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 § 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-19 are directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a method and system, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
The claims recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recite a game for play by a player using a plurality of cards comprising:
an array of cards including a plurality of components, said plurality of components including rows, columns and diagonals;
a firsthand having x cards, said first hand being defined by said array of cards; and
a second hand having y cards, said second hand being defined by said array of cards:
wherein each of said first and second hands includes all cards of one of said plurality of components.
Claim 12 recites a video poker game for play by a player, said game comprising:
an array of cards including a plurality of components, said plurality of components including rows, columns and diagonals;
a plurality of poker hands, with each of said plurality of components having more than two cards therein defining one of said plurality of poker hands;
wherein said components include a varying number of cards, such that said plurality of poker hands include at least one three-card poker hand, at least one four- card poker hand, and at least one five-card poker hand.
Claim 16 recites the steps of a method of playing a poker game comprising:
wagering of a wager by a player;
distributing an array of cards to said player, said array including a plurality of horizontal, vertical, and diagonal components, wherein each of said plurality of components having more than two cards defines one of a plurality of hands, said plurality of hands including at least one three-card hand, at least one four-card hand, and at least one five-card hand:
evaluating said plurality of hands based on the odds of achieving a given poker hand of identical length;
determining winning hands, if any, from among said plurality of hands; and awarding a payout based on said wager for said winning hands.
The claim limitations (as underlined above) are steps of organizing human activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, organizing human activity includes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a player using a plurality of cards and following a set of instructions). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a player playing a video poker game and method of playing a card game) may fall within this grouping.
The claim limitations (as underlined) recite that a game is initiated and a wherein a interaction with a player is received. The steps of playing a wagering game and managing a wagering game is step of a fundamental economic principle or practice and also step of managing social activities. The abstract idea of organizing human activity includes managing interaction between people including social activities. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-19 do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-19 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
The claim does not recite any processors to perform the abstract idea of managing a game. The game for play as claimed is a card game requiring plurality of cards and not tied to a computer system for playing the game. The use of a computer generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
The claims does not recites additional limitation of a computer system. These limitations are not positively claimed to be part of the claimed system. The claim 12 mentions video poker game which assuming that they were part of the claims system, these limitations in combination with the user terminal is used to transmit and storing (wagering, distributing, evaluating, determining).
The steps of identifying events, identifying and displaying available outcomes, providing selection options, are steps of presenting offers. The courts have ruled that a computer to present offers is well-known, routine and convention, or insignificant extra solution activity.
Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moody (US 2004/0119236).
Regarding claims 1 and 16: Moody discloses a game for play by a player using a plurality of cards (see figure 1, paragraph [0015], showing the player is dealt a first five card poker hand from a deck of playing cards that will be used as the draw poker hand) comprising: an array of cards including a plurality of components, said plurality of components including rows, columns and diagonals (see figures 1 and 3, showing an array of cards including rows, columns, and diagonals); a first hand having x cards, said first hand being defined by said array of cards (see paragraph [0015], showing the player is dealt a first five card poker hand from a deck of playing cards that will be used as the draw poker hand); and a second hand having y cards, said second hand being defined by said array of cards (see paragraph [0015], showing the player is then dealt one or more stud poker hands depending on the number of stud poker hands selected to be played by the player): wherein each of said first and second hands includes all cards of one of said plurality of components (see figures 1 and 3, showing plurality of hands where the hands are defined by the rows component).
Regarding claim 2: Moody discloses wherein said first and second hands are poker hands (see paragraph [0015], showing the player is dealt a first five card poker hand from a deck of playing cards that will be used as the draw poker hand. The player is then dealt one or more stud poker hands depending on the number of stud poker hands selected to be played by the player).
Regarding claim 3: Moody discloses further including: a wager placed by said player (see paragraph [0015], showing the player making a first wager to play a draw poker game and a second wager to play a stud poker game); a first set of winning combinations for hands having x cards (see paragraph [0008], showing the final draw poker hand is revealed and analyzed to determine if it is a winning poker hand combination with the winning poker hands being shown in a first pay table associated with draw poker. The player receives an award for winning draw poker hands based on the poker ranking of the draw poker hand and the amount of the player's first wager); and a second set of winning combinations for hands having y cards (see paragraph [0009], showing the stud poker hand is revealed and analyzed to determine if it is a winning poker hand combination with the winning poker hands being shown in a second pay table associated with stud poker. The player receives an award for winning stud poker hands based on the poker ranking of the stud poker hand and the amount of the player's second wager); wherein said player receives a payout based on said wager if one of said first hand includes one of said first set of winning combinations and said second hand includes one of said second set of winning combinations (see paragraphs [0008] and [0009], showing the player receives an award for winning draw poker hands based on the poker ranking of the draw poker hand and the amount of the player's first wager and the player receives an award for winning stud poker hands based on the poker ranking of the stud poker hand and the amount of the player's second wager).
