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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities: note MPEP 714 in conjunction to 37 CFR 1.121 “manner of making amendments” section c (2) claim text with markings is required. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “Pinyin alphabet” and “Cyrillic alphabet” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-2, 11-12, 14-17 24 and 25 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.
With respect to claim 1, further clarification is required regarding the number of set and number of cards in each set to play the game, as now amended (lines 11+). The claim is now recites as placing four set, each set including 26 cards, to play the game. However, it seems as having equal number of cards in each pile to play the game, is contradicting to the original disclosure, in at least paragraphs [0023] and [0024] as reproduce hereinafter. “[0023] Turning to Fig. 2, the cards10 are arranged into piles 18a-18g. Each of the piles 18a-18g of cards10 can have a different number of cards10, with the top card10 of each pile being placed so that its face11 is showing.” And “[0024] In Fig. 2, the cards10 are arranged so that there are seven cards10 that are showing their faces11. The piles 18a-18g are arranged so that there is a pile18a having seven cards, a pile18b having six cards, a pile18c having five cards, a pile18d having four cards, a pile18e having three cards, a pile18f having two cards, and one card10 that is placed showing its face11.” . Also, line 11, “a plurality of cards”, need to be --the plurality of cards--- as “a plurality of cards” recites in line 2.
Claims 2, and 24 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
In addition, with respect to claim 24, the claim recites “wherein the plurality of cards is adapted to be arranged into at least two piles, wherein the plurality of cards is further adapted to be arranged into at least two piles of cards so that a top card of each of the at least two piles of cards is showing to a player of the game” as the claim dependent from claim 1, which recites such limitations, further clarification is require to such redundancy.
With respect to claim 11, same issues as discussed above with respect to claim 1, as further clarification is require regarding placing four set of cards, each set with more than twenty cards, to play the game. Also, line 12, “a plurality of cards”, need to be --the plurality of cards--- as “a plurality of cards” recites in line 3.
Claims 12,14-17 and 25-27 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 25 recites “wherein the plurality of cards is adapted to be arranged into at least two piles, wherein the plurality of cards is further adapted to be arranged into at least two piles of cards so that a top card of each of the at least two piles of cards is showing to a player of the game; wherein at least some of the plurality of cards are moved to obtain a predetermined arrangement of the plurality of cards”, as such limitations recites within independent claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2, 11-12, 14-17, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as “human activity” as rules of conducting a game. 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 1 is directed to a method which is eligible at step 1. With respect to set 2A, the following elements are considered to be abstract: “arranging cards dealt into at least two piles of cards so that a top card of each of the at least two piles of cards is showing”, “moving cards so that cards that are showing are organized in a predetermined arrangement” and “dealing more cards and moving the cards that are showing until a predetermined goal is obtained”. The above limitations appear to be directed to certain methods of human activity of following rules of playing a conventional Solitaire card game. The following are additional elements that do not amount to a practical application at step 2A: such as four sets of cards each set includes 26 cards bearing a suit and a letter. In re-evaluating the additional elements under step 2B, the additional element (e.g., the set of cards) appears to be routine and conventional in the art as exhibited by Sommer US 4,333, 656 (Figs. 1A-1B; 1:59-2:2).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the cards 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 Solitaire 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 “dealing cards”, “placing cards in piles” and “moving cards from the piles”, 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 the well-known game of Solitaire, 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(s) 1 and 11, 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 2, 12, 14-17, and 24-27 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. Claims 2 and 12, each recites number of piles to be six; claims 14-15 are reciting different alphabet letters, claims 16-17, citing limitations regarding the arrangement of the cards to form words or phrase, and claims 24-27 including similar limitations as the above claims. 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 2, 12, 14-17, and 24-27 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12, 17, 24-25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper US 5,199,714 (“Harper”) in view of Sommer US 4,333,656 (“Sommer”).
