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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12, filed 5 May 2023, are pending and are currently under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-7: the game name “Texas Holdem” should be presented consistently (e.g., “Texas Hold’em” or “Texas Hold ‘Em”) throughout the claims.
Claims 1, 5-12: “special designed” should read “specially designed” for grammatical correctness and consistency.
Claim 5: “wherein the plurality of suit and rank combinations defines three rows” should read “wherein the plurality of suit and rank combinations defines three rows” (plural subject/verb agreement).
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 3-4 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 3 recites the limitation "the nearest end cap" in the clause reciting the distance between the holes and "the nearest end cap". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 2 introduces “one end cap” and “the other end cap” only in a comparative context (i.e. one hole closer to one end cap and the other hole closer to the other endcap), and claim 3 does not clearly establish which end cap is “nearest” for the asserted distance measurement.
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 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims 7 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea in the form of rules for playing/participating in a game. The claims recite game-rule limitations including:
placing one or more wagers on one/two/three vertically-arranged bet locations;
dealing cards to players and a dealer with specified face-up/face-down orientation;
repeatedly allowing players to decide to place another wager or fold (including conditions for the dealer taking wagers and ending the game);
dealing community cards in stages; and
determining which “row” of indicia (from the multi-row cards) combined with the community cards forms a best possible hand and using that row to compete against a player’s hand for each wagered row.
Claim 10 further recites a “split” rule where, if the numbers/letters in any row of the player’s two cards are the same, the player may split and place additional wager(s) at one or more split locations, followed by dealing additional cards. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the physical game components recited (e.g., the card table/player areas, community card slots, bet locations, split locations, and cards/indicia) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they are routine in any card game.
Step 2A, Prong One:
These limitations, considered as a whole, describe the concept of rules/steps for conducting and participating in a wagering-based card game (including wagering decisions, dealing sequence, conditional gameplay decisions, hand evaluation using row-selection rules, and payout competition), which is an abstract idea (certain methods of organizing human activity). This is similar to the concepts held to be abstract by the courts in In re Brown, 645 Fed. Appx. 1014 (Fed Cir. 2016). Non-precedential with opinion. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 118 USPQ2d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 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. Another 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. 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. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Thus, the limitations of claims 7-12 are interpreted to fall under methods of organizing human activity in the form of rules for playing a game such that the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The rules are still directed to Texas Hold’em-type gameplay, with the main distinction being that the claimed set of cards provides more betting opportunities because the cards represent multiple betting options. The additional elements (including the table, dealing cards, layout/betting location, and table legs) merely provide a conventional physical gaming environment for carrying out the rules, and therefor do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The additional elements do not add an inventive concept. Considered individually, 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 table/slots/locations/cards that imposes a nonconventional technical feature or otherwise amounts to significantly more than implementing the rules as claimed. There is nothing particular to the cards and table elements, or how they interact, that makes them specific to this method beyond performing conventional card-game functions (e.g., providing wagering locations, receiving/displaying/dealing cards, and evaluating hands according to rules). The main distinction is a refinement of the wagering/game rules and is implemented using these conventional game components.
The dependent claims add no additional elements not already in the independent claims that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Instead, the dependent claims add further abstract steps and rule-based information/conditions in the form of:
“WILD” indicia representing any number/letter/suit for building a best possible hand (claims 8 and 11); and
Specifying suit arrangements across the three rows (claims 9 and 12), which further defines how the gameplay rules treat the multi-row indicia when evaluating hands.
Claims 7, 8-9, 10, and 11-12, as a whole, are directed to the abstract concept of rules for participating in/playing a game. These abstract concepts are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breeding (U.S. 6,273,424 B1) in view of Snow (U.S. 2006/0284376 A1) and further in view of Feldkamp (U.S. 144,080).
Regarding claim 1, Breeding teaches a casino gaming table having a table surface and multiple player positions. Breeding discloses a “typical gaming table, with a playing surface … modified to include specific areas that provide locations for placing the wagers and for displaying the common cards” (Col. 3, lines 32-36) having a “flat playing surface (16) covered with felt or other appropriate material” (Col. 5, lines 7-10, Figs. 2 and 3) and further teaches that the “table (10) has a curved side (12) for accommodating up to seven players and a straight side (14) for accommodating the dealer” (Col. 5, lines 5-8, Figs. 2 and 3). Breeding also teaches multiple betting areas at each player position, stating that “each of the playing positions (18a–g) includes a wagering zone (22), comprising three separate and distinct wagering or betting areas (22a, b, c)” (Col. 5, lines 18-21, Figs. 2 and 3) which reads on the first, second, and third bet locations under BRI (MPEP 2111). Breeding further teaches designated card receiving areas on the table surface, stating that “each position (18a–g) also includes a card area (19a–g) for receiving and displaying cards dealt to the player occupying the position”)” (Col. 5, lines 21-23, Figs. 2 and 3), which reads on the claimed “slots” under the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111).
However, Breading does not expressly teach (i) “five community card slots” corresponding to Texas Hold’em’s five community cards, (ii) “can bet up to 3-6 bets at a time” as claimed, (iii) the bet locations being “arranged vertically,”, (iv) “a first/second/third split location … adjacent to the first/second/third bet location,” (v) the “special designed playing card” having multiple rows with the recited repeated indicia and row-to-row differences, (vi) the recited correspondence between each bet location and a respective card row, or (vii) “two table legs, which are set under the table structure.”
Snow teaches Texas Hold’em gameplay in which “five community cards are dealt face-down on the table” ([0008]). Snow further teaches a per-player layout having multiple distinct betting areas as “four separate betting areas for the Ante wager 406, the blind wager 408, the Trips wager 410 and the Play wager 412,” ([0060]) and expressly discloses the benefits of additional betting areas where additional wagers are permitted, “additional betting areas may be used” and that “it would be desirable to provide multiple betting circles on the layout” ([0061]).
However, Snow in view of Breading, does not expressly teach (i) “can bet up to 3-6 bets at a time” as claimed, (ii) the bet locations being “arranged vertically,”, (iii) “a first/second/third split location … adjacent to the first/second/third bet location,” (iv) the “special designed playing card” having multiple rows with the recited repeated indicia and row-to-row differences, (v) the recited correspondence between each bet location and a respective card row, or (vi) “two table legs, which are set under the table structure.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Breeding’s gaming table in view or Snow to implement a Texas Hold’em layout and wagering structure with predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (See MPEP 2143 (I)(B)) supports combining familiar elements according to known methods when the result is predictable. Here, Snow teaches Hold’em gameplay using five community cards, and Breeding already provides designated card display/receiving areas on the table surface; accordingly, it would have been obvious to include five community-card receiving/display locations consistent with Texas Hold’em.
Breeding further teaches three distinct wagering areas per player position, and Snow teaches that additional betting circles/areas are desirable when additional wagers are permitted; accordingly expanding the layout to allow to allow up to 3-6 bets by adding further wagering areas, including adjacent “split wager areas, is a predictable extension of the known table layout features used for their ordinary purposes. This is the type of predictable use of prior art elements endorsed by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)). The examiner further notes that the limitation of allowing up to 3 to 6 bets as claimed is not a structural limitation and that the applicant needs to define over the prior art with structural limitations and not functional limitations for apparatus claims. See in re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ 2d 1429, 1432 (Fed Cir. 1997).
The limitation “two table legs, which are set under the table structure” is an obvious matter of routine structural selection/duplication because Breeding and Snow each relate to physical gaming tables necessarily supported by legs/stands, and selecting “two” supports (as opposed to another known number) is a predictable variation absent evidence of criticality. It has been held that mere duplication of parts is an obvious expedient unless a new or unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)), and differences limited to relative dimensional/structural choice without criticality do not render the claim patentable (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Printed matter is addressed here because claim 1 recites extensive information content/game-rule matter about the “special designed playing card” (three rows, repeated indicia; suit/number/letter limitations; meanings) and “correspondence” of betting locations on those card rows; to the extent these limitations merely claim information content or game rules (and/or intended use) without a new or unobvious functional relationship to the claimed table structure beyond conveying information to players, such matter is not entitled to patentable weight (MPEP 211.05; In re Gulack, 703 F2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The examiner notes that there is no functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrates (cards and table surface) as the printed matter can be on any surface and has no particular relationship between the card or the table surface. Assuming arguendo that there is a functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate, there is no unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrates as the printed matter is merely conveying information in an obvious manner.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and therefor includes all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 2 further recites that the bottom surface of the table structure has two holes and that each leg has a convex part inserted into the holes to fix the legs to the table structure.
Feldkamp teaches a wood furniture leg attachment using a member fastened to the underside and a mortise (hole/socket) receiving a tenon on the leg. Feldkamp discloses a cleat structured to the underside and “mortised to receive the leg-tenon.” With the leg tenon occupying the mortise/socket. This teaches (under BRI) providing holes/sockets in the underside structure and inserting a projecting end portion of a leg into the hole/socket to fix the leg (Feldkamp, Figs.1-4; description of mortise/socket and tenon).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Breeding table as modified by Snow to secure the table legs using Feldkamp’s known mortise-and-tenon style leg attachment, because Feldkamp teaches this well-known furniture joint for securely attaching legs to an underside frame member and applying that known attachment technique to a gaming table would have predictably provided secure leg attachment (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(B)-(D)). Further, providing two such holes/joints (one per leg) reflect a straightforward duplication/selection of known supports and would have been obvious absent showing of an unexpected result (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)).
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and therefore includes all the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Claim 3 further specifies the depth of the holes is
3
1
8
inches and that the distance between the holes and the nearest end cap is also
3
1
8
inches.
Feldkamp teaches the same type of leg-to-understructure mortise/tenon attachment and shows (in section views) that the mortise depth and placement are selected to achieve secure engagement. While Feldkamp does not expressly disclose the exact dimensions, selecting depths for mortise/tenon holes and corresponding leg projections is a routine dimensional choice.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Breeding table as modified by Snow to secure the table legs using Feldkamp’s known mortise-and-tenon style leg attachment to select routine dimensional parameters for the receiving holes and their placement (e.g., the claimed hole depth and the claimed distance between the holes and an end cap) to obtain the expected fit, engagement, and strength of the inserted leg joint, because once the general mortise/socket and inserted leg structure is taught, selecting workable depths and offsets is a matter of routine optimization and design choice absent evidence that the specific numerical values are critical or produce unexpected results. It has been held, see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and therefor includes all limitations of claims 1-3. Claim 4 further recites that the bottom surface includes a convex column horizontally arranged at the middle section, with the holes arranged on the convex column.
Feldkamp teaches an underside cleat/projection (a protruding reinforcement member) secured to the underside and including a mortise/socket (hole) to receive the leg tenon, with figure support in Figures 1-4 showing the underside member and leg-tenon/mortise engagement. Under BRI, Feldkamp’s protruding underside member corresponds to the claimed “convex column,” and Feldkamp places the receiving hole/mortise in that protruding member.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Breeding table as modified by Snow to secure the table legs using Feldkamp’s known leg attachment to place receiving holes in an underside horizontally arranged member (the claimed “convex column”). Because Feldkamp teaches forming the receiving mortise/socket in an underside cleat/projection member that reinforces the joint and carries the hole receiving the leg tenon (Feldkamp, Figs. 1-4), and applying that known arrangement to the underside of a table is a predictable adaptation. Further, to the extent the claim requires that the underside member to be specifically “convex,” selecting a particular contour/shape for the underside reinforcing member is a predictable design variation absent a showing that the convex shape is critical and yields unexpected results (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) ; Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984))
Claims 5 depends from claim 1 and recites that at least one row contains letters “WILD” and that “WILD” represents any number, letter, and suit a player or dealer could build for the best hand.
These limitations are directed to the content of information / gaming-rule meaning conveyed by the letters “WILD” on the playing card. Such indicia and associated meaning constitute printed matter. Printed matter is not given patentable weight unless it is functorially or structurally related to the substrate in a new and nonobvious way beyond merely conveying information to a human (In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, the “WILD” indicia and it’s meaning simply instruct a player how to treat the card during gameplay and does not impose a new structural or functional relationship with the card substrate beyond conveying information.
Claims 6 depends from claim 5 and recites that the suit of the first row, second row, and third row are all different. Gleason teaches suit management across multiple denomination/indicia regions in multi-denomination playing cards (e.g., teachings directed to avoiding same-suit duplications across denomination fields and mixing suits).
This limitation is likewise directed to information content / rule-driven indicia constraints on the playing card. This is printed matter because it specifies the informational content and arrangement of suit indicia and governs gameplay/evaluation rules rather than imposing a new structural relationship with the substrate. As with claim 5, such indicia are not given patentable weight absent a new and nonobvious way beyond merely conveying information to a human (In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, the “different suits across rows” limitation primarily informs the player how the card is to be used/evaluated during play and does not create a nonobvious functional relationship with the card substrate. See printed matter analysis above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Winston (US 4,588,193 A) teaches two value playing cards.
Prucey (US 10,086,258 B2) teaches poker play using game tyles carrying multiple card indicia/values.
Chen (US 2020/0246681 A1) teaches playing cards with multiple card indicia/values.
Shetterly (US 2007/0063441 A1) teaches playing cards with multiple card indicia/values.
McCarroll (US 1,551,761 A) teaches playing cards with multiple card indicia/values.
McGrath (US 2012/0043721 A1) teaches playing cards with two rows of indicia.
Cottingham (US 2008/0315526 A1) teaches playing cards with multiple card indicia/values.
Mitchell (US 2008/0054567 A1) teaches playing cards where each card contains 4 numbers.
Phillips (US 7,156,398 B1) teaches playing cards with two rows of indicia.
Hancock (US 1,551,761 A) teaches playing cards with multiple card indicia/values.
Gleason, Jr. (US 5445391 A) teaches playing cards with multiple card indicia/values.
Swedish Forest Federation, Joinery Handbook: For softwood furniture production (2020)
Schmidt, R. J., & MacKay, R. B., Timber Frame Tension Joinery (1997)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711