Regarding claims 4, 8: Moody discloses wherein said payout increases as the odds of forming a given winning combination decrease (see paragraph [0039], showing Other pay tables may be used and any suitable arrangement of winning poker hand combinations may also be used. For example, all of the Four-of-a-Kinds may have the same payout odds and the payouts on the other winning combinations could be changed).
Regarding claim 5: Moody discloses wherein x=3 and y =4, such that said first hand is a three-card hand and said second hand is a four-card hand (see paragraphs [0028] and [0036], showing the gaming having a plurality of buttons 48 can also be provided on the button panel 40 to allow the player to select the number of hands which the player wishes to play. For example, ONE HAND button 48A allows the player to select to play one hand of stud poker. TWO HAND button 48B allows the player to select to play two hands of stud poker. THREE HAND button 48C allows the player to select to play three hands of stud poker. FOUR HAND button 48D allows the player to select to play four hands of stud poker. FIVE HAND button 48E allows the player to select to play five hands of stud poker. Any suitable distribution of the number of hands can be allocated to the buttons and fewer or more than five buttons 48 can be used. The examiner construes that Moody teaches the limitation of having a three card hand or four card hand).
Regarding claim 6: Moody discloses further including a third hand having z cards, said third hand including all cards of one of said plurality of components (see paragraph [0028], showing the gaming having a plurality of buttons 48 can also be provided on the button panel 40 to allow the player to select the number of hands which the player wishes to play. For example, ONE HAND button 48A allows the player to select to play one hand of stud poker. TWO HAND button 48B allows the player to select to play two hands of stud poker. THREE HAND button 48C allows the player to select to play three hands of stud poker. FOUR HAND button 48D allows the player to select to play four hands of stud poker. FIVE HAND button 48E allows the player to select to play five hands of stud poker. Any suitable distribution of the number of hands can be allocated to the buttons and fewer or more than five buttons 48 can be used. The examiner construes that Moody teaches the limitation of having multiple hands and options for various cards per hands).
Regarding claim 7: Moody discloses further including: a wager placed by said player (see paragraph [0015], showing the player making a first wager to play a draw poker game and a second wager to play a stud poker game); a first set of winning combinations for hands having x cards (see paragraph [0008], showing the final draw poker hand is revealed and analyzed to determine if it is a winning poker hand combination with the winning poker hands being shown in a first pay table associated with draw poker. The player receives an award for winning draw poker hands based on the poker ranking of the draw poker hand and the amount of the player's first wager); a second set of winning combinations for hands having y cards (see paragraph [0009], showing the stud poker hand is revealed and analyzed to determine if it is a winning poker hand combination with the winning poker hands being shown in a second pay table associated with stud poker. The player receives an award for winning stud poker hands based on the poker ranking of the stud poker hand and the amount of the player's second wager); and a third set of winning combinations for hands having z cards (see paragraph [0012], showing the player is then dealt both the draw poker hand and the plurality of stud poker hands that the player has determined to play. For each stud poker hand that is a winning hand combination, the player receives a payout for whatever winning hand combination he achieved based on a pay table and the amount of the player's wager on the winning stud poker hand. The draw poker is then played out by the player according to the conventional manner of play of draw poker); wherein said player receives a payout based on said wager if one of said first hand includes one of said first set of winning combinations, said second hand includes one of said second set of winning combinations, and said third hand includes once of said third set of winning combinations (see paragraphs [0008], [0009], and [0012], showing the player receives an award for winning draw poker hands based on the poker ranking of the draw poker hand and the amount of the player's first wager and for each stud poker hand that is a winning hand combination, the player receives a payout for whatever winning hand combination he achieved based on a pay table and the amount of the player's wager on the winning stud poker hand).
Regarding claim 9: Moody discloses wherein each of said plurality of components defines hand (see figures 1 and 3, showing plurality of hands where the hands are defined by the rows component).
Regarding claim 10: Moody discloses wherein z= 5, such that said third hand is a five-card a hand, said array of cards configured to define exactly three of said first hand, exactly three of said second hand, and exactly three of said third band (see paragraph [0028], showing the gaming having a plurality of buttons 48 can also be provided on the button panel 40 to allow the player to select the number of hands which the player wishes to play. For example, ONE HAND button 48A allows the player to select to play one hand of stud poker. TWO HAND button 48B allows the player to select to play two hands of stud poker. THREE HAND button 48C allows the player to select to play three hands of stud poker. FOUR HAND button 48D allows the player to select to play four hands of stud poker. FIVE HAND button 48E allows the player to select to play five hands of stud poker. Any suitable distribution of the number of hands can be allocated to the buttons and fewer or more than five buttons 48 can be used. The examiner construes that Moody teaches the limitation of having multiple hands and options for various cards per hands).