As per claim 1, Harper discloses a system for playing a game (system for playing a Solitaire type game)(Figs. 1-4; 2:23-3:44) comprising:
dealing cards from a deck into at least two piles of cards (Figs. 1 and 2; 2:42-60), the deck comprising a plurality of cards (standard deck of 52 cards)(Figs. 1-3 and 2:23-29), each of the plurality of cards comprising a suit selected from at least two different suits (Figs. 1-3), each of the at least two different suits containing all letters from an alphabet (Figs. 1-3 and 3:23-36);
arranging cards dealt into at least two piles of cards so that a top card of each of the at least two piles of cards is showing to a player of the game (cards are arranged in piles according to the conventional manner of the game of Solitaire, to be arranged in 7 piles)(Fig. 1; 2:42-60);
moving cards so that cards that are showing are organized in a predetermined arrangement (moving cards in predetermined arrangement to form English words)(Fig. 2; 2:61- 3:20);
and dealing more cards and moving the cards that are showing until a predetermined goal is obtained (game continued as cards are moves to form English words (e.g., Fig. 2) and if no further words can be formed, cards are dealt from the remaining cards of “a mini stack” (Fig. 3)(2:61-3:44).
With respect to “each of the plurality of cards comprising a suit selected from at least two different suits, each of the at least two different suits containing all letters from an alphabet”, the examiner construed such limitations as two “different letters” on each cards, as a small-corner letter and a big center letter within Harper (e.g., Figs. 1 and 2), according to applicant’s disclosure in at least [0021] and [0022], as it states “The suits14 are generally understood to be a picture or symbol that is placed on the card1 0 that represents that all cards10 that are of that suit14 are related in some manner.” And “In Fig. 1, each of the suits14 has the same letter12”. Accordingly the examiner construed the cards of Harper to includes same two letters, as the claimed “two different suits”.
Harper is not specific regarding the plurality of cards, wherein each card of the plurality of cards has placed thereon a suit and a letter, wherein the suit is selected from at least four different suits; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a first set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards, wherein each of the first set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four different suits; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a second set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the second set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four different suits and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a third set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards and the second set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the third set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four suits and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards and the second set of more than twenty different cards; and wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a fourth set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards, the second set of more than twenty different cards, and the third set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the fourth set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four suits and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards, the second set of more than twenty different cards and the third set of more than twenty different cards.
However, Sommer discloses 104 cards, divided into four suits, of clubs, diamond, hearts and spades, whereas each set includes 26 cards with the English alphabets A through Z (Figs. 1A and 1B; 1:59-2:2:37).
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 Harper’s plurality of cards, wherein each card of the plurality of cards has placed thereon a suit and a letter, wherein the suit is selected from at least four different suits; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a first set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards, wherein each of the first set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four different suits; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a second set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the second set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four different suits and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a third set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards and the second set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the third set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four suits and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards and the second set of more than twenty different cards; and wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a fourth set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards, the second set of more than twenty different cards, and the third set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the fourth set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four suits and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards, the second set of more than twenty different cards and the third set of more than twenty different cards for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Sommer’s suggestions to use such deck to play a conventional cards game including word games , e.g., 1:12-27 and 1:41+ (which is exactly the Solitaire word game taught by Harper).
Lastly, regarding the claimed indicia as the suit and letter upon each card (i.e., a printed matter), although the examiner addressed such limitations above, as mentioned previously, as unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate does not exist, USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter.
As per claim 2, Harper discloses wherein at least six piles of cards are dealt (cards are arranged in 7 piles)(Fig. 1; 2:42-60).
