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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant submits that the recitation of the operations are performed by a device with “specific machine architecture”. This argument is not persuasive. The specific machine architecture is not being claimed. The function is being claimed. The function is a mental process. Mental processes are not patent eligible.
Regarding “without exposing the downward-facing card …to another card”, there are ways in which a person can determine the rank of the facedown card without moving or touching the card. One way would be if the table were a transparent glass table. One would simply need to look upward from underneath the table to see through the glass table and see the downward facing card.
Regarding the apparatus of claim 10, Applicant uses 112f language “a smart card-handling device”. The generic “device” performs the function of “card-handling”. This generic “device” is nothing more than a generic computer. Nothing in the amendment negates the 101 analyses.
Thus, the rejections are maintained.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recite(s) 1) determining … an upward-facing card 2) automatically detecting … whether a rank value of a downward-facing card… and 3) indicating whether the dealer’s initial hand either equates to … or does not equate to the natural hand. The claims further require that this method is performed by “one or more processors”. These limitations are mental processes that can be performed in the human mind and managing interactions between people.
The claim recites the following additional elements: a card-handling device that comprises the processors. This additional element does not amount to significantly more since the “device” is merely the shell for the processors and thus is viewed as a generic computer by another name.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). One example that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality was the mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, Applicant is merely using a computer with processors to automate the thinking performed by a dealer of a blackjack game.
Claims 2-9 further define the method with additional steps of determining and detecting. These other limitations do not change the analysis.
Claim 10 recites a “system” with “one or more electronic indicators” and “one or more processors” the “perform operations” of determining, detecting and indicating. These is merely the recitation of a generic computer performing the method of claim 1 which is not patent eligible. Claim 10 is the equivalent of reciting the words "apply it" on a computer or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The same analysis of claim 1 applies to claim 10.
Claims 11-19 further define the system by merely reciting additional steps of determining and detecting. These other limitations do not change the analysis.
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 BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights