjoyment of the game play or collecting aspects of patent related games. For example, every three or four months, or other periodicity, expansions for the game can be created based on actually issued patents or published applications. Thus collectors can attempt to collect complete sets when released. Further, the game components can be based on patents or patent applications filed by a specific prosecution entity, a law firm for example. Such an approach provides a valuable marketing tool for the law firm because they can give away the game components, or complete game, to prospective clients.
It is also contemplated that the disclosed techniques can be applied to trademarks, copyrights, or other forms of intellectual property.
The Patent Pending™ card game Appendix describes an embodiment of a card game incorporating the inventive subject matter. The disclosed card game has been designed with a specific focus on a simplified simulation of patent prosecution. An active player plays a game card as a pending patent application and opposing players play their cards as prior art against the pending application. Should the pending application survive examination, it issues as an issued patent. The patent prosecution features in the Patent Pending™ card game have been simplified and mapped to aspects of game play to ensure the game is easily introduced, fun, and accessible by non-patent related individuals or gamers.
The following appendix describes the Patent Pending™ card game designed by the applicant.
Game Concept
The Patent Pending™ card game simulates patent prosecution (i.e., the process by which one obtains a patent) for three to five players.
Each player has a hand of cards and on a player's turn, the player plays one of their cards as a pending patent application that will be worth points if the application survives examination and issues as a patent. The remaining players act as the patent office by (a) playing a card from their hand as prior art against the pending patent application, (b) playing a card as an event to influence the play flow, or (c) passing. If the pending application survives examination by the examining players, the patent application becomes an issued patent to the applying player for the pending application and points are awarded. If the patent application is rejected, all cards played are discarded.
At the end of the game, the player with the most points wins.
Components
The deck contains 52 unique cards, each representing an actual patent issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Each card has the following features, as illustrated and numbered in
Game Setup
Shuffle the deck.
Deal three cards face-down to each player. These cards form the player's hand and should be seen only by the player to whom they are dealt.
Place the remaining cards face-down as a draw deck in the middle of the table within reach of all players. Leave space next to the draw deck for a face-up discard pile.
Select a first player. For example, the person that has most recently talked to a patent agent goes first.
Game Play
On a player's turn, they are considered the “applying player.” The other players are considered the “examining players” and collectively act as the patent office examining the applying player's pending application.
Applying players take turns going clockwise around the table.
Note: All players have the option of activating their issued patent's rights at any time, if the issued patent has such text. For example, a player's issued patent might allow them to steal another player's issued patents, force a player to discard a specified type of issued patent, or force another player to skip their turn. Some patents are flipped to activate their rights and cannot be activated a second time
Note: Players do NOT replenish their hand until their hand is empty. This means a player might replenish their hand during their turn after playing a card, or on another player's turn after a playing a card as prior art or an event. To replenish their hand, the player draws another three cards.
Game Play: Applying for a Patent Application
The applying player MUST place a card from their hand face-up in front of them as a patent application. The patent application is then considered a pending application.
Game Play: Examining the Patent Application
The examining players, going clockwise from the applying player have the following options to participate in the examination of the pending application. Each examining player may take only one of the following actions:
Play a card from their hand as prior art against the applying player's pending application by placing the left side of the prior art card next to the right side of the applying player's pending application card so the push-pins line up by color. The prior art cards do NOT have to be of the same patent type as the pending application. If a prior art card is already in play, play additional prior art cards on top of existing prior art cards and splay the stack of prior art cards to the right so that all push-pins are visible in the prior art stack of cards as shown in
Play a card as an event by executing the event text then discarding the card, if applicable.
Pass by taking no action.
Once play returns to the applying player after all examination rounds (there can be more than one examination round as a result of some event cards) for the pending application, the applying player has the option of playing an additional card of the same patent type as the pending application. The new card is placed on top of and splayed to the left of the pending application. The additional card adds its push-pins to the pending application in an attempt to overcome the prior art.