As per claim 11, Harper discloses a system for playing a game (a system for playing a Solitaire type game)(Figs. 1-4; 2:23-3:44) comprising:
dealing cards from a deck into at least two piles of cards (Figs. 1 and 2; 2:42-60), the deck comprising a plurality of cards (standard deck of 52 cards)(Figs. 1-3 and 2:23-29), each of the plurality of cards comprising a suit selected from at least two different suits (Figs. 1-3), each of the at least two different suits containing all symbols from a language (Figs. 1-3 and 3:23-36);
arranging cards dealt into at least two piles of cards so that a top card of each of the at least two piles of cards is showing to a player of the game (cards are arranged in piles according to the conventional manner of the game of Solitaire, to be arranged in 7 piles)(Fig. 1; 2:42-60);
moving cards so that cards that are showing are organized in a predetermined arrangement (moving cards in predetermined arrangement to form English words)(Fig. 2; 2:61- 3:20);
and dealing more cards and moving the cards that are showing until a predetermined goal is obtained (game continued as cards are moves to form English words (e.g., Fig. 2) and if no further words can be formed, cards are dealt from the remaining cards of “a mini stack” (Fig. 3)(2:61-3:44).
With respect to “each of the plurality of cards comprising a suit selected from at least two different suits, each of the at least two different suits containing symbols from a language”, the examiner maintains his positions as Harper’s cards includes “two different suits” as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Harper is not specific regarding the plurality of cards, wherein each card of the plurality of cards has placed thereon a suit and a letter, wherein the suit is selected from at least four different suits; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a first set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards, wherein each of the first set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four different suits; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a second set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the second set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four different suits and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a third set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards and the second set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the third set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four suits and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards and the second set of more than twenty different cards; and wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a fourth set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards, the second set of more than twenty different cards, and the third set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the fourth set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four suits and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards, the second set of more than twenty different cards and the third set of more than twenty different cards.
However, Sommer discloses 104 cards, divided into four suits, of clubs, diamond, hearts and spades, whereas each set includes 26 cards with the English alphabets A through Z (i.e., more than twenty different letters)(Figs. 1A and 1B; 1:59-2:2:37).
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 Harper’s plurality of cards, wherein each card of the plurality of cards has placed thereon a suit and a letter, wherein the suit is selected from at least four different suits; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a first set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards, wherein each of the first set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four different suits; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a second set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the second set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four different suits and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a third set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards and the second set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the third set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four suits and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards and the second set of more than twenty different cards; and wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a fourth set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards, the second set of more than twenty different cards, and the third set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the fourth set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from the at least four suits and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards, the second set of more than twenty different cards and the third set of more than twenty different cards for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding the claimed indicia on the cards, note the examiner discussion above with respect to claim 1, as no new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate does not exist, USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter.
As per claim 12, Harper discloses wherein at least six piles of cards are dealt(cards are arranged in 7 piles)(Fig. 1; 2:42-60).
As per claim 17, Harper discloses wherein the predetermined arrangement is a group of related words (Fig. 2 and 2:61-3:27).
As per claim 24, with respect to wherein the plurality of cards is adapted to be arranged into at least two piles, wherein the plurality of cards is further adapted to be arranged into at least two piles of cards so that a top card of each of the at least two piles of cards is showing to a player of the game, note Harper’s Figs. 1-3 2:42-60 and 3:23-36 as arranging the 52 cards into playing the game of Solitaire.
With respect to wherein at least some of the plurality of cards is arranged according to alphabetical order and moved to obtain a predetermined arrangement of the plurality of cards into an alphabetical order, it would have been obvious to arrange the cards in any suitable arrangement as a manner of user’s choice for purposes of educational and/or entertainment.
As per claim 25, with respect to wherein the plurality of cards is adapted to be arranged into at least two piles, wherein the plurality of cards is further adapted to be arranged into at least two piles of cards so that a top card of each of the at least two piles of cards is showing to a player of the game; wherein at least some of the plurality of cards are moved to obtain a predetermined arrangement of the plurality of cards, note Harper’s Figs. 1-3 2:42-60 and 3:23-36 as arranging the 52 cards into playing the game of Solitaire to form wards therefrom the cards forming the piles, i.e., obtain a predetermined arrangement of the plurality of cards.
