Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-17 and 19 rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea as “human activity” as rules of conducting a game, via a well-understood, routine, conventional element as a processor, without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of the above claims has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a), each of the above claims recites at least one step or instruction for “human activity” as instruction to play a card game, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
With respect to step 1, claim 13 is directed to an apparatus-processor, preforming a method which is eligible at step 1. With respect to set 2A, the following elements are considered to be abstract: “receive a wager from a player; randomize an order of at least one deck of cards; read the at least one deck of cards; deal from the at least one deck of cards to a player a hand comprising a predetermined number of cards; and determine a category of the hand from the indicia of the cards and, based on the category of the hand and a data table, a payout ratio, wherein the data table includes pairs of data elements, each pair of data elements comprising a probability of occurrence for the category”. The following are additional elements that do not amount to a practical application at step 2A: such as the cards including “unique indicia of integer and a suit” and “a payout ratio based upon the probability of a hand ranking” . In re-evaluating the additional elements under step 2B, the additional elements (e.g., the cards with “unique indicia” and “payout based upon hand ranking probability”) appears to be routine and conventional in the art as exhibited by Kennedy WO 2005/032677 (Figs. 1-4; paragraphs [0078]-[0085] regarding the cards with the unique indicia; and at least Fig. 8 in conjunction to [00153]-[00164] as wells as table 1 (page 50), and table 5.1 (page 55), regarding the payout based upon the probability of a hand ranking). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor is a well-understood, routine, conventional element that do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application as the steps are merely steps of human activity following rules of a conventional wagering card game, without significantly more. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010. An example of a claim reciting following rules or instructions is In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "rules for playing games", which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. 911 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. In this case, the rules of playing the game, as “receive wager”, “randomize and reading deck of cards”, “dealing the cards to player”, and “determined a hand ranking” (i.e., determine a category of the hand) for a payout ratio” as claimed, is an abstract idea that does not integrated into a practical application. The rules to the game are applied using general gaming technology as opposed to a particular machine. There is no improvement to any functioning of computer technology. No transformation or reduction of a particular article occurs. The rules are generally linked to gaming technology elements, as rules according to a well-known wagering game, which as set forth above, the Federal Circuit determined that such claims were directed to the abstract idea of "rules for playing games", as organizing human activity, without significantly more. The limitations of independent claim 13 when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons set forth above.
Dependent claims 14-17, and 19, merely including limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. For example, claim 14, recites the indicia of “A” is indicative to “1”; claim 15 recites the number of cards in a deck is 24 cards; claim 16, the hand category (according to the well-known poker rankings); and claims 17, and 19, regarding a payout ratio. There are no additional elements, within the dependent claims to be more than “human activity”, to significantly add more than the judicial exception to transform the method from the abstract idea (i.e. an abstract idea of human activity in the form of playing a card game following rules of the well-known Solitaire game) into a patent eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified dependent claims 14-17 and 19 recites an abstract idea and when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons set forth above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13-17 and 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,090,550 (hereinafter ‘550) in view of Walker et al US 2003/0199294 (“Walker”).
Above claim 13 recites , An apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to: receive a wager from a player;
randomize an order of at least one deck of cards; read the at least one deck of cards, wherein each card includes unique indicia of an integer and one of one or more suits; deal from the at least one deck of cards to a player a hand comprising a predetermined number of cards; determine a category of the hand from the indicia of the cards and s based on the category of the hand and a data table, a payout ratio, wherein the data table includes pairs of data elements, each pair of data elements comprising a probability of occurrence for the category; wherein an expectation function receives, for each pair of the pairs of data elements, a product of the payout ratio indicated by and the probability of occurrence for the category and yields a sum of the products for all the pairs of data elements.
Claim 12, of ‘550, among other things, recites, An apparatus comprising: at least one processor configured to control: receiving a wager from a player; wherein each physical card displays first indicia indicative of an integer of a set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6} and second indicia indicative of a suit of a set {spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs}, wherein each combination of a single element from the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6} and a single element from the set {spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs} is represented in the at least one physical deck (equivalent to read the cards via the processor; e.g. ;550 at 6:29+” Thus a description of a process is likewise a description of an apparatus for performing the process. The apparatus that performs the process can include, e.g., a processor and those input devices and output devices that are appropriate to perform the process”); determining, based on the category of the player hand, and based on a data table, a player payout ratio; in which the data table comprises a plurality of pairs of data elements, each pair of data elements comprising: a first data element indicative of a category of a hand; wherein the expectation function receiving for each pair of data elements of the plurality of pairs of data elements a product of the payout ratio indicated by the second data element in the pair of data elements and the probability of occurrence associated with the pair of data elements, and the expectation function yielding the sum of all the products.
Claim 12, of ‘550, recites all the limitations of above claim 13 except from randomize an order of at least one deck of cards. However, such randomize an order of at least one deck of cards, is well-known in such apparatuses/processor for wagering type games, as taught by Walker (RNG 108 of gaming machine 100 to randomize deal cards during a poker type game)(Figs. 1-5; at least [0043], [0047], [0067]-[0073]; note in particular [0067] and [0068] as well as step 520 (Fig. 5)).
Therefore, 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 to form ’550 randomize an order of at least one deck of cards as taught by Walker for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Walker’s suggestion to use such randomize well-known means within the poker/wagering type game as in [0067]” step 520 where CPU 102 receives a random number from random number generator 108 via line 108A. As is well known, the random number acts as a seed from which a player will be dealt an initial hand of cards, and any subsequent draw cards, from a standard deck of fifty-two playing cards.”
Claim 14 recite the same limitations as claim 13 of the ‘550.
Claim 15 recite the same limitations as claim 14 of the ‘550.
Claim 16 recite the same limitations as claim 15 of the ‘550.
Claim 17 recite the same limitations as claim 16 of the ‘550.
Claim 19 recite the same limitations as claim 18 of the ‘550.
Claims 13-17 and 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,348 (hereinafter ‘348) in view of Walker.
Claim 12, of ‘348 among other things, recites, A method comprising: providing a card reader configured to read at least one physical desk of physical cards; receiving a wager from a player; shuffling the at least one physical deck dealing from the at least one physical deck a player hand comprising five physical cards; determining a category of the player hand from reading the first indicia and the second indicia respectively ; determining, based on the category of the player hand, and based on a data table, a player payout ratio; wherein each pair of data elements is associated with a probability of occurrence for the category indicated by the first data element in the pair; wherein the expectation function receiving for each pair of data elements of the plurality of pairs of data elements a product of the payout ratio indicated by the second data element in the pair of data elements and the probability of occurrence associated with the pair of data elements, and the expectation function yielding the sum of all the received products.
Independent claim 12 of the ‘348 recites as a method, whereas the above claims recites as an apparatus. Nonetheless, the method includes similar steps as above claim 13 that would have been obvious to implement by a well-understood, routine, conventional element, as a processor.
The ‘ 348 is not specific regarding a processor and randomize an order of at least one deck of cards. However, Walker discloses a processor (a CPU 102 in of a gaming device 100 to execute steps of gaming, such as dealing, wagering, reading, and etc.)(Figs. 1-5; [0043], [0045], [0047] and [0064]-[0073]). Walker also discloses randomize an order of at least one deck of cards (RNG 108 of gaming machine 100 to randomize deal cards during a poker type game)(Figs. 1-5; at least [0043], [0047], [0067]-[0073]; note in particular [0067] and [0068] as well as step 520 (Fig. 5)).
Therefore, 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 to form ‘348 with a processor as taught by Walker for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Walker’s suggestion to use a well-known processor within computing type wagering game (e.g., [0045]” Still referring to FIG. 2, CPU 102 comprises a well-known processing unit,”).
With respect to, randomize an order of at least one deck of cards, 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 to form ’348 randomize an order of at least one deck of cards as taught by Walker for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim 14 recite the same limitations as claim 13 of the ‘348.
Claim 15 recite the same limitations as claim 14 of the ‘348.
Claim 16 recite the same limitations as claim 15 of the ‘348.
Claim 17 recite the same limitations as claim 16 of the ‘348.
Claim 19 recite the same limitations as claim 18 of the ‘348.
Claims 13, 15, 17 and 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,861,879 (‘879) in view of Walker.
Claim 11, of ‘879, among other things, recites a method comprising, having a card reader configured to read a non-standard physical deck of cards; receiving a wager in a game from a player at a first seat position of the physical table; dealing from the at least one physical deck a player hand comprising five physical cards to the physical table; determining a category of the player hand; determining, based on the category of the player hand, and based on a data table, a player payout ratio; in which the data table comprises a plurality of pairs of data elements; wherein each pair of data elements is associated with a probability of occurrence for the category indicated by the first data element in the pair; and wherein an expectation function yields a payout ratio less than one, the expectation function receiving for each pair of data elements of the plurality of pairs of data elements a product of the payout ratio indicated by the second data element in the pair of data elements and the probability of occurrence associated with the pair of data elements, and the expectation function yielding the sum of all the received products.
Independent claim 11 of the ‘879 recites as a method, whereas the above claims recites as an apparatus. Nonetheless, the method includes similar steps as above claim 13 that would have been obvious to implement by a well-understood, routine, conventional element, as a processor.
The ‘ 879 is not specific regarding a processor and randomize an order of at least one deck of cards. However, Walker discloses a processor (a CPU 102 in of a gaming device 100 to execute steps of gaming, such as dealing, wagering, reading, and etc.)(Figs. 1-5; [0043], [0045], [0047] and [0064]-[0073]). Walker also discloses randomize an order of at least one deck of cards (RNG 108 of gaming machine 100 to randomize deal cards during a poker type game)(Figs. 1-5; at least [0043], [0047], [0067]-[0073]; note in particular [0067] and [0068] as well as step 520 (Fig. 5)).
Therefore, 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 to form ‘879 with a processor and randomize an order of at least one deck of cards as taught by Walker for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim 15 recite the same limitations as claim 12 of the ‘879.
Claim 17 recite the same limitations as claim 13 of the ‘879.
Claim 19 recite the same limitations as claim 15 of the ‘879.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 13, 14, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kennedy WO 2005/032677 (“Kennedy”)
As per claim 13, Kennedy discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor (TableMAX video machine)(Fig. 5 paragraphs [0055]-[0058] and [0078] –[0090] in conjunction to at least Fig. 8 [00159]-[00164]; tables 1 (page 50); table 4 (page 54) and table 5.1 (page 55; with respect to the processor, Kennedy referred to the TableMAX as US 5,688, 174 (e.g. [0055]; in that regard, note the ‘174 patent Figs. 1 and 2; 4:36-5:25 regarding a processor (CPU 26)) and configured to
receive a wager from a player(places a wager upon wagering areas 8.4 and/or 8.6)(Fig. 8; [00156]; [00163])); randomize an order of at least one deck of cards (shuffling cards) [0086]-[0090]; [00157]-[00158]); read the at least one deck of cards (delt cards are read to determined card value)([00161]-[00162]; Fig. 8), wherein each card includes unique indicia of an integer and one of one or more suits (cards 10) (Figs. 1-3; [0078]-[0085]); deal from the at least one deck of cards to a player a hand comprising a predetermined number of cards (dealing three cards)([00161] and [0016]); and determine a category of the hand from the indicia of the cards and, based on the category of the hand and a data table, a payout ratio, wherein the data table includes pairs of data elements, each pair of data elements comprising a probability of occurrence for the category ([00164] and table 1 page 50 (cards ranking); table 4 (page 54) and table 5.1 (page 55) as the cards and ranking a card hand payout and probability thereof regarding “dice poker game”, i.e., game of the embodiment of Fig. 8).
Kennedy is not specific regarding the payout as an expectation function receives, for each pair of the pairs of data elements, a product of the payout ratio indicated by and the probability of occurrence for the category and yields a sum of the products for all the pairs of data elements.
However, Kennedy states that any payout scheme, is suitable with his wagering game, in at least [00183] “Any combination of cards and event outcomes can be utilized within the scope of the present invention to create numerous card games rules, variations, and pay tables. For example a card game award can be based upon one or more event symbol occurrences displayed upon the cards used in the card game. Also the use of outcome symbols on cards can be utilized in the awarding of pays within progressive jackpot games.”
Therefore, 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 to form Kennedy’s payout as an expectation function receives, for each pair of the pairs of data elements, a product of the payout ratio indicated by and the probability of occurrence for the category and yields a sum of the products for all the pairs of data elements for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Kennedy’s suggestions to allocate any suitable payout while playing his wagering game.
As per claim 14, with respect to wherein indicia of "A" is indicative of the integer "1", it is inherent in a card wagering game to allocate the Ace “A” as “1” to play wagering game, e.g., Fig. 8 (poker-dice game) in conjunction to the cards 10 of Figs. 1-3.
As per claim 16, with respect to wherein the category of the hand includes at least one of: a) 5 of a kind flush, b) 5 of a kind, c) straight flush, d) straight, e) 4 of a kind flush, f) 4 of a kind, g) full house flush, h) full house, i) flush, j) 3 of a kind flush, k) 3 of a kind, 1) 2 pair flush, m) 2 pair, n) pair flush, o) pair; and p) nothing, note table 5.1 (page 55).
As per claim 17, with respect to wherein the payout ratio is an amount that a player is paid per amount wagered, note table 5.1 as payout are based upon the wager and different ranking would have resulted in higher payout, based upon the player’s wager.
As per claim 19, with respect to wherein a payout includes the product of the payout ratio and the wager, note table 5.1 as payout are based upon the wager and different ranking would have resulted in higher payout, based upon the player’s wager. For example, player with “3 of a kind” would receive the amount he wagered plus time 8 of such wager (i.e. the payout ratio and the wager).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the DP rejection
Applicant didn’t provide any arguments and no Terminal Disclaimer was filed, and therefore the examiner maintains his DP rejection as set forth above.
In regard to the rejection under 35 USC 101
Applicant argued that determining the payout ratio is a novel approach to the computerized support and under step 2A, such is specific, practical application, to be consider as eligible subject matter. Applicant concluded that the OA has not shown that the method of claim 13, as a whole, is “well-understood, routine and conventional in the field” (remarks pages 4-7).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, as mentioned above, the rules of playing the game, as “receive wager”, “randomize and reading deck of cards”, “dealing the cards to player”, and “determined a hand ranking” (i.e., determine a category of the hand) for a payout ratio” as claimed, is an abstract idea that does not integrated into a practical application, while the rules to the game are applied using general gaming technology as opposed to a particular machine, as a processor, nothing more.
Second, in addition, per MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on "the draftsman’s art"). In this case, the payout ratio, is an example of such “instruction” to provide award to a player, based on inherent probability of the cards, as such outcome is based upon either the rules of craps (e.g., applicant’s pages 16, lines 21+) or the well-known poker rankings.
Third, as mentioned above, any additional elements, such as “unique indicia” and “payout based upon rankings” (as claimed), is/are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, as taught and suggested by Kennedy in at least Figs. 1-4; paragraphs [0078]-[0085] regarding the cards with the unique indicia; and at least Fig. 8 in conjunction to [00153]-[00164] as wells as table 1 (page 50), and table 5.1 (page 55), regarding the payout based upon the probability of a hand ranking. In addition, with respect to payout as an expectation function receives, for each pair of the pairs of data elements, a product of the payout ratio indicated by and the probability of occurrence for the category and yields a sum of the products for all the pairs of data elements, as mentioned above Kennedy states that any payout scheme, is suitable with his wagering game, in at least [00183] “Any combination of cards and event outcomes can be utilized within the scope of the present invention to create numerous card games rules, variations, and pay tables. For example a card game award can be based upon one or more event symbol occurrences displayed upon the cards used in the card game. Also the use of outcome symbols on cards can be utilized in the awarding of pays within progressive jackpot games.”
Accordingly, the examiner maintain his position that claim 13, is directed to an abstract idea as “human activity” as rules of conducting a game, and this illegible under 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 1/20/2026
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711