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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments/arguments filed on 5/18/26. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the current application.
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 29 - 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 12 and 20 are directed towards a system and a medium, (machine), and claims 13 - 19 are directed towards a method, (process), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a program comprising instructions for the processor, the processor being operable with the program to control a first virtual card shoe and a second virtual card shoe in order to facilitate a video card game by: determining that a video game event of the video card game has been initiated, wherein cards for the video game event are drawn from at least one of: a first virtual card shoe in the video game, the first virtual card shoe including a first deck of cards for a given game event, the first deck of cards comprising fifty-two cards divided into four suits, each suit having thirteen playing cards including number cards of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and face cards of Jack, Queen, King and Ace; or a second virtual card shoe in the video game, the second virtual card shoe including a special deck of cards that is dealt from either a restricted deck comprising less than all of the fifty- two cards included in the first deck of cards, or from an enhanced deck that includes at least one card in addition to the fifty-two cards included in the first deck of cards; determining that at least one card of a firsthand defined by the video game event is to be dealt, within the video game, from the special deck of cards in the second virtual card shoe, wherein the first hand is dealt to a specific individual; outputting at least one card from the special deck of the second virtual card shoe; determining that a remainder of cards for the first hand is to be selected from cards comprising the first deck of cards in the first virtual card shoe; and outputting the remainder of the cards as determined from the first deck of cards in the first virtual card shoe.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 13 and 20. Dependent claims 2 – 12 and 14 - 19 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that controls a first and second virtual card shoes in order to facilitate a video card game, wherein the first virtual card shoe comprises the traditional 52 deck of cards, wherein the second virtual card shoe comprises a restricted or enhanced deck of cards, wherein the gaming system determines cards to be dealt to a player from both deck of cards. The claimed invention can be practically performed as a mental process by a human managing a card game. For example, card dealer at a casino can manage a black jack card, deal cards to players, and make game determinations in their mind, see Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites first and second virtual card shoes in order to facilitate a video card game, wherein the claims further discloses determining that a video card game has been initiated, determining that at least one card is dealt from the restricted or enhanced deck of cards to a player which represents the player’s hand, and determining that the rest of the player’s comprises cards from the traditional deck of cards. The claims recite instructions for controlling a game with these features. Here, a human can observe the initiation of the card game, being dealt a card from the restricted or enhanced deck of cards, and being dealt cards from the traditional deck of cards. A human can then determine the state of the game based the cards they have been dealt, and then make a game determination of next step to make that is favorable for the player. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor and memory along with instructions that generates and presents a video card game to a player, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a processor, memory, and a hand of cards associated with a player however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Rowe et al. par. 0003 regarding video card games such as poker as being well-known in the art). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the double-patenting rejection of claims 1 - 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double-patenting rejection of claims 1 - 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 1 - 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 – 20, Applicants argue that “the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One”. It is further argued that “Characterizing this concrete, computerized card-distribution mechanism as "contracts" or "managing personal behavior" or "a fundamental economic practice" overreads the claim and ignores the specific deck/shoe control and dealing sequence actually required”. In response to this, while the Examiner acknowledges that the claim language is not geared towards managing personal behavior or a fundamental economic practice, the claims are clearly geared towards how a game is played, (i.e. initiated a video card game and dealing cards to a player), which represents game rules or defining how a game is conducted.
Applicant’s further argue that “the claims recite a practical application of any alleged abstract idea”. More specifically, it is argued that the control of two virtual card shoes from a special deck and a conventional deck, “is not a mere recitation of an abstract concept”. It is further argued that “the split-deck dealing mechanism of the present claims is not a generalized rule or business practice, but instead defines a specific sequence of computer-controlled operations that affect how game data is generated and processed”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely reciting controlling two virtual card shoes to deal cards to a player, does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. The claims rely purely on mental steps or abstract rules of game play without a concrete technological innovation. Claims that allow a user to play a game based on certain rules are transactions related to activities discussed in Bilski, (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).
Applicant’s further argue that “under Step 2B, the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than any such abstract idea. In particular, the claims recite a specific arrangement in which a processor controls two distinct virtual card shoes, selectively deals at least one card for a hand from a special deck, and deals the remainder of the cards for that same hand from a different deck using a defined sequence of operations. This coordinated, split-deck dealing mechanism is not a generic instruction to implement a game on a computer, but instead reflects a particular computer-implemented technique for generating and outputting game data”. While the Examiner does acknowledge that Applicant’s specification may disclose a practical application, as discussed in the Applicant’s arguments, however, the current claim language does not recite steps that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field nor do the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of processing data, because the additional elements, processor and memory, are recited generically. The claims do not recite how the additional components improves the generation and processing of card outcomes, wherein, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Their collective functions provide conventional computer implementation of an abstract process.
For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/E.M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights