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 1-7 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. Claims 1-7 recite an abstract idea of organizing of human activity. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and 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 drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-3, 7 recite: a method for conducting a game of Blackjack 21 with multiple cumulative total cards value optional bets on a wagering player's ultimate card hand, said method comprising the steps of:
providing a standard deck or multiple decks of playing cards and establishing rules for a main game of blackjack 21;
offering players the option to place multiple optional bets on the cumulative total of their ultimate card hand reaching three different predetermined thresholds in addition to the regular bet and/or bonus bet before the cards are dealt;
tracking the cumulative total cards value of player hand and dealer's hand;
determining whether the cumulative total cards value of the wagering player's hand meets any of the predetermined thresholds and greater than the cumulative total cards value of the dealer's hand; and
calculating payouts for the wagering players based on predetermined payout odds corresponding to the cumulative total thresholds achieved by the wagering player's ultimate card hand and greater than the cumulative total cards value of the dealer's hand.
Claims 4-6 recite a system for facilitating a game of Blackjack 21 with multiple optional bets on the wagering player's ultimate hand cumulative total cards values, comprising:
a gaming table equipped with a playing surface configured for conducting the main game of blackjack 21;
a display interface integrated into the gaming table or connected to a central gaming system, presenting information related to the multiple cumulative total cards value optional bets reaching three different predetermined thresholds before the cards are dealt, including all available betting options and current cumulative total statistics;
a processor-based controller programmed to manage the multiple cumulative total cards value optional bets, including accepting optional bet wagers, tracking the cumulative cards value total of relevant game events, determining the cumulative total cards value of player hand and dealer's hand and do not exceed the value of 21, and calculating all bets payouts when the cumulative total cards value of player's hand is greater than the cumulative total cards value of the dealer's hand and reaching any one of the three thresholds; and
a communication network enabling communication between the gaming table, the processor-based controller, and any external gaming systems or databases.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The underlined limitations recite rules to play a wagering game. Rules to play a wagering game, is a management of a social activity, which is an organization of human activity.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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 1-7 not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-7 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
The additional elements of a gaming table, display interface, processor and communication network are generic computer components or generic gaming components used to perform the abstract idea.
For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 4-6 recite additional elements of: a gaming table, a display interface, a processor and a communication network. Claim 7 recites an additional element of a computer storage medium.
A gaming table, a display interface, a processor, a communication network, and computer storage medium are generic components of a gaming machine. Carli (US 2020/0334955) discloses that a casino gaming table (paragraph 28, 31), a display (paragraphs 28-31), a processor (paragraphs 52, 60), a communication network (paragraph 42-44) and a computer storage medium (paragraphs 121-122) are well known, conventional components of a gaming machine.
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims further recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent clams merely include limitations that further define the abstract idea and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 7 is directed to a computer readable storage medium (contain instructions to perform the method of steps of claim 1). Assuming that claim 7 is a computer readable storage medium that contains instructions to perform the steps, rather than a method (by dependency), the claim recites a machine-readable storage medium that is not claimed as embodied in a non-transitory storage medium. Because Applicant's disclosure is not limited solely to tangible embodiments, the claimed subject matter, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be a carrier wave comprising of instructions and is, therefore, non-statutory. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable storage media, particularly when the specification is silent. (See MPEP 2111.01). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2). Examiner suggests adding the word -- non-transitory -- to the claim. Appropriate attention is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 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 7 is directed to a claim which contains both a product and a method (by dependency of claim 1). The claim is indefinite because it is not clear when infringement occurs. It is not clear when one creates a computer readable storage medium containing the instructions or whether infringement occurs when the Blackjack game is conducted according claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites a computer-readable storage medium containing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method steps of claim 1 for conducting a game of Blackjack 21. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 112 4th paragraph, as being an improper dependent claim for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends and for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, it appears that claim 7 only requires a computer-readable storage medium that is programed to perform the steps in claim 1 but does actually require performing the steps in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 6,450,500) in view of Falciglia (US 2005/0073100).
Claim 1. Miller discloses a method for conducting a game of Blackjack 21 with multiple cumulative total cards value optional bets on a wagering player's ultimate card hand, said method comprising the steps of:
providing a standard deck or multiple decks of playing cards and establishing rules for a main game of blackjack 21 (Miller discloses playing a conventional game of blackjack; cols. 3:1-10. 3:66-4:26. Miller discloses the blackjack is played with standard deck of card: col. 1:11-32);
offering players the option to place an optional bet on the cumulative total of their ultimate card hand reaching three different predetermined thresholds (Threshold of beating the Dealer Total of 17, 18, 19 20, col. 3:30-35, 5:7-35) in addition to the regular bet and/or bonus bet before the cards are dealt (regular bet before the cards a dealt, col. 3:5-10, 4:60-5:5)
tracking the cumulative total cards value of player hand and dealer's hand (cols. 3:750, 4:23-5:35);
determining whether the cumulative total cards value of the wagering player's hand meets any of the predetermined thresholds and greater than the cumulative total cards value of the dealer's hand (Player hand value beats the dealer hand value threshold; cols. 3:24-35, 5:22-35); and
calculating payouts for the wagering players based on predetermined payout odds corresponding to the cumulative total thresholds achieved by the wagering player's ultimate card hand and greater than the cumulative total cards value of the dealer's hand (cols. 3:24-35, 5:22-35).
