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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 3 is 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. The claim states “including but not limited to” in regards to the effects of the Action cards. This language is open-ended and indefinite due to the metes and bounds of the Action card effects being unclear; it is not understood to what extent the Action cards effect game play as there is no limit. As such, this claim language is indefinite.
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 2,7 are rejected under U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 2,7 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
STEP 2A PRONG 1
Claim 2 recites a method for playing a shedding card game, comprising steps of:
dealing 12 cards face down into 4 piles of 3 cards to each player (involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules or rules for a game, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)),
then 1 card face up to each pile therefore creating Ground cards (involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules or rules for a game, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)),
providing each player with an initial hand of four cards (involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules or rules for a game, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)), and
forming a draw pile from the remaining cards (involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules or rules for a game, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)),
followed by players taking turns to discard cards (involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules or rules for a game, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)),
adhering to rules that dictate matching or playing higher or lower value cards (involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules or rules for a game, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)), and
employing Action cards that introduce rule variations (involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules or rules for a game, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)),
with the game concluding when a single player retains cards, designating them as the loser (involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules or rules for a game, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)).
Further, dependent Claim 7 merely include limitations that add another abstract idea or further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract). Specifically, Claim 7 recites a rule that requires players to play all cards in their hand before addressing the Ground cards, ensuring that players engage with both their hand and the strategically placed Ground cards (involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules or rules for a game, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
STEP 2A PRONG 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claim 2 (and their respective dependent claim 7) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d), and there are no additional elements (identified above in independent claim 2).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (card game rules). 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 according to MPEP 2106.05(a). 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. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claim 2 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent claim 2 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
STEP 2B
None of claims 2,7 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
The shedding card game method of claims 2,7 is directed to applying abstract ideas as identified above via a general purpose card game without any additional elements that (i) improve the performance of a computer or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the claims 2,7 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 2,7 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3,5,6 is rejected under U.S.C 102 (a)(2) as being unpatentable over "UNO" (evidenced by: (i) Uno Rules PDF, published on June 28, 2013). Regarding claim 3, UNO teaches an Action card system for altering the rules of a card game; said system comprising a plurality of Action cards with distinct effects with the contents of reverse, draw 2, wild, wild draw, and blank cards (Uno Rules PDF). These game cards are cards with distinct effects that require a specific action to occur. UNO further discloses each affecting the gameplay in a specific manner, including but not limited to revealing the highest card in a player's hand, Back One Action card, VETO Action card that will change that low cards win, Lower/Higher Action card, Action card that will change whether high or low cards win, Wild Pile Remover Action card, Hand Cleaner Action card that allows the player to play all cards in their hand at one time, not including Ground cards and then removing the discard pile, Wild Play Again cards, Wild Free Play cards allowing the next player to play any card, or initiating a clear pile action when multiple cards of the same value are played consecutively, allowing for dynamic rule changes and enhanced gameplay engagement. While these specific-named cards aren’t present in UNO, there are other various types of Action cards as discussed above. These functions do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. This is simply printed matter on the cards, and the product only serves as a support; In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished), see MPEP 2111.05 I. As such, the action card types of UNO anticipate those in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, UNO discloses further including a diverse set of Action cards with unique effects, comprising rules such as "Lower/Higher," which reverses the direction of play and introduces new criteria for card selection, and "Clear Pile," which enables the removal of all cards from the discard pile in the event of consecutive plays of the same value, enhancing the game's depth and complexity. This is seen with the Reverse card, which reverses direction of play analogous to the Lower/Higher of the claimed invention, and the blank card which can be any special rule a player wishes to use; which can be the Clear Pile card rule (UNO Rules PDF). As such, the claim is anticipated.
Regarding claim 6, UNO teaches Action cards can be played only in a specific order to activate their rule-altering effects, enhancing the strategic and tactical elements of the game, as the various types of action cards can only be played in a certain manner; the Reverse card can only be played on a matching color or another Reverse card, the Skip card can only be played on a matching color or on another Skip card, etc. (UNO Rules PDF). As such, UNO anticipates the claim.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
3. Claims 1, 4 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over UNO (UNO Rules PDF).
Regarding claim 1, UNO teaches a card game comprising a custom deck of 111 cards, including numeric cards with values from 1 to 17, Wild cards, and Action cards wherein players are tasked with discarding cards in sequence, with specific rules governing card selection and the utilization of Action cards, said card game is designed for 2-4 players but is expandable to accommodate an almost infinite number of players by combining multiple decks, with the primary objective being to avoid being the last player with cards remaining in hand: a game with contents of 112 cards, 4 colors of numeric cards with values from 0-9, Wild and Action cards, played with 2 to 10 players, and the object being the first player to play all of the cards in their hand in each round (UNO Rules PDF). However, UNO lacks teaching VETO cards. This is simply printed matter on a card surface, as there is no functional relationship between the indicia and the substrate (the indicia being the VETO card and the substrate is the card) because the product merely serves as a support.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to make the action cards say anything desired in order to play the intended game. Furthermore, patentable novelty cannot be principally predicated on mere printed matter and arrangements thereof, but must reside basically in physical structure. In re Montgomery, 102 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1954).
Claim 4 further regarding the VETO card, as discussed above in claim 1, stating wherein the numeric cards consist of values ranging from 1 to 17, with the VETO card serving as a distinct card type specifically designed to prevent players from drawing additional cards in response to a matching play by an opponent is merely printed matter on the surface of the card. It is obvious to make the action cards say anything desired in order to play the intended game.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to RIA SHARMA whose telephone number (571) 345-5811. The
examiner can normally be reached 8:00am- 5pm.
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, vis it:
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.
/R.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711