As per claim 27, Harper discloses wherein the predetermined arrangement is a group of related words (Fig. 2 and 2:61-3:27).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper and Sommer as applied to claims 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Tseng US 6,948,938 (“Tseng”).
As per claim 14, Harper is not specific regarding wherein the letters are from a Pinyin alphabet. However, Tseng discloses wherein symbols form Chinese words (deck of cards 61 with symbols form Chinese words)(Fig. 6 and 6:56-7:20). Pinyin is a system that uses the Latin alphabet to Romanize Mandarin Chinese, and such symbols are shown in Fig. 6, within several of the cards thereof.
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 Harper’s wherein the letters are from a Pinyin alphabet as taught by Tseng for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Tseng’s suggestions by providing a deck of playing cards of that can be used to play games for both educational and entertainment purposes (e.g., 7:53-55). Such would have enhanced the use of Harper’s game as Harper’s game is designed as cards to form words using the organizational principles of Klondike Solitaire. E.g., Harper in 2:3-8 ”The object of the invention is to form as many words as possible, using the maximum number of cards. Ultimately, the player is attempting to use all of the cards in a word”.
As per claim 15, Harper is not specific regarding wherein the letters are from the Cyrillic alphabet.
However, Tseng discloses wherein the letters are from the Cyrillic alphabet (from the Russian language)(6:60-66).
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 Harper’s wherein the letters are from the Cyrillic alphabet as taught by Tseng for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 14, i.e., for educational and entertainment purposes.
Claim(s) 16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper and Sommer as applied to claims 11 above, and further in view of McPherson 0,977,117 (“McPherson”).
As per claim 16, Harper is not specific regarding wherein the predetermined arrangement is a phrase.
However, McPherson discloses wherein a predetermined arrangement is a phrase (in Figs. 1-5, regarding the cards including alphabet; and page 2, line 117-page 3, line 5, as the game played is solitaire as a phares formed by the cards letters; e.g., page 3, 1+” Should the red combination be first completed, the player will read the words "I win" but should the black combination be first completed he will read the words " You lose.").
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 Harper’s wherein the predetermined arrangement is a phrase as taught by McPherson for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of forming a card game type following the rules of a solitaire type game and such phrase provides excitement and interest, which is very desired in such type of cards games.
As per claim 26, Harper is not specific wherein the predetermined arrangement is a phrase. However, McPherson discloses wherein a predetermined arrangement is a phrase (in Figs. 1-5, regarding the cards including alphabet; and page 2, line 117-page 3, line 5, as the game played is solitaire as a phares formed by the cards letters; e.g., page 3, 1+). 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 Harper’s wherein the predetermined arrangement is a phrase as taught by McPherson for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 16.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilin et al US 2014/0171168 (“Keilin”) in view of YUAN CN102553218A (“Yuan”) and Sommer.
As per claim 21, Keilin discloses q system for playing a game (system to play Solitaire type game)(Figs. 1-5; paragraphs [0011]-[0062]) comprising:
a plurality of mobile devices (such as laptop, 112, wireless device 110, and etc.)(Fig. 1; [0018]-[0020]);
a server adapted to match players (server 118/ network 116/ database 120)(Fig. 1; [0018]-[0029]);
an app installed on each of the plurality of mobile devices, wherein the app is adapted to provide access to and display on a mobile device at least one game (note [0020] and [0029] regarding an app/ programed to any of the devices to play the solitaire game; note Fig. 2 in conjunction to [0032], [0035], [0038] and [0042]) comprising; a plurality of cards (Fig. 5 and [0055]-[0060]), wherein each card of the plurality of cards has placed thereon a suit (cards from a standard deck of 52 cards)(Fig. 5; [0058]) , wherein the suit is selected from clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades (such suits are inherent within a standard 52 card deck).
