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 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims represent a technological improvement to the field of gaming by allowing more gameplay without requiring additional resources, specifically through the creation of a secondary Texas Hold'em poker round that utilizes otherwise idle resources (e.g., table positions or remote communication connections). Applicant contends that this constitutes a transformative inventive concept under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), and distinguishes the claims from those in In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), asserting that the rules enable technical efficiency rather than merely reciting abstract game rules.
The examiner respectfully disagree, as detailed in the rejection below, the claims are directed to an abstract idea—namely, rules for conducting a variant of a poker game, which falls under "certain methods of organizing human activity" (commercial interactions, including business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, such as following rules or instructions) and "mental processes" (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). The recited "utilization of otherwise idle resources" does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Instead, it reflects a game design choice to repurpose existing elements (physical or digital) within the context of the game rules themselves, without improving the functioning of a computer, network, or other technology.
Applicant's reliance on In re Smith is misplaced. While Smith acknowledges that not all gaming inventions are ineligible, it holds that abstract ideas like game rules require an inventive concept that transforms them into eligible subject matter. Here, the claims append conventional steps (e.g., dealing cards, betting/folding, and generating a secondary flop) to the abstract idea without such transformation. The purported efficiency such as more gameplay with the same resources is an improvement to the abstract game itself, not to technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (improvements must be to computer functionality or other technology, not to the abstract idea).
The claims as a whole do not recite a specific technical solution. For physical embodiments (e.g., claims 2 and 7), reusing table positions is a human organizational practice. For computerized embodiments (e.g., claims 3, 5, and 8), maintaining remote connections for a secondary game uses generic computer and network components as tools to automate the abstract rules, without enhancing data transmission, bandwidth, or system architecture. This is akin to ineligible automation of manual processes, MPEP § 2106.05(f) (mere instructions to apply an exception using generic technology do not integrate it into a practical application).
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is 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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites a method for:
administering a primary Texas Hold'em poker round (providing hole cards, dealing community cards, managing betting cycles, allowing folding);
generating a secondary flop (three community cards) for players who fold from the primary round;
administering a secondary Texas Hold'em round for folded players using their retained hole cards and the secondary flop, turn, and river;
utilizing idle resources (e.g., table positions in physical games or server connections in online games) to keep folded players engaged.
These steps describe rules for playing a modified Texas Hold'em game, where folded players participate in a secondary game to increase engagement and resource efficiency. The core concept involves managing a card game with specific rules for primary and secondary rounds, which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity,” specifically “rules for playing games.” The USPTO and courts (e.g., In re Smith, 815 F.3d 781, Fed. Cir. 2016) have held that rules for conducting wagering games, like poker variants, are abstract ideas because they organize human behavior and interactions without requiring technological implementation.
The claim also mentions “utilizing idle resources,” but this is described generically. The concept of reusing resources (e.g., keeping players at a table or maintaining online connections) is an abstract goal of efficiency, akin to managing game flow, and does not inherently require a technological solution.
Independent claims 5 and 6 are similarly analyzed as claim 1 above.
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)
Claims 1, 5, 6 are broadly covers physical (e.g., casino table) and/or computerized (e.g., online poker) implementations; however the claim does not recite specific technological improvements (e.g., a novel server architecture or user interface). Using “idle resources” like table positions or server connections is an improvement to the abstract game itself, not a technical solution. Courts have found that applying game rules on generic computers or physical tables does not confer eligibility (In re Smith; In re Marco Guldenaar, 911 F.3d 1157, Fed. Cir. 2018). The specification emphasizes increasing player engagement and resource efficiency, which are economic or organizational benefits, not technological ones. There’s no indication of a specific technical problem solved.
Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (rules for a poker variant) without a practical application, failing Step 2A.
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 claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above.
The claim elements beyond the game rules include:
Idle Resource Utilization: This is part of the abstract idea, as it describes the organizational goal of keeping players active. It’s not a technical feature but a game mechanic.
Potential Computer Implementation: The claim and specification mention computerized embodiments (e.g., online poker servers), but these are described generically. Using standard computers or networks to implement game rules is well-understood, routine, and conventional (Alice; In re Smith). The specification does not describe novel hardware or software.
Ordered Combination: The combination of primary and secondary rounds with resource utilization follows a logical game structure (deal cards, manage bets, reuse players). This is a straightforward extension of known poker variants (e.g., Double Flop Hold'em or Ultimate Texas Hold'em), not a novel technical process.
No additional elements transform the claim into something significantly more than the abstract idea of game rules. The use of generic computing devices or physical tables is conventional in gaming, as evidenced by prior art like US 9,1294,87B2 (online poker variants) and standard Texas Hold'em implementations.
Dependent claims (e.g., specifying physical table positions, computerized connections, or drawing secondary cards from unused decks) do not add patent-eligible subject matter. They refine the game rules (e.g., card-drawing specifics) or recite generic environments (physical or online), which remain abstract or conventional (In re Marco Guldenaar). For example:
Claims about physical table positions mirror standard casino poker setups.
Claims about computerized connections use generic servers, as in online poker platforms since the 1990s.
Drawing secondary cards from unused decks is a rule variation, not a technical feature.
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