Game Play: Rejecting the Pending Application
If the examining players examining the pending application have collectively played enough prior art cards so that the sum of their push-pins on a color-by-color basis matches or includes the number of claim push-pins on the pending application, then the pending application is rejected. If rejected, the pending application and all prior art cards are discarded.
Note: Some pending patent applications can have more than one push-pin of the same color (e.g., two yellows or two greens).
Example: when the applying player has a pending application with orange, blue, and red push-pins, the application would be rejected when the prior art cards collectively have at least one each of an orange, blue, and red push-pin.
Game Play: Allowing the Pending Application
If, by the end of the applying player's turn, the examining players fail to collectively play prior art cards having enough prior art push-pins on a color-by-color basis to match or exceed the pending application's claim push-pins, then the pending application is allowed and is considered an issued patent. The prior art cards played against the pending application are discarded. Any additional cards played by the applying player on top of the pending application are also discarded. The issued patent is granted and is placed in front of the applying player as an issued patent and is public information for all players to see.
After rejection or allowance of the pending application, the applying player becomes an examining player. The player to their left becomes the new applying player and play continues clockwise.
Game Play: Examining Example
Push-pins are compared on a “pin color”-by-“pin color” basis. As an example, consider a pending application having only one yellow and one blue push-pin. In order for the pending application to be rejected, the prior art must in total have at least one yellow push-pin and at least one blue push-pin. All other prior art push-pins (e.g., orange, green, red) are irrelevant. If the prior art cards collectively have three yellow push-pins and two blue push-pins and a red push-pin, then the pending application is rejected because there are sufficient yellow and blue prior art push-pins to cover those present on the pending application; the red push-pin is irrelevant. If the prior art cards collectively have a yellow push-pin, an orange push-pin, a green push-pin, and a red-push-pin, the pending application is allowed an issues because the prior art lacks a required blue push-pin to reject the pending application; the orange, green, and red push-pins are irrelevant.
Game Play: Ending the Game
The first time the deck runs out, shuffle the discard pile and create a new draw deck. Anyone drawing cards continues to draw from the new deck. As soon as the last card is drawn from the deck a second time, the game ends immediately. A current pending application under examination does not finish the examination and does not issue regardless of its state.
Game Play: Winning the Game
After the second round, each player totals the points of all their issued patents and relevant events. The player with the most points wins. Scoring includes summing the points for all issued patents, taking into account point modifiers from the rights text of the issued patents and/or event effects. Issued patents that are turned upside down (i.e., flipped) should have their point values included in the score. The value of an issued patent can be affected by patents issued to other players according to the rights conferred by the issued patents. For example, a player's score can depend on the types of patent issued to neighboring players. If there is a tie, the person with the most cards left in their hand wins.
Event: Events are cards played in lieu of prior art. When a card is played as an Event, ignore the push-pins on the card and activate only the Event text.
Flip/Activate: If an issued patent states the card can be flipped, to activate the rights text the player turns the card over and executes the rights text. Once flipped face-down, the rights text can no longer be executed. The point value of the card remains valid at game's end.
Trigger: When played as a prior art card against a pending application, the trigger text is executed. For example, if the TRIGGER text states “Draw a card,” then the player draws a card after they play their card as prior art.
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: When do I replenish my hand?
Question: When can I attach a card to an issued patent?
Question: When can I change an issued patent to a different type?
Question: How can I remove or discard an issued patent?
It should be apparent to those skilled in the art that many more modifications besides those already described are possible without departing from the inventive concepts herein. The inventive subject matter, therefore, is not to be restricted except in the scope of the appended claims. Moreover, in interpreting both the specification and the claims, all terms should be interpreted in the broadest possible manner consistent with the context. In particular, the terms “comprises” and “comprising” should be interpreted as referring to elements, components, or steps in a non-exclusive manner, indicating that the referenced elements, components, or steps may be present, or utilized, or combined with other elements, components, or steps that are not expressly referenced. Where the specification claims refers to at least one of something selected from the group consisting of A, B, C . . . and N, the text should be interpreted as requiring only one element from the group, not A plus N, or B plus N, etc.
