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 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(Step 2A, Prong 1) Applicant's Argument:
-No longer a "wagering game" post-amendment; instead, a "technological architecture" with multi-zone interfaces, parallel value tracking, conditional scoring, out accumulation, and network synchronization.
-The architecture differs from conventional card game, including blackjack (single hand, no zones/outs threshold).
-Not "organizing human activity" (per 2019 Guidance) as it doesn't involve economic transactions or social behaviors; requires computer for complex operations exceeding human capacity (e.g., tracking four zones simultaneously across networked players).
-Distinguishes In re Smith (815 F.3d 816, Fed. Cir. 2016): Claims not manual with physical cards; computer is essential.
This argument is insufficient. The claims are still directed to an abstract idea, specifically, "certain methods of organizing human activity" (fundamental economic practices or managing interactions/rules for games) or "mental processes" (evaluations/calculations performable in the mind or with pen/paper, albeit scaled up). At their core, the claims recite rules for playing a card-based tournament: deal cards, place in zones (like hands), sum values, score points for targets, penalize excesses (outs), end on penalty threshold, and rank winners. This is analogous to ineligible gaming claims:
In re Smith: Modified blackjack rules (wagering, dealing, resolving sums) abstract despite electronic implementation.
In re Guldenaar Holding B.V. (911 F.3d 1157, Fed. Cir. 2018): Dice game rules with markings ineligible as "playing a game."
Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC (576 F. App'x 1005, Fed. Cir. 2014): Managing bingo (storing numbers, verifying wins) over networks ineligible as mental processes/organizing activity.
Removing wagering helps avoid "fundamental economic practice" but doesn't eliminate the game-rules abstraction. Multi-zone play is like multi-hand blackjack or poker variants—still rules.
"Requires computer" or "exceeds human capacity" isn't dispositive: Automation of complex rules doesn't make them non-abstract (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, Fed. Cir. 2016: Real-time data monitoring ineligible despite scale).
Network/multiplayer aspects are generic; many games (e.g., online poker) have this without eligibility (Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1352, Fed. Cir. 2024: Location-based wagering over networks ineligible).
Per 2019 Guidance, if claims recite "game instructions" or "rules for playing a game," they fall into enumerated groupings (Example 4: Ineligible card game rules).
(Step 2A, Prong 2) Applicant's Argument:
Improves "functioning of computer-implemented tournaments" via non-generic state management, data structures, conditional logic across zones, global game state updates, and network synchronization for fairness/consistency. Solves technical problem of "enabling multi-zone, conditional, tournament-style gameplay across distributed players." Method claims coordinate via server/network, providing individualized interfaces and synchronized outcomes, not a linear sequence.
This argument is insufficient. The alleged "improvement" is to the game itself (enabling a specific gameplay variant), not to computer technology.
No Technical Improvement: State management (tracking values/outs) and synchronization are routine in electronic games (Affinity Labs v. Amazon, 838 F.3d 1266, Fed. Cir. 2016: Automation ineligible without tech advance). Contrast with eligible cases:
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco (837 F.3d 1299, Fed. Cir. 2016): Specific rules improved 3D animation process beyond human capability.
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (822 F.3d 1327, Fed. Cir. 2016): Self-referential database improved data retrieval efficiency.
Here, no evidence of improved processing speed, security, or hardware (e.g., no novel algorithms or data structures detailed in arguments; spec citations are for game rules, not tech).
"Enabling distributed gameplay" is the abstract idea in action, not a practical integration.
(Step 2B) Applicant's Argument:
Ordered combination (four zones, parallel tracking, conditional scoring, limited outs, completion tied to accumulation, tournament outcomes) is non-conventional/inventive. Multi-zone not standard in card games; requires simultaneous tracking; network coordination integrates into solution.
This argument is insufficient. The elements are conventional, and their combination doesn't add "significantly more.” Individual elements (processor, display, network) are generic (Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo, 776 F.3d 1343, Fed. Cir. 2014: Routine data processing ineligible). Multi-zone like multi-hand games and outs are game rules. Gaming prior art (e.g., multi-hand blackjack tournaments) suggests conventionality (In re Smith: Electronic variants add nothing).
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 68-91 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. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and/ or certain methods 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 machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a – Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim:
68. An electronic gaming system for multiple players completing in a tournament, the system executing instructions over a network, and the system comprising: a processor; an interface for displaying an electronic game; a play area including four zones operable to receive representations of card values, wherein the system is configured to:
a) display a card value to the player;
b) place a representation of the card value in one of the plurality of zones based on a selection received from the player;
c) determine a card value sum based on the representation of the card value;
d) determine a point value sum based on the placed representation of the card value;
e) apply a point value to a point value sum for each occurrence of the card value sum equal to a target value sum in one of the plurality of zones, wherein the target value sum is twenty-one;
f) apply an out value to an out value sum for an occurrence of the card value sum greater than the target value in one of the plurality of zones, wherein the application of the out value is limited to a predetermined number of outs in the tournament;
g) repeat steps a) through f) until a game completion condition is met, wherein the game completion condition is selected from a set of completion conditions including when the predetermined number of outs is applied;
h) determine an outcome of the multiplayer electronic game based on the game completion condition;
i) updating player account information for the plurality of players based on the outcome of the multiplayer electronic game.
85. A computer-implemented method executed by a server over a communication network whereby multiple players participate in a tournament, the computer- implemented method comprising:
a) receiving at the server, an indication that a plurality of players communicating with the server via the communication network are to participate in a multiplayer electronic game;
b) receiving, at the server via the communication network, player account information for each of the plurality of players;
c) providing an interface with a plurality of zones capable of accepting card values to each of the plurality of players based on the player account information;
d) displaying a card value to each of the plurality of players, respectively;
e) applying the card value to a selected zone of the plurality of zones for each of the plurality players based on a selection received from each of the plurality of players, respectively;
f) determining a card value sum for the selected zone based on the card value;
g) determining a game completion condition based on whether the card value sum is equal to or greater than a target value, wherein the game completion condition is met when the card value sum is greater than the target value a predetermined number of times;
h) determining an outcome of the multiplayer electronic game based on the game completion condition; and
i) updating the player account information for each of the plurality of players based on the outcome of the multiplayer electronic game.
The underlined limitations in claims 68 and 85 recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of mental processes and/or method of organizing human activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements. Independent Claim 68 (and dependents) outlines a system with a processor, interface, and display for: dividing a play area into four zones; placing card values; calculating sums and points (e.g., for equaling a target like 21); applying "outs" for exceeding the target (limited to a predetermined number); resetting zones upon achievement; awarding bonuses (e.g., for five-card sums under or at 21, or multi-zone achievements); and determining outcomes/winners based on point sums with account updates. Stripped of generic computer elements, this is essentially a set of rules for playing a card game in a tournament format—shuffling/dealing cards, summing values, penalizing busts (outs), rewarding specific hands (bonuses), and scoring to declare a winner. Such rules can be performed mentally or with pen-and-paper, similar to ineligible claims in:
In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016): Rules for a blackjack variation (wagering, shuffling/dealing cards, resolving based on sums) held abstract as a "fundamental economic practice" like mitigating settlement risks in Alice or hedging in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). Shuffling/dealing were conventional and added nothing inventive.
In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018): Dice game rules with non-conventional markings ineligible as "rules for playing a game," lacking an inventive concept beyond conventional activities like wagering and rolling dice.
Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App'x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014): Managing a bingo game (storing numbers, verifying wins) ineligible as organizing human activity, performable mentally. (See also USPTO Example 6 in the eligibility examples, deeming bingo management ineligible.)
The multiplayer tournament aspect (e.g., limited outs for elimination, highest-point winner) merely adds competitive scoring, another abstract organizational rule, not a technological solution.
Step 2a – Prong 2 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)
The abstract idea in claims 68-91 are not integrated into a practical application:
The claims use generic computer components (processor, interface, display) as tools to automate the game rules, without improving computer functionality, solving a technological problem, or transforming physical articles. See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (automation of content delivery ineligible without tech improvement).
No specific technological advance is claimed, such as enhanced data processing efficiency or novel hardware. Contrast with eligible cases like McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (specific rules for 3D animation improving computer lip-sync beyond human processes) or Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., 109 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (parallel video stream generation in POV cameras as a tech improvement). Here, elements like four zones or five-card bonuses are rule-based, not tech-driven.
The electronic implementation merely enables faster/more scalable play, but "mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute patentable improvement." Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claims lack an inventive concept to transform the abstract idea into eligible subject matter.
Individual Elements: The claims utilizes generic computing (e.g., displaying values, calculating sums via processor) performs routine functions. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (data recognition/storage ineligible). Shuffling/dealing virtually is conventional in gaming art, as noted in Smith (physical cards conventional; electronic equivalent adds nothing).
Ordered Combination: The claims recite a sequence of game steps (place cards, sum, award points/outs, reset, update accounts), but this mirrors manual gameplay automated on standard hardware. No unconventional arrangement or synergy provides "significantly more." See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (statistical analysis on computers ineligible without inventive programming).
Game mechanics (zones, selections, sums to 21, outs, bonuses) are routine in blackjack variants.
Pure rulesets (even novel) are ineligible without tech innovation. E.g., Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (remote gambling via GPS ineligible as abstract wagering on generic devices).
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, David L. Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715