DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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 determining awards for card game (organizing methods of human activity, e.g., fundamental economic principles and following game rules) involving:
an indication of an activation of a player selectable modifier feature (additional game rules – can be done verbally by human or written notes);
an indication of a selected one of the modifier cards and the modifier associated with that modifier card (additional game rules – can be done verbally by human or written notes);
determined award for said hand and a total award for said hand based on the modifier (fundamental economic principle according to game rules)
These steps, when viewed in their entirety, describe organizing and managing a set of rules for playing a card game and providing monetary awards, which is a form of managing human activity and following rules for playing a card game. The USPTO recognizes “rules for playing a game” as an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Example 37; and In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claims 1, 8, and 14 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of determining awards for card game.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claims 1, 8, and 14 recite “processor”, “memory”, “display device”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (processor, memory, display device) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components (processor, memory, display device) are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic servers, processors, and memories as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of determining awards for card game, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20180089950 to Moody in view of US Pub. 20090253492 to Caputo et al (Caputo).
Claims 1 and 14. Moody discloses a gaming system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of an activation modifier feature for a play of a multi-hand poker game (Fig. 2C, element 239);
cause a display, by the display device, of selectable modifier cards, each modifier card associated with one of a plurality of different modifiers (Fig. 3, elements 319, 329, and 339, and ¶¶72-74);
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a selected one of the modifier cards and the modifier associated with that modifier card, wherein the modifier comprises an award multiplier (Fig. 2C, element 239, and ¶55);
cause a display, by the display device, of randomly determined initial cards for an initial hand (Fig. 2A, and ¶52);
for each of the initial cards, responsive to that initial card being held for the initial hand, cause a display, by the display device, of a duplicate of that initial card in each of a plurality of additional hands (Fig. 2B, and ¶21);
for each initial card in the initial hand that is not held, determine a replacement card for that non-held initial card, and cause a display, by the display device, of that replacement card in the initial hand (Fig. 2C, and ¶¶22 and 58);
cause a display, by the display device, of a completion of each of the additional hands (Fig. 2C, and ¶64); and
for each of the initial hand and the additional hands, cause a display, by the display device, of any determined award for said hand and a total award for said hand based on the award modifier (Fig. 2C, and ¶¶63 and 74-75).
However, Moody fails to explicitly disclose:
cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of an activation of a player selectable modifier feature for a play of a multi-hand poker game;
cause a display, by the display device, of selectable modifier cards, each modifier card associated with one of a plurality of different modifiers, and without displaying the modifiers associated with the selectable modifier cards; and
(as required by claim 14) wherein the plurality of different modifiers are different types of modifiers (emphasis added).
Caputo teaches an indication of an activation of a player selectable modifier feature (Fig. 7C, and ¶153); selectable modifier cards, each modifier card associated with one of a plurality of different modifiers (Figs. 4A+7D, and ¶¶139 and 154), and without displaying the modifiers associated with the selectable modifier cards (Figs. 4B and 7B-C, and ¶¶141 and 153); and (as required by claim 14) wherein the plurality of different modifiers are different types of modifiers (Figs. 4A+7D, and ¶¶139 and 154). The gaming system of Moody would have motivation to use the teachings of Caputo in order to add further suspense to the selected game modifier while at the same time giving the perception that the game player has control over which modifier is chosen in doing so would provide for more exciting game play.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Moody with the teachings of Caputo in order to add further suspense to the selected game modifier while at the same time giving the perception that the game player has control over which modifier is chosen in doing so would provide for more exciting game play.
Claim 2. Moody discloses wherein the plurality of different modifiers are all of a same type of modifier (¶28).
Claim 3. Moody discloses wherein the plurality of different modifiers are different award multipliers (¶28).
Claims 4. Moody discloses wherein the plurality of different modifiers comprise different types of modifiers (¶28).
Claims 5 and 16. Moody in view of Caputo teaches wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to randomly determine to activate the player selectable modifier feature for the play of the multi-hand poker game (see Caputo ¶¶108-109).
Claims 6 and 17. Moody in view of Caputo teaches wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to randomly determine each of the modifiers (see Caputo ¶¶108-109) associated with the modifier cards from the plurality of different modifiers (see Moody Figs. 2C and 3, elements 229, 319, 329, and 339, and ¶¶70-75).
