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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the applicant on October 31st, 2025.
Claims 1 – 4, 8, 10 – 11, and 15 – 16 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 - 20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 31st, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments against the 101 rejection of claims 1 – 20 on pages 7 – 11: Applicant contends that the claims are not directed to a mental process or a method of organizing human activity because they recite simulating poker games, determining a Game Theory Optimal (GTO) action, and presenting graphical user interfaces, which allegedly cannot be practically performed in the human mind. This argument is not persuasive.
The claims, when properly evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite: (a) receiving information about a poker hand and gameplay context, (b) analyzing that information to model possible user actions, (c) determining a recommended action (e.g., a GTO action), and (d) presenting the result in a visual format. These steps describe evaluating a set of rules and outcomes to recommend a course of action, which is a form of observation, evaluation, and judgment— hallmarks of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The fact that the claims state that simulations are performed does not remove them from the mental-process category. Further, the claims do not require any specific simulation technique, algorithm, or data structure. Instead, they recite the result-oriented concept of determining an optimal poker decision. Such functional claiming reflects a mental process merely performed more quickly by a computer.
Applicant’s reliance on the USPTO Memorandum is also unpersuasive. The claims do not recite limitations that are impossible to perform mentally; rather, they recite a conceptual analysis that a human could perform (albeit more slowly), such as evaluating poker scenarios and determining advantageous strategies. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Applicant asserts that the claims improve GTO display technology and provide a more intuitive method of studying poker strategy. This argument is not persuasive because the alleged improvement is directed to the presentation of information to a user, not an improvement in computer functionality or another technology. The claims do not 1) recite a new display mechanism, 2) change how the computer operates, 3) improve memory usage, processing efficiency, or rendering technology, or 4) define any specific GUI structure beyond displaying results. Instead, the GUI merely communicates the outcome of the abstract analysis. Applicant’s assertion that simulations are required to compute GTO strategies does not establish integration into a practical application. The claims do not recite how the simulations are performed—only that they occur. Merely invoking a computer to perform calculations does not transform the claim into a technological improvement. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claims therefore apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, which is insufficient to integrate the idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Applicant argues that the ordered combination of elements provides “significantly more” because the claims specify steps such as receiving input, simulating games, determining GTO actions, and presenting two GUIs. This argument is not persuasive. The additional elements identified by Applicant—processors, memory, simulation, and graphical interfaces—are described functionally and generally, performing their ordinary roles of receiving data, performing calculations, and displaying results. Such elements are well-understood and routine computer functions, see MPEP § 2106.05. As above, the claims do not recite a specific simulation engine, a defined algorithm for determining GTO play, a new data structure, or a specialized display architecture. Instead, they claim the idea of using a computer to analyze poker scenarios and present advice, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 -20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is therefore maintained.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments against the 102/103 rejections of claims 1 – 20 on pages 11 – 13: Applicant’s remarks filed on October 31st, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained for the reasons explained below.
Applicant argues that Gross allegedly fails to teach:
“modeling a plurality of user actions by simulating a plurality of poker games,”
determining a Game Theory Optimal (GTO) or least exploitable action, and
providing a GUI including elements corresponding to such action
These arguments are not persuasive because they rely on an unduly narrow interpretation of Gross and on importing limitations not required by the claims.
Gross discloses maintaining a database of prior play styles gathered from previous games, continuously analyzing the poker game in progress, evaluating likely outcomes and recommending actions based on accumulated gameplay data. Gross explicitly analyzes gameplay using both historical gameplay data as well as ongoing game-state evaluation. Such repeated evaluation of gameplay scenarios inherently requires processing multiple possible game outcomes, which reasonable reads on the ”modeling a plurality of user actions” limitation.
Additionally, the claims do not require a specific type of simulation engine (e.g., Monte Carlo, solver tree, CFR algorithm). They broadly recite modeling based on gameplay inputs. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Gross’s repeated analytical evaluation of past and present hands constitutes modeling based on multiple game scenarios. Applicant attempts to distinguish “simulation” from “analysis,” but the claims do not define simulation in any particular technical way. Absent a special definition in the specification, simulation encompasses evaluating possible game outcomes, which Gross performs.
Applicant asserts Gross fails to determine a “Game Theory Optimal (GTO)” action. However, the claims do not recite any specific GTO algorithm, do not require equilibrium computation, do not define Nash equilibrium, regret minimization, or solver trees, nor recite any mathematical implementation. Instead, the claims merely require “determining an action based on modeled gameplay information.” Gross recommends actions based on statistical evaluation of player behavior and outcomes. A recommended strategy derived from analysis of gameplay satisfies the claimed functional language under BRI. The labeled “GTO” in the claims is a characterization of the result, not a structural or algorithmic limitation.
Alternatively, Gross discloses presenting analyzed information to the user during gameplay, including strategy-relevant outputs. The claims recite: a first GUI showing hand information and, a second GUI presenting recommended actions. Gross likewise patents analyzed game information and recommended play decisions to the player interface. The claims do not require any particular GUI structure beyond displaying such information. Merely separating information into two displays or time-separated interfaces is an obvious variation of presenting analyzed information and does not patentably distinguish over Gross. Therefore, the rejections under §§ 102 and 103 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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and therefore does not recite patent-eligible subject matter. Firstly, it should be stated that claim 1 is being used as the most representative of the independent claim set 1, 8 and 16.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims are directed to the following series of functions:
receive an input corresponding to a poker hand of a user;
generate and provide a first graphical interface (GUI) comprising a visual representation of the poker hand of the user;
model a plurality of user actions by simulating a plurality of poker games, wherein modeling the plurality of user actions is based on at least two of: the poker hand of the user, a user position in a turn order relative to one or more positions in the turn order corresponding to one or more other players, at least one of the one or more other player positions in the turn order, an action by another player, and a value attributed to the user, wherein the value is relative to a bet size; and
determine a Game Theory Optimal (GTO) user action from modeling the plurality of user actions and determining a least exploitable action of the plurality of user actions; and
generate and provide, in response to a user input or after a specified time interval, a second graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a visual representation, wherein the visual representation comprises a plurality of elements including:
a first element corresponding to two or more positions in the turn order;
a second element corresponding to one or more positions in the turn order by another player; and
a third element corresponding to the GTO user action for each position in the turn order and each of the one or more positions in the turn order by another player;
wherein the second GUI is distinct from the first GUI, and
wherein the second Gui is provided according to the poker hand of the user and is unique to the poker hand of the user
These limitations describe the conceptual act of decision modeling, which a poker coach or player could do mentally and visually depict using a hand chart or printed grid. Furthermore, the claimed limitations fall within the judicial exception of mental processes because they encompass tasks that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (e.g., analyzing hand strength, evaluating positionings as well as betting behavior, and making a decision). Nonetheless, the claims further allude to methods of organizing human activity as they relate to strategic behavior in games, which cover social and/or recreational activities governed by rules and decision-making. Thus, these limitations are directed to a combination of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity, which are recognized categories of abstract ideas under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 1, 8 and 16, The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the claims recite a GUI, a processor, and a memory, these elements are described at a high level of generality, with no improvement to the functioning of the GUI or the processor itself. Furthermore, the elements are also not tied to any particular technical architecture, nor do they provide any technological solution to a technical problem.
The modeling of player actions could just as easily be done by a human individual using a chart, their memory, or a poker training book. The GUI is merely a vehicle to present the result of mental analysis; there is no inventive interface, algorithm, or novel display technique. Additionally, the use of a generic computer system (memory + processor) to perform data analysis and show a chart does not add meaningful limits to the abstract idea. Instead, the claims are simply using generic technology as a tool to implement the idea, which does not qualify as a practical integration. Therefore, the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application per MPEP 2106.05(a)
Step 2B: For independent claims 1, 8 and 16, as indicated in the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the additional element(s) in the claims are merely, using a generic computer device or computing technologies and/or other machinery merely as a tool to a mere instruction to practice the invention. When viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, the claim elements do not recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The components (e.g., memory, processor, GUI, indicator) are conventional computing elements performing routine functions (e.g., storing data, processing logic, displaying content). The GUI merely shows the result of analysis already considered an abstract mental process. The underlying modeling logic is described at a conceptual level, and the interface does not further improve computer performance nor does it provide a new display technique. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite an inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test is also applicable and re-evaluated in the Step 2B analysis. Therefore, the rationale is sufficient for its rejection basis as it is not patent eligible and no comments are necessary as it is also consistent with MPEP 2106.
For dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 15, and 17 – 20, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity. They describe additional limitation steps of:
Claims 2 and 9: adding that the opponent action is a bet– a mental concept
Claims 3 and 10: adding a grid of hands—a visual categorization that doesn’t add any technical character
Claims 4, 11 and 19: displaying more hand characteristics (suit, name, value)
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13 and 20: describes types of actions (e.g., folding, raising) or levels of preflop raises
Claims 17 and 18: describes a dual-display set up
These dependent claims merely add further instructions to apply the abstract idea using general-purpose computer components and do not provide any inventive concept sufficient to overcome the abstract nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea group of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” as it involves strategic behavior in games, which are social/recreational activities governed by decision making.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims, these claims do not recite additional elements. However, the claim limitations are further describing the abstract idea and recite functions that amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and/or computing technologies (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Additionally, these elements and their limitations are “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the additional elements previously mentioned above, are nothing more than descriptive language about the elements that define the abstract idea, and these claims remain rejected under 101 as well.
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 – 2, 4 – 9, 11 – 16 and 19 - 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Gross (US20080318651A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Gross discloses:
receive an input corresponding to a poker hand of a user; (In ¶0049; Fig. 3C: teaches “In the pre-flop game depicted, all our player has is a Jack-high. The entry changes during the course of a hand to reflect our player's hand strength taking into account the community cards.”)
generate and provide a first graphical interface (GUI) comprising a visual representation of the poker hand of the user; (In ¶0036; Fig. 1: teaches interfaces comprised of two types of memory, maintaining information regarding player data storage as well as game memory.)
model a plurality of user actions by simulating a plurality of poker games, wherein modeling the plurality of user actions is based on at least two of: the poker hand of the user, a user position in a turn order relative to one or more positions in the turn order corresponding to one or more other players, at least one of the one or more other player positions in the turn order, an action by another player, and a value attributed to the user, wherein the value is relative to a bet size; and (In ¶0045 – 0050; Fig. 3: teaches “The table of FIG. 3 has a 55.9 average hand strength. The current hand at the top is the number of the hand being played, and underneath it is the number of the previous hand at this table. The Strength entry is the strength of his current two-card hand. In the pre-flop game depicted, all our player has is a Jack-high. The entry changes during the course of a hand to reflect our player's hand strength taking into account the community cards.” Additionally, refer to ¶0050 wherein the invention teaches actions of opponents.)
determine a Game Theory Optimal (GTO) user action from modeling the plurality of user actions and determining a least exploitable action of the plurality of user actions; and (In ¶0015: teaches relevant information provided to a user in regards to the live game. Information is updated automatically and provides insight to “potential outcomes, suggestions for betting, player traits, etc.) as well as the instance of information (e.g., changing potential outcomes as the cards are progressively dealt).”)
generate and provide, in response to a user input or after a specified time interval, a second graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a visual representation, wherein the visual representation comprises a plurality of elements including: (In ¶0038; Fig. 2: teaches “A typical client machine, as shown in FIG. 2, includes a processor 120, memory 124 for storing data pertinent to a game in progress, and a conventional graphic user interface.”) Additionally, ¶0039: teaches an additional communication interface, connected to the internet.
a first element corresponding to two or more positions in the turn order; (In ¶0025: teaches “The first player to the left of the dealer button must bet ‘in the blind’ before any cards are dealt.” Additionally, in ¶0058; Fig. 3: teaches “It is assumed that our player has joined the table and has been playing already for 29:13 minutes (see FIG. 3). In fact, he is now the dealer, shown by the D-in-a-circle on the table directly to his left.
a second element corresponding to one or more positions in the turn order by another player; and (In ¶0044; Fig. 3: teaches “FIG. 3 depicts a table during the course of play after our player has joined. But a player can observe table play even if he is not playing.”
