DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
1. Claims 1, 15 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “based at least in part on identity of the drawn card” appears to be a typographical error that should be amended to “based at least in part on an identity of the drawn card”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the statistic represents a likelihood that a desired card or a set of desired cards drawn from the deck of cards” appears to be a typographical error that should be amended to “the statistic represents a likelihood that a desired card or a set of desired cards is/are drawn from the deck of cards”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “near” rea time in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 10 includes a Markush grouping of an open list of alternatives. Applicant should specify that the grouping is a closed list of alternatives. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a set of rules for playing a card game. Specifically, the rules comprise “determining”, “adjusting”, “receiving … a request”, and “providing a probability”, which is grouped under: 1) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, subgroup ‘Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People’, including following rules or instructions - MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)C; and/or 2) Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles, including rules for conducting a wagering game –MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)A.
5. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Under Step 2A: Prong Two, additional limitation(s) or a combination of additional elements are evaluated to determine if those elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
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
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); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Here, the Abstract idea (i.e. judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the rules to the game are applied using general gaming technology as opposed to a particular machine. There is no improvement to any functioning of computer technology. No transformation or reduction of a particular article occurs. The rules are generally linked to gaming technology elements.
6. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in ordered combination, and within the context and character of the claims as a whole, the claimed additional elements (listed below) are conventional and widely prevalent in the gaming art. MPEP 2106.05 – “Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More”. The claimed additional elements other than the limitations pertaining to the abstract idea include:
- deck of cards (claims 1-14), processor, memory with instructions (claims 15-19), non-transitory computer readable medium, processor (claim 20).
The question of whether certain claim limitations represent well-understood, routine and conventional is a question of fact. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Circ. 2018). OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that these features are conventional and widely prevalent in the gaming art.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Naicker (US Pub. No. 2008/0070659).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272 4463. 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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights