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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of the claim(s) has/have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 15 includes limitations directed towards “A. Each player of the game selecting a set of numbered disks and placing said numbered disks on the table in front of each player; B. Providing an Immunity tile to each player, wherein each player will place said Immunity tile on the table in front of the player with the immunity side up; C. Placing the direction of play disk on the table with the first clockwise side up; D. Providing each player a plurality of playing cards, wherein each player deals a plurality of cards into a plurality of stacks in front of their set of numbered disks; wherein E. Each player will begin play by picking up the plurality of playing cards comprising stack #1 of their plurality of stacks; and F. Taking turns playing cards by matching the color of an active card, the number of an active card, or text of an active card until one player has discarded all of the playing cards of each player’s plurality of stacks.”
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Accordingly, each of the claim(s) recited above recite an abstract idea.
Further, the dependent claim(s), if present, 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.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Prong Two Considerations
This/these judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application because the examiner does not find one of the following to exist:
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
Furthermore, limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
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)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of the claims indicated above (and their respective dependent Claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims indicated above (and their respective dependent claims) do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do the additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the above identified claim(s) (and their respective dependent claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
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. 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.
Accordingly, each of the claims identified above (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the claim(s) indicated above (or their dependents) include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. The additional elements, cards, tiles, disks and table are merely known elements that are using in the card gaming technology. These additional elements are conventional and routine as evidenced by the prior art rejection below which teaches all of known additional elements.
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.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saddler (US 20130270770 A1) in view of Couri (US 20070235936 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Saddler teaches a card game (Abstract) comprising: a plurality of playing cards (12) comprising a plurality of numbered cards (44) (Fig. 3; paragraph 18, “ the plurality of third cards 44 contain numerical indicia”) and a plurality of action cards (40 and 71) (paragraph 24); a plurality of immunity tiles (14) (paragraph 18, sentence 4; claim 8, “wherein an obtained game piece (14) provides immunity from an action to be performed”). Saddler does not teach a plurality of numbered disks; and a direction of play disk. However, Couri teaches a plurality of numbered disks used in a card game (Fig. 2; paragraph 22, second sentence). The disk of Couri is also structurally capable of being used as a direction of play disk by simply substituting the indicia, which does not structurally limit the claim. The only structural limitations are those directed towards the cards, immunity tiles, and disks. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide Saddler with a direction of play disk and a plurality of numbered disks as taught by Couri to identify stacks of cards and direction of play by using a “disk”.
Regarding claim 2, Saddler teaches wherein said plurality of numbered cards comprises a plurality of playing cards (12) numbered 1-9 (paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 3, Saddler teaches wherein said plurality of action cards (40) (paragraph 17) are comprised of a plurality of Attack cards (41-Draw cards), Reverse cards (43) and Color Shift Cards (49-Wild Draw Four Card) (paragraph 17, Wild Draw Four Card, “when this card is played this card allows you to call the next color played ”). Saddler does not teach Discard cards, Peek cards, Reveal cards, Swap cards, Free Discard cards. However, these various types of cards are related to the printed matter applied to the cards. Note MPEP 2111.05 stating that “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404).” Here, the printed matter does not perform some function with respect to the substrate (card) and thus, the printed matter is not given patentable weight. Without the printed matter, the substrate still functions as a substrate and with the substrate, the indicia can be put on any other substrate. The printed matter and the substrate do not depend upon each other and the product merely serves as support and display for the printed matter. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the card game of Saddler with additional types of cards, such as Discard cards, Peek cards, Reveal cards, Swap cards, Free Discard cards, and Color Shift cards, to introduce variations in the card game.
Regarding claim 4, Saddler teaches wherein said plurality of playing cards (12) comprising a plurality of numbered cards (44) and a plurality of action cards (40) are identified by an assigned color (28-color indicia) (paragraphs 14-15; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Saddler does not teach wherein said plurality of playing cards (12) comprising a plurality of numbered cards (44) and a plurality of action cards (40) are identified by an assigned shape. However, the shape of the cards is directed to design choice and does not hold patentable weight. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947), where the court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, Saddler teaches wherein said plurality of playing cards (12) numbered 1-9 (paragraph 13, “any suitable numbers, such as 0-9”) are further comprised of blue cards, red cards, green cards (paragraph 15). Saddler does not teach purple cards or that there are four of each color of cards for each of numbers 1-9. However, using different colors of cards is related to the printed matter applied to the cards. Note MPEP 2111.05 stating that “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404).” Here, the printed matter does not perform some function with respect to the substrate and thus, the printed matter is not given patentable weight. Without the printed matter, the substrate still functions as a substrate and with the substrate, the indicia can be put on any other substrate. The printed matter and the substrate do not depend upon each other and the product merely serves as support and display for the printed matter. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the card game of Saddler with a variation of colors, to make the card game more interesting.
Regarding claim 7, Saddler teaches wherein said plurality of action cards (40) are comprised of Attack cards (41-Draw cards), and Reverse cards (43), for each of the colors blue, red, green, and any other suitable color (paragraph 15). Saddler does not teach Discard cards, Peek cards, Reveal cards, Swap cards. However, this is related to the printed matter applied to the cards. Note MPEP 2111.05 stating that “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404).” Here, the printed matter does not perform some function with respect to the substrate and thus, the printed matter is not given patentable weight. Without the printed matter, the substrate still functions as a substrate and with the substrate, the indicia can be put on any other substrate. The printed matter and the substrate do not depend upon each other and the product merely serves as support and display for the printed matter. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the card game of Saddler with additional cards, such as Discard cards, Peek cards, Reveal cards, Swap cards, and Reverse cards to introduce variations in the card game.
Regarding claim 8, Saddler does not teach wherein said plurality of action cards is further comprised of 12 silver colored Free Discard cards, and 12 multi-colored Color Shift cards. However, this is related to the printed matter applied to the cards. Note MPEP 2111.05 stating that “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404).” Here, the printed matter does not perform some function with respect to the substrate and thus, the printed matter is not given patentable weight. Without the printed matter, the substrate still functions as a substrate and with the substrate, the indicia can be put on any other substrate. The printed matter and the substrate do not depend upon each other and the product merely serves as support and display for the printed matter. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the card game of Saddler with varying colors and indicia to introduce variations in the card game.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Saddler teaches wherein said plurality of numbered disks (taught by Couri) comprises a plurality of disks (Couri, Fig. 2; paragraph 22, first two sentences), wherein each disk is assigned a number 1-6. The modified Saddler does not teach wherein each disk is assigned a number 1-9. However, this is related to the printed matter applied to the disks. Note MPEP 2111.05 stating that “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404).” Here, the printed matter does not perform some function with respect to the substrate and thus, the printed matter is not given patentable weight. Without the printed matter, the substrate still functions as a substrate and with the substrate, the indicia can be put on any other substrate. The printed matter and the substrate do not depend upon each other and the product merely serves as support and display for the printed matter. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the card game of Saddler with a plurality of disks with various numbers to keep track of players’ cards.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Saddler does not teach wherein said plurality of numbered disks are also identified by a color. However, this is related to the printed matter applied to the disks. Note MPEP 2111.05 stating that “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404).” Here, the printed matter does not perform some function with respect to the substrate and thus, the printed matter is not given patentable weight. Without the printed matter, the substrate still functions as a substrate and with the substrate, the indicia can be put on any other substrate. The printed matter and the substrate do not depend upon each other and the product merely serves as support and display for the printed matter. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the card game of Saddler with varying colors and indicia to introduce variations in the card game.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Saddler teaches wherein said plurality of numbered disks (taught by Couri) are numbered 1-6 (Fig. 2 of Couri). Saddler does not teach wherein said plurality of numbered disks comprises 9 blue disks wherein each blue disk is sequentially assigned a number 1-9; 9 red disks wherein each red disk is sequentially assigned a number 1-9; 9 green disks wherein each green disk is sequentially assigned a number 1-9; and 9 purple disks wherein each red purple is sequentially assigned a number 1-9. However, as detailed above, this is related to the printed matter applied to the disks. Note MPEP 2111.05 stating that “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404).” Here, the printed matter does not perform some function with respect to the substrate and thus, the printed matter is not given patentable weight. Without the printed matter, the substrate still functions as a substrate and with the substrate, the indicia can be put on any other substrate. The printed matter and the substrate do not depend upon each other and the product merely serves as support and display for the printed matter.
Regarding claim 12, Saddler teaches wherein said plurality of immunity tiles (14) (paragraph 18, sentence 4; claim 8, “wherein an obtained game piece (14) provides immunity from an action to be performed”) are comprised of a first immunity side and a second common back side (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Saddler teaches wherein said plurality of immunity tiles are comprised of 4 immunity tiles (paragraph 19, sentence 2).
Regarding claim 14, Saddler does not teach wherein said direction of play disk is comprised of a first side to indicate clockwise movement of the game and a second reverse side to indicate counter-clockwise movement of the game. However, Saddler teaches a direction play card (43-reverse card). Furthermore, this is related to the printed matter applied to the disks. Note MPEP 2111.05 stating that “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404).” Here, the printed matter does not perform some function with respect to the substrate and thus, the printed matter is not given patentable weight. Without the printed matter, the substrate still functions as a substrate and with the substrate, the indicia can be put on any other substrate. The printed matter and the substrate do not depend upon each other and the product merely serves as support and display for the printed matter. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the card game of Saddler with the disks of Couri, such that the disks indicate direction of play.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saddler in view of Couri, further in view of Benzakarya (US 20090278314 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Saddler teaches a method of playing a novel card game (Abstract) comprising the steps of: D. Providing each player a plurality of playing cards (12) (claim 8); and F. Taking turns playing cards by matching the color of an active card, the number of an active card, or text of an active card until one player has discarded all of the playing cards (claim 8).
Saddler does not teach A. Each player of the game selecting a set of numbered disks and placing said numbered disks on the table in front of each player; B. Providing an Immunity tile to each player, wherein each player will place said Immunity tile on the table in front of the player with the immunity side up; C. Placing the direction of play disk on the table with the first clockwise side up; D. wherein each player deals a plurality of cards into a plurality of stacks in front of their set of numbered disks; wherein E. Each player will begin play by picking up the plurality of playing cards comprising stack #1 of their plurality of stacks; and F. wherein the game is played until one player has discarded all of the playing cards of each player’s plurality of stacks.
However, regarding A. selecting a set of numbered disks and placing said numbered disks on the table in front of each player; D. wherein each player deals a plurality of cards into a plurality of stacks in front of their set of numbered disks; wherein E. Each player will begin play by picking up the plurality of playing cards comprising stack #1 of their plurality of stacks; and F. wherein the game is played until one player has discarded all of the playing cards of each player’s plurality of stacks, this is simply the act of dividing Saddler’s one stack of cards that is distributed to the players (claim 8 of Saddler) into a plurality of stacks that are merely identified by a numbered disk. However, the number of stacks distributed to the players can be identified by common sense and simply providing a disk to identify the stack # is not a novel concept. Furthermore, Benzakarya teaches D. wherein each player deals a plurality of cards into a plurality of stacks (claim 1, Fig. 2); wherein E. Each player will begin play by using the plurality of playing cards comprising column #1 (instead of stack #1 or row #1 as claimed by applicant) of their plurality of stacks. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to substitute the start of play taught by Saddler with that of Benzakarya, that is, by providing multiple stacks of cards to each player instead of providing one stack, and picking up the plurality of playing cards comprising a first set of the plurality of stacks. Regarding B. Providing an Immunity tile to each player, wherein each player will place said Immunity tile on the table in front of the player with the immunity side up, Saddler teaches immunity tiles (14) that are earned by discarding a particular play card (42-second card) (claim 8). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to simply provide an immunity card or “tile” rather than having the player earn it by discarding a particular card to simplify the game. Regarding placing the direction of play disk on the table with the first clockwise side up, Saddler teaches reverse cards (43) indicating the significance of direction in the card game. Simply providing a “direction of play disk” in the start of the game is not a novel concept, as one would start the game in any one direction as a matter of common sense. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the card distribution method of Saddler with that of Benzakarya to provide multiple stacks of playing cards for each player to limit the number of cards a player can play with at once.
Regarding claim 16, Saddler does not teach wherein each player’s set of numbered disks is comprised of 9 disks wherein each disk is assigned a number 1-9. However, Couri teaches the use of disks in a card game for identification purposes. These discs are fully capable of identifying the stack numbers of the cards as well. However, as indicated for claim 15, simply providing a label/disk for a set of cards is not a novel concept, as one can determine the set number as a matter of common sense.
Regarding claim 17, Saddler does not teach wherein each player’s plurality of cards (12) comprises 4 cards dealt into said plurality of stacks comprising 9 stacks. However, Banzakarya teaches wherein each player’s plurality of cards comprises 6 cards dealt into said plurality of stacks comprising 4 stacks (Abstract, Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide Saddler with a method of distributing cards as indicated by Benzakarya to optimize the cards of Saddler during game play.
Regarding claim 18, Saddler teaches the step of players playing cards (12) comprised of action cards (40 and 71) (paragraph 27, first sentence; paragraph 28, first sentence).
Regarding claim 19, Saddler teaches wherein said action cards (40 and 71), provide action instructions via said action card text (elements 41,49,73,75) (Fig. 3A).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saddler in view of Couri, further in view of Benzakarya, further in view of Amaitis (US 20090179378 A1), further in view of Alhazza (US 8678392 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Saddler teaches wherein said action cards (49 and 71) are comprised of Attack cards (41), Reverse cards (43), and Color Shift Cards (49-Wild Draw Four Card) (“paragraph 17, Wild Draw Four Card, when this card is played this card allows you to call the next color played ”).
Saddler does not teach Discard cards, Peek cards, Reveal cards, Swap cards, Free Discard cards.
However, Saddler teaches that “The card indicia may include any suitable type of indicia configured to correspond to and/or match indicia on other playing cards and/or to signify particular supplemental actions that one or more players may and/or must take” (paragraph 12, second sentence). Regarding Discard Cards and Free Discard Cards, Saddler teaches that the winner of the game is whom discards all of their cards (claim 8). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to provide an action card such as a discard card to help a player win and make the game more engaging. Furthermore, Amaitis teaches the concept of “peeking” in card games (paragraph 317). Furthermore, Alhazza teaches the concept of “swapping” in card games (claim 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the card deck of Saddler with additional action cards with common supplemental actions in the art of card games, such as that taught by Saddler, Amaitis, and Alhazza, to provide a greater variety of interactive cards and make the game more interesting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABA ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0268. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
/SABA N. ALI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711