Claim 7. Moody in view of Caputo teaches wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a selection of multiple ones of the modifier cards, and the modifiers associated with those multiple modifier cards (see Moody Figs. 2C and 3, elements 229, 319, 329, and 339, and ¶¶70-75; and see Caputo Fig. 4F, and ¶¶111-138).
Claim 15. Moody in view of Caputo teaches wherein the plurality of different modifiers includes at least one award multiplier and at least one wild card (see Caputo ¶¶118 and 212).
Claim 18. Moody in view of Caputo teaches wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a selection of multiple ones of the modifier cards (see Caputo Fig. 4F, and ¶147), and the modifiers associated with those multiple modifier cards, wherein only one of the modifiers associated with selected modifier cards (see Moody Figs. 2C and 3, elements 229, 319, 329, and 339, and ¶¶70-75) are employed for the play of the multi-hand poker game.
Claim 19. Moody in view of Caputo teaches wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a selection of multiple ones of the modifier cards, and the modifiers associated with those multiple modifier cards (see Caputo Fig. 4F, and ¶147), wherein each of the modifier associated with selected modifier cards (see Moody Figs. 2C and 3, elements 229, 319, 329, and 339, and ¶¶70-75) are employed for the play of the multi-hand poker game.
Claim 20. Moody discloses wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of an indication one of the modifier cards associated with an award multiplier, cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of the award multiplier (¶28), and for each of initial hand and the additional hands, cause a display, by the display device, of any determined award for said hand and a total award for said hand based on the award modifier (Fig. 2C and ¶¶63 and 74-75).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20180089950 to Moody in view of US Pub. 20090253492 to Caputo et al (Caputo) and US Pub. 20160086451 to Brown et al (Brown).
Claim 8. Moody discloses all claim 8 limitations (see claim 1 and 8 above) except:
cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of an activation of a player selectable modifier feature for a play of a multi-hand poker game;
cause a display, by the display device, of selectable modifier cards, each modifier card associated with one of a plurality of different modifiers, and without displaying the modifiers associated with the selectable modifier cards;
(as required by claim 8) wherein the modifier comprises a wild card; and
(as required by claim 8) wherein the initial hand includes the wild card (emphasis added).
Caputo teaches an indication of an activation of a player selectable modifier feature (Fig. 7C, and ¶153); selectable modifier cards, each modifier card associated with one of a plurality of different modifiers (Figs. 4A+7D, and ¶¶139 and 154), and without displaying the modifiers associated with the selectable modifier cards (Figs. 4B and 7B-C, and ¶¶141 and 153); and (as required by claim 8) wherein the modifier comprises a wild card (¶¶118 and 212). The gaming system of Moody would have motivation to use the teachings of Caputo in order to add further suspense to the selected game modifier while at the same time giving the perception that the game player has control over which modifier (which could be a wild) is chosen in doing so would provide for more exciting game play.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Moody with the teachings of Caputo in order to add further suspense to the selected game modifier while at the same time giving the perception that the game player has control over which modifier is chosen in doing so would provide for more exciting game play.
Brown teaches wherein the initial hand includes the wild card (¶¶22 and 50). The gaming system of Moody would have motivation to use the teachings of Brown in order to increase the game player’s chances of receiving a winning outcome using special elements such as wilds in hopes to entice more people to play the game.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Moody with the teachings of Brown in order to increase the game player’s chances of receiving a winning outcome using special elements such as wilds in hopes to entice more people to play the game.
Claim 9. Moody discloses wherein the plurality of different modifiers comprise different types of modifiers (see claim 4 above).
Claim 10. Moody in view of Captuo teaches wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to randomly determine to activate the player selectable modifier feature for the play of the multi-hand poker game (see claim 5 above).
Claim 11. Moody in view of Captuo teaches wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to randomly determine each of the modifiers associated with the modifier cards from the plurality of different modifiers (see claim 6 above).
Claim 12. Moody discloses wherein each of the other modifiers associated with the other modifier cards are award multipliers (¶28).
Claim 13. Moody discloses wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a selection of one of the modifier cards associated with an award multiplier , cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of the award multiplier (¶28), and for each of initial hand and the additional hands, cause a display, by the display device, of any determined award for said hand and a total award for said hand based on the award modifier (Fig. 2C and ¶¶63 and 74-75).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715