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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s remarks and amendments dated 01/07/2026. Claims 1-9 have been cancelled. Claims 10 and 15 have been amended. Claims 21-29 are new. Claims 21-29 are currently withdrawn. Claims 10-29 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-29 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: These claims are directed to an apparatus, specifically a table structure, which was not elected. See applicant’s response to the restriction requirement dated 06/03/2024 where the method claims were elected.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-29 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 line 7 recites “each of the player area,” which appears it should be “each of the player areas.”
Claim 10 lines 15-16 recite “has second split location... and third split locations”. Presumably this should be “has a second split location...and a third split location.”
Claim 10 lines 17-18 recite “locations” when these were claimed in the singular previously. Presumably these should read “location.” It is noted here that the claims seem to switch between the singular and plural throughout the claims. It is required that applicant review and correct all such inconsistencies.
Claim 10 line 35 recites “the second specially designed playing cards” which appears it should be “card.”
Claim 10 line 40 recites “the first specially designed playing cards” which appears it should be “card.”
Claim 15 line 15 recites “and third split location” which appears it should be “and a third split location.
Claim 15 lines 17 and 18 recite “locations” which appears should be “location.”
Claim 15 lines 41-43 and 49 recite “cards” multiple times, which appear should be “card.”
Claim 19 line 3 recites “numbers” which appears it should be “numbers or letters.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 lines 9-12 recite “the first row on the surface of the special designed playing cards” along with “the second row” and “the third row,” which all lack antecedent basis. The rows on the cards are not claimed until line 20. Also, this appears it should read “specially designed” and not “special designed.” Claim 15 lines 9-12 have the same issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 lines 24-25 recite that “the number between each row are different.” First, this should be “numbers” not “number.” Second, both numbers and letters were claimed, therefore, it is unclear if this was intended to read “the numbers or letters between each row are different” or if only the numbers are different but the letters may be the same. Claim 15 lines 24-25 have the same issue. Appropriate correction / clarification is required.
Column 10 line 36 recites “the point value” which lacks proper antecedent basis. No point value was previously claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 lines 45 and 57 also recite “the point value” which lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 lines 43-45 are confusing. Line 41 recites “if the at least one player request to be dealt another specially designed playing card,” however, no “point value” was “requested for” in the claims. Neither was a “row...requested for.” It is exceedingly unclear what is attempting to be claimed here. Further, this section is grammatically incorrect. For instance, “and continue this step without going over 21” does not make sense. Line 45 also recites “until the at least one player requests to stop,” but then line 46 recites “the at least one player doesn’t request more...cards” which seems to be the same step recited twice, just in alternative ways. Claim 15 lines 54-58 have the same issues. Appropriate correction is required.
The recitation of “the point value” in claim 10 lines 43 and 47 lack proper antecedent basis. No point value was previously claimed.
Claim 10 lines 49 recites “the at least one players each row” which lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 15 line 60 has the same issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is generally confusing. It appears that step i) of claim 15 already recited much of what is being claimed here. It appears this is an attempt at claiming additional splits, however, the claim language is exceedingly confusing and it is unclear which numbers / rows are being claimed as splits. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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. Claims 10-20 is/are directed to an idea in the form of rules for playing/participating in a card game. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are cards and a table. Further, these elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they are routine in any card game. These claims are essentially an abstract idea in the form of rules for participating in/playing a card game.
Claims 10-20 recite placing a wager, dealing cards, adding point values, and determining a winner. These steps describe the concept of steps and rules for playing / participating in a game. This is similar to the concepts held to be abstract by the courts in In re Brown, 2015-1852, -- Fed. Appx. – (Fed Cir. April 22, 2016) Non-precedential with opinion. In re Smith, 2015-1664, -- F.3d – (Fed Cir. March 10, 2016), and In re Webb, 609 Fed. Appx. 643 (Fed. Cir. 2015), where steps for performing a task and steps for playing a game were held to be patent ineligible.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements of cards and a table are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic functions. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is nothing particular to the cards and table, or how they interact, that makes them specific to this method. They are simply conventional cards and a table. While there is some recitation of “special designed cards” that have three rows with different values, as well as “bet locations” on the table, each of these “special cards” is functionally the exact same as multiple conventional cards in a conventional card deck, and the blackjack table is essentially any conventional card table. The fact that each card is printed with multiple card values instead of one card value does not add anything special or different to a conventional deck of cards, or how the game of blackjack operates. This is essentially just consolidating multiple regular cards into one card, with conventional card values, and does not add any particular “significant additional elements” that are required to overcome this judicial exception. Indicia on the table is also not a “significant additional element.” A dealer could direct players to make wagers in any of a variety of particular locations on any conventional table to play the game. The examiner also notes, regarding the indicia on the cards and on the table, that printed matter has no patentable weight unless there is an unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of playing card or game table surface does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter e.g. card / table indicia and the substrate e.g. playing card / table surface, which is required for patentability.
The dependent claims add no additional elements not already in the independent claims. The dependent claims simply add further abstract steps in the form of more steps for playing the game, and additional design indicia on the cards, which would not change the operation of the conventional game of blackjack. The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract concept of rules for participating in/playing card game (specifically three games of blackjack at once). These abstract concepts are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the claim objections and 112 rejections are noted but are not persuasive. There are still many outstanding 112 rejections.
Applicant’s argument regarding the 101 rejection is noted but are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and that there is an inventive concept, appear to hinge on the reasoning that the game is played with specially designed playing cards and a specially designed table.
The specially claimed card indicia, and table betting locations claimed would not preclude the same method being used with a conventional deck of cards and a conventional blackjack table. Dealing multiple cards instead of one card would produce multiple card values and the method would operate identically, regardless of whether the multiple card values are on a single card are used or multiple card values on multiple separate cards. A dealer could indicate multiple betting locations regardless of the indicia on the table. This method could be performed with a conventional deck of cards and a conventional blackjack table. Therefore, these minor indicia elements are not “significantly more” than any conventional deck of cards and table.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711