Regarding claims 11 and 18: Moody discloses wherein said game is played using a video display (see paragraph [0022], showing an electronic video stud poker and draw poker game and is designed to be played by having the stud poker hand and the draw poker hand displayed on a video screen).
Regarding claim 12: Moody discloses a video poker game for play by a player, said game comprising: an array of cards including a plurality of components, said plurality of components including rows, columns and diagonals (see figures 1 and 3, showing an array of cards including rows, columns, and diagonals); a plurality of poker hands, with each of said plurality of components having more than two cards therein defining one of said plurality of poker hands (see paragraph [0015], showing the player is dealt a first five card poker hand from a deck of playing cards that will be used as the draw poker hand); wherein said components include a varying number of cards, such that said plurality of poker hands include at least one three-card poker hand, at least one four- card poker hand, and at least one five-card poker hand (see paragraph [0015], showing the player is then dealt one or more stud poker hands depending on the number of stud poker hands selected to be played by the player).
Regarding claims 13, 17, and 19: Moody discloses wherein said array of cards includes fifteen cards, and wherein said array of cards is configured to define exactly three three-card poker hands, exactly three four-card poker hands, and exactly three five-card poker hands (see paragraph [0028], showing the gaming having a plurality of buttons 48 can also be provided on the button panel 40 to allow the player to select the number of hands which the player wishes to play. For example, ONE HAND button 48A allows the player to select to play one hand of stud poker. TWO HAND button 48B allows the player to select to play two hands of stud poker. THREE HAND button 48C allows the player to select to play three hands of stud poker. FOUR HAND button 48D allows the player to select to play four hands of stud poker. FIVE HAND button 48E allows the player to select to play five hands of stud poker. Any suitable distribution of the number of hands can be allocated to the buttons and fewer or more than five buttons 48 can be used. The examiner construes that Moody teaches the limitation of having multiple hands and options for various cards per hands).
Regarding claim 14: Moody discloses further including: a wager placed by said player (see paragraph [0015], showing the player making a first wager to play a draw poker game and a second wager to play a stud poker game); a set of winning three-card poker hands (see paragraph [0008], showing the final draw poker hand is revealed and analyzed to determine if it is a winning poker hand combination with the winning poker hands being shown in a first pay table associated with draw poker. The player receives an award for winning draw poker hands based on the poker ranking of the draw poker hand and the amount of the player's first wager); a set of winning four-card poker hands (see paragraph [0009], showing the stud poker hand is revealed and analyzed to determine if it is a winning poker hand combination with the winning poker hands being shown in a second pay table associated with stud poker. The player receives an award for winning stud poker hands based on the poker ranking of the stud poker hand and the amount of the player's second wager); and a set of winning five-card poker hands (see paragraph [0012], showing the player is then dealt both the draw poker hand and the plurality of stud poker hands that the player has determined to play. For each stud poker hand that is a winning hand combination, the player receives a payout for whatever winning hand combination he achieved based on a pay table and the amount of the player's wager on the winning stud poker hand. The draw poker is then played out by the player according to the conventional manner of play of draw poker); said player receiving a payout based on said wager for each of said plurality of poker hands forming a winning poker hand (see paragraphs [0008], [0009], and [0012], showing the player receives an award for winning draw poker hands based on the poker ranking of the draw poker hand and the amount of the player's first wager and for each stud poker hand that is a winning hand combination, the player receives a payout for whatever winning hand combination he achieved based on a pay table and the amount of the player's wager on the winning stud poker hand).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody (US 2004/0119236) in view of Schmit (US 2006/0252481).
Regarding claim 15: Moody discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
However, Moody does not disclose wherein said player receives a bonus based on said wager for achieving a predetermined number of winning poker hands.
In an analogous invention, Schmit teaches wherein said player receives a bonus based on said wager for achieving a predetermined number of winning poker hands (see claim 1 of Schmit showing the player continues to make wagers and play hands of video poker in the conventional manner until the countdown meter decrements to zero; when the countdown meter decrements to zero, the player then plays a bonus hand of video poker in a conventional manner; when the player achieves a final hand of video poker during the play of the bonus hand, the player receives at least one bonus replacement card to be used in the final hand if the replacement card would result in the player having a better winning hand poker combination than the player would have in the final hand without the replacement card; and awarding the player a payout for the better winning hand poker combination).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Moody’s video poker game as taught by Schmit’s bonus feature for the purpose of providing the player of the poker game with opportunity to increase their award by increasing their wager and based on predetermined outcomes of the poker hand. This yields the expected result of increasing the player’s enjoyment and satisfaction in the game.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aoki et al discloses multi-game video poker machine and system with asymmetrically accessible customization features; Falciglia discloses poker game having sequential hands with increasing numbers of cards.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADETOKUNBO OLUSEGUN TORIMIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1345. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8am - 4pm).
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, Peter Vasat, can be reached at (571)270-7625. 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.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715