Keilin is not specific regarding card of the plurality of cards has placed thereon a suit and a letter; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a first set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards, wherein each of the first set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a second set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the second set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards; wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a third set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards and the second set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the third set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards and the second set of more than twenty different cards; and wherein more than twenty different letters are located on a fourth set of more than twenty different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of more than twenty different cards, the second set of more than twenty different cards, and the third set of more than twenty different cards, wherein each of the fourth set of more than twenty different cards has only one suit selected from clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards, the second set of more than twenty different cards and the third set of more than twenty different cards.
With respect to the cards of the plurality of cards has placed thereon a suit and a letter, in a similar filed of system to play a game, Yuan discloses a mobile/computer (claim 3 and [0006]) with set of cards, whereas the plurality of cards has placed thereon a suit and a letter (a deck of 52 cards with diamond, club, hearts and spades and 26 letters from the English alphabet (i.e., more than twenty different letters)(Figs. 1-9; paragraphs [0003]-[0017]; note [0003], [0004], and claim 1 regarding the suits of the cards; note [0003] and [0004] regarding the English letters on the cards). Thus, Yuan discloses deck of 52 cards with a first set of different cards ,a second set of different cards, a third set of different cards and a four set of different cards each includes suits from clubs, diamond, spade and hearts (each suit for a different set of cars) and different letters (on each set of cards) from the English alphabet located thereon.
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 Keilin’s card of the plurality of cards has placed thereon a suit and a letter a plurality of cards, wherein each card of the plurality of cards has placed thereon a suit and a letter; wherein different letters are located on a first set of the different cards from the plurality of cards, wherein each of the first set of different cards has only one suit selected from clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades; wherein different letters are located on a second set of different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of the different cards, wherein each of the second set of the different cards has only one suit selected from clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of the different cards; wherein the different letters are located on a third set of the different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of the different cards and the second set of the different cards, wherein each of the third set of the different cards has only one suit selected from clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of more than twenty different cards and the second set of the different cards; and wherein different letters are located on a fourth set of the different cards from the plurality of cards that are different from the first set of different cards, the second set of the different cards, and the third set of the different cards, wherein each of the fourth set of the different cards has only one suit selected from clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades and is different than the only one suit selected for the first set of the different cards, the second set of the different cards and the third set of the different cards, for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Yuan’s suggestion to use computerize type cards game for purposes of entertainment playing card, and memory consolidation and new word learning tool ([0002], [0003] and [0018]).
Keilin and Yuan is not specific regarding the first set of different cards, second set of different cards, third set of different cards and four set of different cards each includes more than twenty different letters located thereon.
However, Sommer discloses 104 cards, divided into four suits, of clubs, diamond, hearts and spades, whereas each set includes 26 cards with the English alphabets A through Z (Figs. 1A and 1B; 1:59-2:2:37). Thus, Sommer discloses first set of different cards , second set of different cards, third set of different cards and four set of different cards each includes more than twenty different letters located thereon.
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 Keilin- Yuan first set of different cards, second set of different cards, third set of different cards and four set of different cards each includes more than twenty different letters located thereon, for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Sommer’s suggestions to use such cards to play a conventional cards game, e.g., 1:12-27 and 1:41+ (which is exactly the Solitaire game taught by Keilin).
Although Sommer is not specific as his device utilized in an electronic application, it is noted that it has been held that applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years.” The claimed invention in Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the cards of Sommer would have been obvious to utilized in a new and modern electronic, computerize application to play a card type game.
As per claims 22, and 23, with respect to wherein the app is adapted to update cards from the server (claim 22), and wherein the app keeps track of performance in games (claim 23), note Keilin’s Figs. 1, in conjunction to [0018]-[0029]; Fig. 2 ([0030]-[0041]) and Fig. 5 ([0055]+) as the game management system 108-server 108 and database 120, communicate and provide such updates to the plurality of mobile, electronic devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 11-12, 14-18 and 21-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 12/3/2025
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711