DETAILED ACTION
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.
Citing MPEP 2106.04(a) - The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection 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), subsection II); and
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claims 20-33 are (and any dependent claims) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of the claim(s) has/have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 20 includes limitations directed towards "20. (New) A card game system, comprising: a game board, the game board having a first area comprising: a first card deck zone for receiving a first card deck; and a first pitch zone for receiving one or more cards from a top of the first card deck, each card in the first pitch zone representing a resource gain value; a first active card zone for receiving one or more cards from the top of the first card deck, each card in the first active card zone representing a resource cost value for a current turn; and a first discard zone; andthe first card deck comprising a subset of cards, wherein each card in the subset of cards comprises: an identification symbol that identifies the card; a resource gain symbol and a color that indicate the resource gain value associated with the card, the color being one of at least two colors within the subset of cards, each of the at least two colors corresponding to a different resource gain value within a range of resource gain values; a resource cost symbol that indicates the resource cost value associated with the card; and an action symbol that indicates an event arising from playing the card;wherein, during gameplay, a sum of the resource gain values of one or more cards of the first card deck received in the first pitch zone represents a total resource available during the current turn and the sum of the resource cost values of one or more cards of the first card deck received in the first active card zone represent a total resource cost for the current turn; wherein the one or more cards received in the first pitch zone are subsequently received at a bottom of the first card deck in the first card deck zone and the one or more cards received in the first active zone are subsequently received in the first discard zone."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 21 includes limitations directed towards "21. (New) The card game system claim 20, wherein the total resource cost for the current turn is less than or equal to the total resource available during the current turn. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 22 includes limitations directed towards "22. (New) The card game system claim 20, wherein the first area further comprises: a first temporary storage zone for receiving one or more cards from the top of the first card deck for later use, wherein the first pitch zone cannot receive a card from the first temporary storage zone. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 23 includes limitations directed towards "23. (New) The card game system claim 21, further comprising a second area comprising a second active card zone. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 24 includes limitations directed towards "24. (New) The card game system claim 23, wherein the first area further comprises: a first hero card zone for receiving a first hero card that comprises an attribute which modifies at least one of the cards in the first active card zone. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 25 includes limitations directed towards "25. (New) The card game system claim 24, wherein the first hero card received in the first hero card zone comprises an attribute which modifies one of the cards in the second active card zone. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 26 includes limitations directed towards "26. (New) The card game system claim 23, wherein the first area further comprises: a first equipment card zone; and wherein the first active card zone is configured to receive an equipment card from the first equipment card zone, if, as a result of receiving the equipment card, the total resource cost for the current turn is less than or equal to the total resource available during the current turn. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 27 includes limitations directed towards "27. (New) The card game system claim 26, wherein the equipment card comprises a weapon card. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 28 includes limitations directed towards "28. (New) The card game system claim26, wherein the equipment card comprises an armour card. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 29 includes limitations directed towards "29. (New) The card game system claim 26, wherein the first active card zone receiving the equipment card from the first equipment card zone modifies a card in the second active card zone. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 30 includes limitations directed towards "30. (New) The card game system claim 26, wherein the second area further comprises a second hero card zone for receiving a second hero card. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 31 includes limitations directed towards "31. (New) The card game system claim 30, wherein the first active card zone receiving the equipment card from the first equipment card zone modifies the second hero card in the second hero card zone. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 32 includes limitations directed towards "32. (New) The card game system claim 30, wherein the first active card zone receiving one or more cards from the top of the first card deck modifies the second hero card in the second hero card zone. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Claim 33 includes limitations directed towards "33. (New) The card game system claim 20, wherein cards received in the first discard zone are permanently removed from play. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Accordingly, each of the claim(s) recited above recite an abstract idea.
Further, the dependent claim(s), if present, merely include 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.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Prong Two Considerations
This/these judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application because the examiner does not find one of the following to exist:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Furthermore, limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of the claims indicated above (and their respective dependent Claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims indicated above (and their respective dependent claims) do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do the additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the above identified claim(s) (and their respective dependent claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Moreover, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea wherein if computer elements are claimed they are additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea(s) identified above (and their respective dependent claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of the claims identified above (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the claim(s) indicated above (or their dependents) include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the additional elements in the claim(s) identified above (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements (if any are present) nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Prong Two Considerations (as indicated above) are not met and the examiner does not find a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to exist in the claim(s) to render the claim(s) significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, none of the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the claim(s) indicated above (and their dependent claims) are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 20-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson (US 6254099 B1) in view of Case Law.
Regarding claim 20, Pederson teaches 20. (New) A card game system, comprising: a game board, the game board having a first area comprising: (Fig. 1) a first card deck zone for receiving a first card deck; and (Fig. 1 referencing the zones where the cards are placed such as those holding 32) a first pitch zone for receiving one or more cards from a top of the first card deck, each card in the first pitch zone representing a resource gain value; (Fig. 1 noting the zones for the cards. For example, one of the locations for 21 may be considered a pitch zone.) a first active card zone for receiving one or more cards from the top of the first card deck, each card in the first active card zone representing a resource cost value for a current turn; (Fig. 1 noting the different card zones) and a first discard zone (Fig. 1 noting the different card zones); andthe first card deck comprising a subset of cards, wherein each card in the subset of cards comprises: an identification symbol that identifies the card; a resource gain symbol and a color that indicate the resource gain value associated with the card, the color being one of at least two colors within the subset of cards, each of the at least two colors corresponding to a different resource gain value within a range of resource gain values; a resource cost symbol that indicates the resource cost value associated with the card; and an action symbol that indicates an event arising from playing the card; (2:43+ which speaks of the different cards. The different cards can be inclusive of the differ subset of cards and fall under the printed matter categorization as explained below.)wherein, during gameplay, a sum of the resource gain values of one or more cards of the first card deck received in the first pitch zone represents a total resource available during the current turn and the sum of the resource cost values of one or more cards of the first card deck received in the first active card zone represent a total resource cost for the current turn; (2:43+ which speaks of the different cards) wherein the one or more cards received in the first pitch zone are subsequently received at a bottom of the first card deck in the first card deck zone and the one or more cards received in the first active zone are subsequently received in the first discard zone. (See Fig. 1 and the different zones for cards which may be used as the zones. With regards to the cards being placed in specific locations this is rules of game play which the structure is capable of achieving.)(See Fig. 1; (32)(21)(1:35+)(2:43+))
With regards to the card zone locations, the prior art clearly teaches zones and placement locations for cards as cited. Additionally, the courts held that "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability….[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." (See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) As such, have specific locations for card placements isn’t seen to provide a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. The same is true for the cards and the type of cards used. The indicia or labeling of the card does not provide a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. With regards to the game and how it is played, the disclosure teaches various rules to game play. The utilization of such rules on this board is considered an obvious modification to the apparatus. The limitations added through amendment on 11/18/2025 directed to the first card deck and their subsets are also considered directed towards printed matter and falls under the same analysis as indicated above.
Regarding claim 21, Pederson teaches 21. (New) The card game system claim 20, wherein the total resource cost for the current turn is less than or equal to the total resource available during the current turn. See (2:43+) The rules of game play are considered obvious in view of the disclosures teaches of various rules. Although the rules may not be exactly the same the use of the claimed rules would be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 22, Pederson teaches 22. (New) The card game system claim 20, wherein the first area further comprises: a first temporary storage zone for receiving one or more cards from the top of the first card deck for later use, wherein the first pitch zone cannot receive a card from the first temporary storage zone. See Fig. 1 The rules of game play are considered obvious in view of the disclosures teaches of various rules. Although the rules may not be exactly the same the use of the claimed rules would be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 23, Pederson teaches 23. (New) The card game system claim 21, further comprising a second area comprising a second active card zone. See Fig. 1 The rules of game play are considered obvious in view of the disclosures teaches of various rules. Although the rules may not be exactly the same the use of the claimed rules would be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 24, Pederson teaches 24. (New) The card game system claim 23, wherein the first area further comprises: a first hero card zone for receiving a first hero card that comprises an attribute which modifies at least one of the cards in the first active card zone. See Fig. 1 The rules of game play are considered obvious in view of the disclosures teaches of various rules. Although the rules may not be exactly the same the use of the claimed rules would be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 25, Pederson teaches 25. (New) The card game system claim 24, wherein the first hero card received in the first hero card zone comprises an attribute which modifies one of the cards in the second active card zone. See (1:56+) The rules of game play are considered obvious in view of the disclosures teaches of various rules. Although the rules may not be exactly the same the use of the claimed rules would be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 26, Pederson teaches 26. (New) The card game system claim 23, wherein the first area further comprises: a first equipment card zone; and wherein the first active card zone is configured to receive an equipment card from the first equipment card zone, if, as a result of receiving the equipment card, the total resource cost for the current turn is less than or equal to the total resource available during the current turn. See Fig. 1 The rules of game play are considered obvious in view of the disclosures teaches of various rules. Although the rules may not be exactly the same the use of the claimed rules would be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 27, Pederson teaches 27. (New) The card game system claim 26, wherein the equipment card comprises a weapon card. See (1:56+) Additionally, the courts held that "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability….[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." (See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) As such, the labeling or indicia on a card is not seen to patentability distinguish the invention over the prior art.
Regarding claim 28, Pederson teaches 28. (New) The card game system claim26, wherein the equipment card comprises an armour card. See (1:56+) Additionally, the courts held that "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability….[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." (See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) As such, the labeling or indicia on a card is not seen to patentability distinguish the invention over the prior art.
Regarding claim 29, Pederson teaches 29. (New) The card game system claim 26, wherein the first active card zone receiving the equipment card from the first equipment card zone modifies a card in the second active card zone. See Fig. 1; (1:56+) The rules of game play are considered obvious in view of the disclosures teaches of various rules. Although the rules may not be exactly the same the use of the claimed rules would be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 30, Pederson teaches 30. (New) The card game system claim 26, wherein the second area further comprises a second hero card zone for receiving a second hero card. See Fig. 1 Additionally, the courts held that "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability….[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." (See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) As such, defining areas on a game board as claimed is not seen to provide a new and unobvious distinction over the cited prior art of record.
Regarding claim 31, Pederson teaches 31. (New) The card game system claim 30, wherein the first active card zone receiving the equipment card from the first equipment card zone modifies the second hero card in the second hero card zone. See Fig. 1 The rules of game play are considered obvious in view of the disclosures teaches of various rules. Although the rules may not be exactly the same the use of the claimed rules would be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 32, Pederson teaches 32. (New) The card game system claim 30, wherein the first active card zone receiving one or more cards from the top of the first card deck modifies the second hero card in the second hero card zone. See Fig. 1 The rules of game play are considered obvious in view of the disclosures teaches of various rules. Although the rules may not be exactly the same the use of the claimed rules would be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 33, Pederson teaches 33. (New) The card game system claim 20, wherein cards received in the first discard zone are permanently removed from play. See Fig. 1; (1:35+) The rules of game play are considered obvious in view of the disclosures teaches of various rules. Although the rules may not be exactly the same the use of the claimed rules would be an obvious modification.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the applicants’ arguments filed 11/18/2025 the examiner is not persuaded.
Arguments against the rejections under 35 USC 101 include that 1) the amended claims are not “Directed To” Abstract Idea (Step 2A, Prong one) and 2) The Claims Integrate Any Alleged Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application (Setp 2A, Prong two) and 3) The Printed Matter Doctrine Does Not Apply; Additionally, A Functional Relationship Is Claimed.
With regards to 1) the applicant argues that the claims recite a physical game board with specific structure and how they interact. However, the inclusion of general structural elements like a game board and cards…even if claimed as a system do not render the rules of game play no longer abstract ideas. These items are generally recited with zones, card indicia etc… which do not provide a practical application or significantly more that the abstract idea. Furthermore, the use of only mental steps or mere human interaction does not render the rules of game play non abstract. Any structural encoding of different attributed scores, resource gain values etc… which cannot be performed in the human mind are still rules of game play and extra solution activity.
With regards to 2) the applicant argues that the claims recite a specific arrangement of physical components and a prescribed sequence of physical interaction and state changes that manifest in the concrete operation of a tangible system. However, the specific zones and card indica and how they interact are the rules of how the game is played. The game would not function properly if they were not followed and constitute the abstract idea. The specifics of the rules such as what the colors and symbols mean and how they directed the game to be played such as through routing cards to the bottom of the deck are extra solution activity to the play of the game and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea of the rules of game play or place the abstract idea into a practical application. Even though structure is recited the structure is still generic in nature (such as zones on a board or specific indica on a card) and does not provide a particular machine or an improvement to the technology to render the abstract idea into a practical application. These specifics are just unique to a standard game of which a multitude of different zones, indica etc… could also be used to create a new and unique game. However, the creation of a new and unique game does not render the rules to game play non abstract.
With regards to 3) although it may be argued that the specific symbols, color encodings on the cards create a new way to play a game this does not mean that a new and unobvious functional relationship exists between the printed matter and the substrate the printed matter is placed on. For example, indica on a measure cup are directly related to the substrate to indicate volume measurements such as 1 cup or 1 oz of fluid. Indica on a playing card is not related to the substrate of the card itself. Although the indicia may dictate how a game is played, it is still not functionally related to the substrate itself. The discussion of printed matter in view of the rejections under 35 USC 101 are meant to corroborate the finding that there is no improvement to the technological field or significantly more than the abstract idea through the simple use of different indica on a substrate. In additional to the analysis above indicating that specific unique rules to game play do not render the rules of game play non abstract, the printed matter doctrine is referenced to show how in other areas such as a 35 USC 103 obvious rejection, printed matter is generally not a patentable advance unless a new and unobvious functional relationship is found to exist between the printed matter and the substrate. If such doesn’t exist in the realm of a 103 rejection then the examiner would find it very difficult to rely on printed matter to provide a practical application or significantly more argument to render an abstract idea not rejectable under 35 USC 101.
With regards to the arguments against the rejection under 35 USC 103, the applicant appears to argue towards the patentability of the newly amended claim limitations. As indicated in the modified rejections above, the examiner considers the card deck with the specific subset of cards to be directed towards printed matter. Furthermore, the prior art shows the use of different cards which render different cards such as different subsets of card decks obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711