a third element corresponding to the GTO user action for each position in the turn order and each of the one or more positions in the turn order by another player; (In ¶0097; Fig. 3: teaches GTO actions existing on the side panel of the disclosure in order to show what the next optimal move should be (raise, fold, etc.) in each situation.
wherein the second GUI is distinct from the first GUI, and (In ¶0036; Fig. 2: teaches two separate interfaces.)
wherein the second Gui is provided according to the poker hand of the user and is unique to the poker hand of the user (In ¶0036; Fig. 3: teaches a user interface displaying their poker hand.)
Regarding claims 2 and 9:
Gross discloses:
wherein the second element further comprises an action by another player, wherein the action by another player is a bet. (In ¶0062; Fig. 4: teaches “Referring to the next screen shot of FIG. 4, three players folded and then PokerPro and MatsuiFan called BigChill's blind bet. A call is shown by a round (green) chip. Then, LittleFeet raised $5, shown by a dark (red in color) triangular chip, and our player called $10 (the big blind's initial $5 and LittleFeet's raise). DonJuan, the little blind, BigChill, PokerPro and MatsuiFan also called the raise, which is why a second chip is shown for each of them.”)
Regarding claims 4 and 11:
Gross discloses:
wherein the second graphical user interface further comprises characteristics of the poker hand, further wherein the characteristics are selected from the group consisting of hand nomenclature, hand suit or suits, and card values. (In ¶0059; Fig. 3: teaches “Our player's placard includes two hand strengths. One is his historical average, just as the placard of every other player includes such an historical average—the average strength of a hand for which the player voluntarily puts chips in the pot. The rightmost hand strength icon (the one with the ‘=’) for our player is something different. It represents the hand strength of his current hand, 10-J of Hearts, which in this case is 16.”)
Regarding claims 5 and 12:
Gross discloses:
wherein the plurality of user actions comprise folding, calling, or raising. (In ¶0062; Fig. 4: teaches “three players folded and then PokerPro and MatsuiFan called BigChill's blind bet. A call is shown by a round (green) chip. Then, LittleFeet raised $5, shown by a dark (red in color) triangular chip, and our player called $10 (the big blind's initial $5 and LittleFeet's raise). DonJuan, the little blind, BigChill, PokerPro and MatsuiFan also called the raise, which is why a second chip is shown for each of them. (A single chip is shown for each action, no matter how much the amount put into the pot).”)
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20:
Gross discloses:
wherein the plurality of user actions are raises and further wherein the raises are selected from the group consisting of a first raise of a preflop betting round, a second raise of the preflop betting round, and a third raise of the preflop betting round. (In ¶0062; Fig. 4: teaches “A call is shown by a round (green) chip. Then, LittleFeet raised $5, shown by a dark (red in color) triangular chip, and our player called $10 (the big blind's initial $5 and LittleFeet's raise). DonJuan, the little blind, BigChill, PokerPro and MatsuiFan also called the raise, which is why a second chip is shown for each of them. At the end of the round, there are six players who bet $10 each, and the amount bet by each player is shown on the table next to the chip(s) that symbolize his bet.”)
Regarding claims 7 and 14:
Gross discloses:
wherein the poker hand is a starting poker hand. (In ¶0020: teaches “Each player receives two cards face down (‘hole’ cards). Five cards are turned up in the center of the table and used by all players. Players may use any combination of their two hole cards plus the five community cards on the table (also known as the ‘board’) to make the best five-card poker hand.” Furthermore, in ¶0044; Fig. 3: teaches “There are starting hands in Texas Hold'Em (13×13 [excludes permutations associated with specific suits, as suits are irrelevant to hand strength, but recognizes suited hands such as 8 and 9 of Spades as different from an unsuited 8, 9 hand]—a player starts with two cards).”