Miller discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach offering players the option to place multiple optional bets. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to wagering games, Flaciglia disclose a game of playing blackjack. Flaciglia discloses offering player the option to place multiple optional bets (paragraphs 19-17, 28). This allows the operator to generate more revenue while provide higher awards for individual optional bets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller’s invention and offer players the option to place multiple optional bets in order to provide the predictable result of generating more revenue while providing higher awards for individual optional bets.
Claim 2. Miller discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the player selects the predetermined thresholds equal to 19 or 20 (When player beats dealer total of 17 or 18, the threshold is equal to 19 or 20; col. 5:29-35).
Claim 3. Miller discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the player selects the predetermined thresholds equal to 21 or Blackjack (When player beats dealer total of 20, the threshold is equal to 21; col. 5:29-35).
Claim 7. Miller discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach computer-readable storage medium containing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method steps of claim 1 for conducting a game of Blackjack 21 with multiple cumulative total cards value optional bets on the wagering player's ultimate card hand. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to wagering games, Flaciglia disclose a game of playing blackjack. Flaciglia discloses a computer readable storage medium containing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method steps of claim 1 (paragraphs 8, 74). The computer-readable storage medium containing instructions allows the game to be played electronically in a computer embodiment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller’s invention and incorporate a computer readable storage medium contain instructions in order to provide the predictable result of implementing the game electronically in a computer embodiment.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 6,450,500) in view of Falciglia (US 2005/0073100) and Carli (US 2020/0334955).
Claim 4. Miller discloses a system (Fig. 1) for facilitating a game of Blackjack 21 with multiple optional bets on the wagering player's ultimate hand cumulative total cards values, comprising:
a gaming table (10 in fig. 1) equipped with a playing surface configured for conducting the main game of blackjack 21;
offering players the option to place an optional bet on the cumulative total of their ultimate card hand reaching three different predetermined thresholds (Threshold of beating the Dealer Total of 17, 18, 19 20, col. 3:30-35, 5:7-35) in addition to the regular bet and/or bonus bet before the cards are dealt (regular bet before the cards a dealt, col. 3:5-10, 4:60-5:5)
tracking the cumulative total cards value of player hand and dealer's hand (cols. 3:750, 4:23-5:35);
determining whether the cumulative total cards value of the wagering player's hand meets any of the predetermined thresholds and greater than the cumulative total cards value of the dealer's hand (Player hand value beats the dealer hand value threshold; cols. 3:24-35, 5:22-35); and
calculating payouts for the wagering players based on predetermined payout odds corresponding to the cumulative total thresholds achieved by the wagering player's ultimate card hand and greater than the cumulative total cards value of the dealer's hand (cols. 3:24-35, 5:22-35).
Miller discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach offering players a plurality of optional bets;
a display interface integrated into the gaming table or connected to a central gaming system, presenting information; a processor-based controller programmed to accept, the bets, tracking the card values, determine the card values, and calculate the bet payouts; and a communication network enabling communication between the gaming table, the processor-based controller, and any external gaming systems or databases.
Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art as discussed below.
In an analogous art to wagering games, Flaciglia disclose a game of playing blackjack. Flaciglia discloses offering player the option to place multiple optional bets (paragraphs 19-17, 28). This allows the operator to generate more revenue while provide higher awards for individual optional bets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller’s invention and offer players the option to place multiple optional bets in order to provide the predictable result of generating more revenue while providing higher awards for individual optional bets.
In an analogous art to wagering games, Carli discloses an electronic gaming system capable of providing a game of blackjack (paragraph 25). Carli discloses an electronic gaming system comprises a table display to present information to be viewed by the dealer, players, spectators and other persons including card information, bet options, wager information and winning or losing outcomes for each player (paragraphs 29, 33). The gaming system comprises a processor to provide the bets, determine an outcome of the game, and calculate the winning and losses from the game outcome (paragraphs 3, 49, 55-58). The gaming system comprises a communication network enabling communication between the gaming table, the processor-based controller, and any external gaming systems or databases (paragraphs 36, 41-51). The display device, processor, and network allows the game to be played electronically in a computer embodiment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller’s invention and incorporate a display, processor and network as claimed in order to provide the predictable result of implementing the game electronically in a computer embodiment.
Claim 5. Miller discloses the system according to claim 4, wherein the player selects the predetermined thresholds equal to 19 or 20 (When player beats dealer total of 17 or 18, the threshold is equal to 19 or 20; col. 5:29-35).
Claim 6. Miller discloses the system according to claim 4, wherein the player selects the predetermined thresholds equal to 21 or Blackjack (When player beats dealer total of 20, the threshold is equal to 21; col. 5:29-35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715