Regarding claim 8:
Gross discloses:
selecting a poker hand of a user; (In ¶0036; Fig. 1: The game server is able to select and determine information to selected players, including hands dealt. Additionally, In ¶0068; Fig. 5: The game server is able to select a player’s cards for the play after the flop.)
modeling, by one or more processing circuits, a plurality of user actions by simulating a plurality of poker games, wherein modeling the plurality of user actions is based on at least two of: the poker hand of the user, a user position in a turn order relative to one or more positions in the turn order corresponding to one or more other players, at least one of the one or more other player positions in the turn order, an action by another player, and a value attributed to the user, wherein the value is relative to a bet size; (In ¶0097; Fig. 3: teaches GTO actions existing on the side panel of the disclosure in order to show what the next optimal move should be (raise, fold, etc.) in each situation.
determine, by the one or more processing circuits, a Game Theory Optimal (GTO) user action from modeling the plurality of user actions and determining a least exploitable action of the plurality of user actions; (In ¶0097; Fig. 3: teaches GTO actions existing on the side panel of the disclosure in order to show what the next optimal move should be (raise, fold, etc.) in each situation.
providing a first visual representation to the user, wherein the visual representation comprises:
a first axis comprising two positions in the turn order; (In ¶0025: teaches “The first player to the left of the dealer button must bet ‘in the blind’ before any cards are dealt.” Additionally, in ¶0058; Fig. 3: teaches “It is assumed that our player has joined the table and has been playing already for 29:13 minutes (see FIG. 3). In fact, he is now the dealer, shown by the D-in-a-circle on the table directly to his left.
a second axis comprising a position in the turn order by another player, wherein the first visual representation does not comprise the GTO user action; (In ¶0044; Fig. 3: The dealer, big blind and little blind are displayed on the interface and turn order is determined and displayed accordingly.)
and providing a second visual representation to the user, wherein the second visual representation comprises: (In ¶0036; Fig. 2: teaches two separate interfaces.)
the first axis; (In ¶0025: teaches “The first player to the left of the dealer button must bet ‘in the blind’ before any cards are dealt.” Additionally, in ¶0058; Fig. 3: teaches “It is assumed that our player has joined the table and has been playing already for 29:13 minutes (see FIG. 3). In fact, he is now the dealer, shown by the D-in-a-circle on the table directly to his left.
the second axis; and (In ¶0044; Fig. 3: The dealer, big blind and little blind are displayed on the interface and turn order is determined and displayed accordingly.)
at least one indicator comprising the GTO user action. (In ¶0097; Fig. 3: teaches GTO actions existing on the side panel of the disclosure in order to show what the next optimal move should be (raise, fold, etc.) in each situation.)
Regarding claim 15:
Gross discloses:
wherein providing the first visual representation or second visual representation to the user is performed via a graphical user interface or a card. (In ¶0038; Fig. 2: teaches “A typical client machine includes a processor 120, memory 124 for storing data pertinent to a game in progress, and a conventional graphic user interface.” Alternatively, in ¶0039; Fig. 2: also teaches “To communicate over the Internet in general and to a game host in particular, the client machine includes a communication interface 134 which is shown connected to the Internet 110.”)
Regarding claim 16:
Gross discloses:
at least one learning device including a first display and a second display, wherein the at least one learning device comprises at least one processor and/or memory configured to: (In ¶0036; Fig. 1: The game server is coupled to an analytics processor which performs analyses and determines information provided to users, such as GTO, based on the flow and movement of the game.)
model a plurality of user actions by simulating a plurality of poker games, (In ¶0017: teaches “The data stream is derived from a database of information pertaining to the playing habits of players, the database containing information gathered during both play in previous poker games and play in the poker game in progress, and the database being continuously updated during the poker game in progress in accordance with an analysis of both cards that are dealt and play of the players.”)
wherein modeling the plurality of user actions is based on at least two of: a poker hand of the user, a user position in a turn order relative to one or more positions in the turn order corresponding to one or more other players, at least one of the one or more other player positions in the turn order, an action by another player, and a value attributed to the user, wherein the value is relative to a bet size; (In ¶0017: teaches “The data stream is derived from a database of information pertaining to the playing habits of players, the database containing information gathered during both play in previous poker games and play in the poker game in progress, and the database being continuously updated during the poker game in progress in accordance with an analysis of both cards that are dealt and play of the players.”)
determine a Game Theory Optimal (GTO) user action from modeling the plurality of user actions and determining a least exploitable action of the plurality of user actions; (In ¶0097; Fig. 3: teaches GTO actions existing on the side panel of the disclosure in order to show what the next optimal move should be (raise, fold, etc.) in each situation.)
the at least one learning device being configured to selectively present one of the first display or the second display during a user interaction event; (In ¶0013: teaches “in which the players observe table play on display units and make bets by operating data entry devices. A display unit can be a monitor, cellular telephone screen, or any other device that can communicate and display information that it receives.”)
the first display comprising at least one graphical representation of a poker hand; and (In ¶0058; Fig. 3: teaches “It is assumed that our player has joined the table and has been playing already for 29:13 minutes (see FIG. 3).” Additionally, ¶0059: also teaches “In the current hand, our player was dealt a 10-J of Hearts on the button.”)
the second display comprising at least one graphical representation of a visual representation, wherein the visual representation comprises: (In ¶0038; Fig. 2: teaches “A typical client machine, as shown in FIG. 2, includes a processor 120, memory 124 for storing data pertinent to a game in progress, and a conventional graphic user interface.” Similarly, ¶0039: also teaches “To communicate over the Internet in general and to a game host in particular, the client machine includes a communication interface 134 which is shown connected to the Internet 110.”))
a first axis comprising two positions in a turn order; (In ¶0025: teaches “The first player to the left of the dealer button must bet ‘in the blind’ before any cards are dealt.” Additionally, in ¶0058; Fig. 3: teaches “It is assumed that our player has joined the table and has been playing already for 29:13 minutes (see FIG. 3). In fact, he is now the dealer, shown by the D-in-a-circle on the table directly to his left.
a second axis comprising a position in the turn order by another player; and (In ¶0044; Fig. 3: teaches “FIG. 3 depicts a table during the course of play after our player has joined. But a player can observe table play even if he is not playing.”
at least one indicator comprising one of a plurality of user actions. (In ¶0062; Fig. 4: teaches “Referring to the next screen shot of FIG. 4, three players folded and then PokerPro and MatsuiFan called BigChill's blind bet. A call is shown by a round (green) chip. Then, LittleFeet raised $5, shown by a dark (red in color) triangular chip, and our player called $10 (the big blind's initial $5 and LittleFeet's raise). DonJuan, the little blind, BigChill, PokerPro and MatsuiFan also called the raise, which is why a second chip is shown for each of them.” Additionally, ¶0062 teaches additional icons/markers embodying different meanings (i.e., a red chip meaning no one else raised the user’s bet).
Regarding claim 19:
Gross discloses:
wherein the second display further comprises characteristics of the poker hand, wherein the characteristics are selected from the group consisting of hand nomenclature, hand suit or suits, and card values. (In ¶0059; Fig. 3: teaches “Our player's placard includes two hand strengths. One is his historical average, just as the placard of every other player includes such an historical average—the average strength of a hand for which the player voluntarily puts chips in the pot. The rightmost hand strength icon (the one with the ‘=’) for our player is something different. It represents the hand strength of his current hand, 10-J of Hearts, which in this case is 16.”)
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.
Claims 3, 10 and 18 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US20080318651A1) in view of Falciglia (US5971849A).
Regarding claims 3 and 10:
Gross does not disclose wherein the graphical user interface further comprises a grid, comprising an indicator for a plurality of poker hands and an indicator for the poker hand of the user or for a class of poker hands. However, Falciglia teaches:
wherein the second graphical user interface further comprises a grid, comprising an indicator for a plurality of poker hands and an indicator for the poker hand of the user or for a class of poker hands. (In ¶0036; Figs. 6 – 7: teaches “The processor 12 also includes poker hand determining means 28 for accessing the memory 18 to determine if a set of displayed symbols in the horizontal rows, vertical columns, or main diagonals of the displayed matrix correspond to a valid poker hand, as described below.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gross’ disclosed system and method for playing online poker augmented with dynamic and situational information with a graphical user interface further comprises a grid, comprising an indicator for a plurality of poker hands and an indicator for the poker hand of the user or for a class of poker hands, as taught by Falciglia, in order to translate complex strategic calculations into a user-friendly visual interface, allowing players to better recognize and understand strategy insights in real time.
Regarding claim 18:
Gross does not disclose wherein the first display further comprises a grid, comprising an indicator for a plurality of poker hands and an indicator for the poker hand or for a class of poker hands. However, Falciglia teaches:
wherein the first display further comprises a grid, comprising an indicator for a plurality of poker hands and an indicator for the poker hand or for a class of poker hands. (In ¶0036; Figs. 6 – 7: teaches “The processor 12 also includes poker hand determining means 28 for accessing the memory 18 to determine if a set of displayed symbols in the horizontal rows, vertical columns, or main diagonals of the displayed matrix correspond to a valid poker hand, as described below.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gross’ disclosed system and method for playing online poker augmented with dynamic and situational information with a graphical user interface further comprises a grid, comprising an indicator for a plurality of poker hands and an indicator for the poker hand of the user or for a class of poker hands, as taught by Falciglia, in order to translate complex strategic calculations into a user-friendly visual interface, allowing players to better recognize and understand strategy insights in real time.
Claim 17 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US20080318651A1) in view of Jones (US20110143769A1).
Regarding claim 17:
Gross does not disclose wherein the at least one learning device comprises a first learning device and a second learning device. However, Jones teaches:
wherein the at least one learning device comprises a first learning device and a second learning device. (In ¶0007: teaches “the mobile phone includes two displays on two separate devices. The separate devices can be attached and the two displays can be used as an integrated display or the devices can be detached and the devices can communicate wirelessly with each other.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gross’ disclosed system and method for playing online poker augmented with dynamic and situational information with at least one learning device comprising of a first learning device and a second learning device, as taught by Jones, in order to broadcast simulated examples to more than one device—allowing for easier collaboration between individuals learning poker.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Silverstone (US20170169728 A1) is pertinent because it is directly related to “a method for providing poker training, the method including displaying to a user a starting poker hand, community cards, a pot value, and a bet value required to call; prompting the user to answer whether to call or fold based on an equity and a pot odds associated with the user's starting poker hand; displaying a current score based on the user's answer to call or fold; and repeating the foregoing steps for additional starting poker hands, community cards, pot values, and bet values.”
Barzilay (US9412237 B2) is pertinent because it is directed to “electronic games and, more specifically, to the adaptation of games that are based on players' decisions in a manner that provides enjoyment and training.”
Blay (US8152618 B1) is pertinent because it is related to “evaluating an individual's performance in a poker game.”
Jeanos (US20240350894 A1) is pertinent because it is directly related to “enhanced selective card determinations for initial draw poker hand in gaming environments.”
Sperber (WO2006036100 A1) is pertinent because it is directed to the “Evaluation of possible fraud behavior in online games”
Behrman (US20120264496 A1) is pertinent because it is related to “computer implemented methods of playing games of chance against a computer, and for comparing two or more players' performance and thus their skill based upon the outcome of identical computer games.”
Hamadani (US20200410896 A1) is pertinent because it is directly related to “a system and method for developing an optimal strategy for playing various forms of Poker, utilizing a wide range of mathematical calculations and game theory tactics.”
Dahl (US20130017877 A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “methods and systems for conducting a machine-based game wherein the player's hands include private cards and community cards that the players may combine with their respective private cards and wherein the machine-based game employs a system and method for decision making after the final card of the hand is dealt.”
Slomiany (US20080039171 A1) is pertinent because it is related to “games of chance, both for amusement on devices such as a home (personal) computer or home game console, hand held game players (either dedicated or generic, such as Game Boy®), coin-operated amusement devices or gaming machines such as for wagering in a casino slot machine-type format.”
Erfanian (US20090023492 A1) is pertinent because it is directly related to “data collection, transformation, delivery and use. More particularly, the present invention relates to systems and methods to capture data regarding skill-based gaming, including gambling play, which is used to create useful statistics, knowledge discovery or intelligence feedback, and to educate players, dealers and gaming establishments.”
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 Bill Chen whose telephone number is (571)270-0660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BILL CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626