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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered.
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.
The subject matter of a claim must be directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If it is not, the claim is not eligible for patent protection. The subject matter which courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention is limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (i.e., the judicial exceptions) (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013))). There are two criteria for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 and both must be satisfied. The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception. Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are directed to rules governing a game/activity. Methods of managing a game/activity are abstract ideas (See: Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and a set of rules for a game are drawn to abstract ideas (See: In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Based on the subject matter eligibility test for products and processes, claims 1-3 and 5-12 are not eligible for patent protection because:
(Step 1) claims 1-3 and 5-12 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(Step 2A) claims 1-3 and 5-12 are directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (a judicially recognized exception) based on the limitations of claims 1-3 and 5-12 . The recited limitations fall within the subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and are directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). If a claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea), the claim is evaluated as to whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Integration into a practical application is evaluated by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: a card deck (for claims 1-3 and 5-12 ), a display interface (for claim 12). The recited judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
(Step 2B) claims 1-3 and 5-12 do not recite provide an inventive concept because the additional elements (a card deck (for claims 1-3 and 5-12 ), a display interface (for claim 12)) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See: Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965-66 (2012)). The examiner takes official notice that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and are widely prevalent and in common use in the relevant field (See for example: Pettrie (20220105422), McKee (20160175695), Jackman (20160067590), Fujka (20070194531), Berman (20050151319), Walker (20030218303), Berman (4437670)), comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The recitation in claim 12 of “the predetermined non-uniform numeric distribution provides a random-draw distribution differing from a standard deck of cards by a measurable entropy variance of at least ΔH> 0.1 bit per draw”, and the recitation in claim 13 of “a statistical entropy of card draws is modified relative to a deck of equal-quantity numeric cards” are directed to new matter because the recited limitations are not supported by applicant’s originally filed disclosure (claims, specification, drawings filed 06/13/2024).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (4437670) in view of Walker (20160175695).
Regarding claim 1, Simon (Figures 1-5) teaches a method of executing a card game between two individuals, the method comprising manipulating a card deck having a unique composition providing improved randomness of card draws, the card deck having the unique composition comprising eighty cards (See fig. 1) (Col. 2, Lines 20-34; Col. 3, Lines 28-42).
It is noted that the prior art of Simon (Col. 2, Lines 20-34) discloses: “in the preferred embodiment the game includes two decks of cards, deck #1 and deck #2, three game token containers, and a plurality of game tokens. The game token containers are represented in FIG. 1 as circular dishes, although any type of receptacle would suffice. The term "tokens" as used herein is defined as to include any suitable objects which can have an individual value attached thereto, such as poker chips, coins, play money, etc. Deck #1 contains forty cards having identical back surfaces, as represented in FIG. 1 by diagonal lines with a numeral 1 in the center, although any decorative design would suffice.” Simon (Col. 3, Lines 28-42) discloses: “deck #2 also contains forty cards and is identical to deck #1 except that the back surface is distinguishable, shown in FIG. 1 as diagonal lines with a numeral 2 in the center. The playing surface of each of the cards in deck #2 is identical to a corresponding one of the cards in deck #1 so that the decks are identical except for the decorative back surfaces which can be of contrasting color and/or of different designs.” It is noted that Simon teaches a total of a total of 80 cards used in a game.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the eighty cards consisting of: twenty cards each having a number 10, eight cards of each of a number 5, a number 4, a number 3, a number 2, and a number 1, and five cards of each of a number 9, a number 8, a number 7, and a number 6, wherein the value of each of the eighty cards in the card deck is equal to the number 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 on the corresponding card, and wherein a numeric distribution of the eighty cards is configured such that the probability of drawing a card of value 10 exceeds the probability of drawing any other value and the numeric distribution provides a random-draw distribution differing from a standard card deck” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. An example in which a product merely serves as a support would occur for a deck of playing cards having images on each card. See In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished). In Bryan the applicant asserted that the printed matter allowed the cards to be “collected, traded, and drawn”; “identify and distinguish one deck of cards from another”; and “enable the card to be traded and blind drawn”. However, the court found that these functions do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and were instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Simon does not teach selectively relinquishing and displaying, by the player one, one of the cards in the player one hand into a pond region between the player one and the player two; e) selectively relinquishing and displaying, by the player two, one of the cards in the player two hand into said pond region; f) determining by the player one to perform one of: (1) standing with the existing player one hand, and then skipping to step (i), and (2) drawing one of the cards from the card deck into the player one hand; g) determining by the player one to perform one of: (1) standing with the existing player one hand and then skipping to step (i), (2) drawing one of the cards from the card deck into the player one hand, and (3) moving at least one of the cards from the pond region into the player one hand; h) choosing, by the player one, to repeat step (g)(2) until a first sum of the values of the cards in the player one hand is less than or equal to twenty-one and standing with the player one hand, or until the first sum of the values of the cards in the player one hand exceeds twenty-one and busting with the player one hand; i) determining by the player two to perform one of: (1) standing with the existing player two hand and then skipping to step (1), and(2) drawing one of the cards from the card deck into the player two hand; j) determining by the player two to perform one of: (1) standing with the existing player two hand and then skipping to step (1), (2) drawing one of the cards from the card deck into the player two hand, and (3) moving at least one of the cards from the pond region into the player two hand; k) choosing, by the player two, to repeat step (j)(2) until a second sum of the values of the cards in the player two hand is less than or equal to twenty-one and standing with the player two hand, or until the second sum of the values of the cards in the player two hand exceeds twenty-one and busting with the player two hand; and l) determining a winner by the player one or the player two that has the greatest total card value in the corresponding player one or two hand of less than or equal to twenty-one.
Walker teaches selectively relinquishing and displaying, by the player one, one of the cards in the player one hand into a pond region between the player one and the player two (See fig. 1) (Para. 0058); e) selectively relinquishing and displaying, by the player two, one of the cards in the player two hand into said pond region (See fig. 1) (Para. 0058); f) determining by the player one to perform one of: (1) standing with the existing player one hand, and then skipping to step (i), and (2) drawing one of the cards from the card deck into the player one hand (Para. 0048); g) determining by the player one to perform one of: (1) standing with the existing player one hand and then skipping to step (i), (2) drawing one of the cards from the card deck into the player one hand (Para. 0048), and (3) moving at least one of the cards from the pond region into the player one hand; h) choosing, by the player one, to repeat step (g)(2) until a first sum of the values of the cards in the player one hand is less than or equal to twenty-one and standing with the player one hand, or until the first sum of the values of the cards in the player one hand exceeds twenty-one and busting with the player one hand (Para. 0060); i) determining by the player two to perform one of: (1) standing with the existing player two hand and then skipping to step (1), and (2) drawing one of the cards from the card deck into the player two hand (Para. 0048); j) determining by the player two to perform one of:(1) standing with the existing player two hand and then skipping to step (1), (2) drawing one of the cards from the card deck into the player two hand (Para. 0048), and (3) moving at least one of the cards from the pond region into the player two hand; k) choosing, by the player two, to repeat step (j)(2) until a second sum of the values of the cards in the player two hand is less than or equal to twenty-one and standing with the player two hand, or until the second sum of the values of the cards in the player two hand exceeds twenty-one and busting with the player two hand (Para. 0060); and l) determining a winner by the player one or the player two that has the greatest total card value in the corresponding player one or two hand of less than or equal to twenty-one (Para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Simon with determining a winner by the player that has the greatest total card value of less than or equal to twenty-one as taught by Walker as a means of incorporating rules of blackjack into a card game (Walker: Para. 0048, 0060).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Simon (Figures 1-5) teaches the card deck having the unique composition comprising eighty cards (See fig. 1) (Col. 2, Lines 20-34; Col. 3, Lines 28-42).
The modified Simon does not teach designating one of the two individuals as the player one and the other of the two individuals as the player two further comprises placing a token adjacent to the player one, and wherein determining the winner further comprises moving the token to be adjacent to the player one or the player two that is determined to be the winner.
Walker teaches designating one of the two individuals as the player one and the other of the two individuals as the player two further comprises placing a token adjacent to the player one, and wherein determining the winner further comprises moving the token to be adjacent to the player one or the player two that is determined to be the winner (Para. 0164).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Simon with moving the token to be adjacent to the player one or the player two that is determined to be the winner as taught by Walker as a means of physically transferring one or more tokens to a winning player in a card game (Walker: Para. 0164).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Simon (Figures 1-5) teaches the card deck having the unique composition comprising eighty cards (See fig. 1) (Col. 2, Lines 20-34; Col. 3, Lines 28-42).
The modified Simon does not teach step (f) is preceded by choosing by the player one to selectively split the player one hand into two nests when doubles of one of the cards is present in the player one hand; and wherein step (i) is preceded by choosing by the player two to selectively split the player two hand into two nests when doubles of one of the cards is present in the player two hand.
Walker teaches step (f) is preceded by choosing by the player one to selectively split the player one hand into two nests when doubles of one of the cards is present in the player one hand; and wherein step (i) is preceded by choosing by the player two to selectively split the player two hand into two nests when doubles of one of the cards is present in the player two hand (Para. 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Simon with splitting the player one hand into two nests when doubles of one of the cards is present in the player one hand as taught by Walker as a means of incorporating rules of blackjack into a card game (Walker: Para. 0019, 0048, 0060).
Regarding claim 5, Simon (Figures 1-5) teaches a method of executing a card game between two individuals, the method comprising manipulating a card deck having a unique composition and configuration providing improved randomness of card draws, wherein the unique composition of the card deck comprises a plurality of cards having a plurality of card groups (See fig. 1) (Col. 2, Lines 20-34; Col. 3, Lines 28-42); each of the card groups is associated with a unique card value (See fig. 2-5) on each card of the card groups, each card group contains a number of cards equal to either a first quantity or a second quantity (See fig. 1), the number of cards of at least one card group is equal to the first quantity, and the number of cards of at least one card group is equal to the second quantity, and wherein the method further comprises: a) designating one of the two individuals as player one and the other of the two individuals as player two (Col. 2, Lines 20-23; Col. 3, Lines 49-52); creating a player one hand and a player two hand by dealing three cards each from the card deck to the player one and the player two (See fig. 1 ); c) selectively relinquishing and displaying, by the player one, one of the cards in the player one hand into a pond region between the player one and the player two (See fig. 1); d) selectively relinquishing and displaying, by the player two, one of the cards in the player two hand into said pond region (See fig. 1); f) determining by the player one to perform one of: (1) standing with the existing player one hand, and then skipping to step (i), and (2) drawing an additional card from the card deck into one of: the player one hand, and one of the nests in the player one hand (See fig. 1); g) determining by the player one to perform one of: (1) standing with the existing player one hand and then skipping to step (i), (2) drawing one of the cards from the card deck into the player one hand, and (3) moving at least one of the cards from the pond region into one of: the player one hand, and one of the nests in the player one hand (See fig. 1) (Col. 4, Lines 16-39).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “each of the card groups is associated with a unique card value equal to a numeric indicia from a range of one to ten on each card of the card groups” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. An example in which a product merely serves as a support would occur for a deck of playing cards having images on each card. See In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished). In Bryan the applicant asserted that the printed matter allowed the cards to be “collected, traded, and drawn”; “identify and distinguish one deck of cards from another”; and “enable the card to be traded and blind drawn”. However, the court found that these functions do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and were instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Simon does not teach e) selectively splitting, by the player one, two cards with the same card value in the player one hand into two separate nests, h) repeating step (g)(2) until a first sum of the values of the cards in at least one of the nests in the player one hand is less than or equal to twenty-one and standing with the player one hand, or until a first corresponding sum of the values of the cards of each of both nests in the player one hand exceeds twenty-one and busting with the player one hand; i) choosing by the player two to split two cards with the same card value in the player two hand into two separate nests; j) determining by the player two to perform one of: (1) standing with the existing player two hand, and then skipping to step (m), and (2) drawing an additional card from the card deck into one of: the player two hand, and one of the nests in the player two hand; k) determining by the player two to perform one of: (1) standing with the existing player two hand and then skipping to step (m), (2) drawing one of the cards from the card deck into the player two hand, and (3) moving at least one of the cards from the pond region into one of: the player two hand, and one of the nests in the player two hand, 1) repeating step (k(2)) until a second sum of the values of the cards in at least one of the nests in the player two hand is less than or equal to twenty-one and standing with the player two hand, or until a second corresponding sum of the values of the cards of each of both nests in the player two hand exceeds twenty-one and busting with the player two hand; and m) determining a winner by the player that has the greatest total card value in one or both of the nests of said player hand without exceeding twenty-one.
Walker teaches e) selectively splitting, by the player one, two cards with the same card value in the player one hand into two separate nests (Para. 0019), h) repeating step (g)(2) until a first sum of the values of the cards in at least one of the nests in the player one hand is less than or equal to twenty-one and standing with the player one hand (Para. 0060), or until a first corresponding sum of the values of the cards of each of both nests in the player one hand exceeds twenty-one and busting with the player one hand (Para. 0060); i) choosing by the player two to split two cards with the same card value in the player two hand into two separate nests (Para. 0019); j) determining by the player two to perform one of: (1) standing with the existing player two hand, and then skipping to step (m), and (2) drawing an additional card from the card deck into one of: the player two hand, and one of the nests in the player two hand (Para. 0060); k) determining by the player two to perform one of: (1) standing with the existing player two hand and then skipping to step (m), (2) drawing one of the cards from the card deck into the player two hand (Para. 0060), and (3) moving at least one of the cards from the pond region into one of: the player two hand, and one of the nests in the player two hand (Para. 0058, 0060), 1) repeating step (k(2)) until a second sum of the values of the cards in at least one of the nests in the player two hand is less than or equal to twenty-one and standing with the player two hand (Para. 0060), or until a second corresponding sum of the values of the cards of each of both nests in the player two hand exceeds twenty-one and busting with the player two hand (Para. 0060); and m) determining a winner by the player that has the greatest total card value in one or both of the nests of said player hand without exceeding twenty-one (Para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Simon with determining a winner by the player that has the greatest total card value in one or both of the nests of said player hand without exceeding twenty-one as taught by Walker as a means of incorporating rules of blackjack into a card game (Walker: Para. 0048, 0060).
Regarding claim 6, Simon (Figures 1-5) teaches a card game, using a deck of cards (See fig. 1) (Col. 2, Lines 20-34; Col. 3, Lines 28-42) the card game comprising card groups (See fig. 1).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the plurality of card groups comprises one card group for each of the card values from the range of one to ten, the number of cards within the card groups associated with the card values of one through five is equal to the first quantity, the number of cards within the card groups associated with the card values of six through nine is equal to the second quantity, and the number of cards within the card group associated with the card value of ten is equal to a third quantity” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Simon (Figures 1-5) teaches designating one of the two individuals as the player one and the other of the two individuals as the player two further comprises placing a token adjacent to the player one (See fig. 1) (Col. 2, Lines 20-34).
The modified Simon does not teach determining the winner further comprises moving the token to be adjacent to the player one or two that is determined to be the winner.
Walker teaches determining the winner further comprises moving the token to be adjacent to the player one or two that is determined to be the winner (Para. 0164).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Simon with determining the winner further comprises moving the token to be adjacent to the player one or two that is determined to be the winner as taught by Walker as a means of physically transferring one or more tokens to a winning player in a card game (Walker: Para. 0164).
Regarding claim 8, Simon (Figures 1-5) teaches a method of executing a card game between two individuals, the method comprising manipulating a card deck having a unique composition providing improved randomness of card draws, wherein the unique composition of the card deck comprises a plurality of cards, distributed between a plurality of card groups, wherein: each of the card groups is associated with a unique card value (See fig. 1) (Col. 2, Lines 20-34; Col. 3, Lines 28-42); each card group contains a number of cards equal to either a first quantity or a second quantity (See fig. 1), the number of cards of at least one card group is equal to the first quantity, and the number of cards of at least one card group is equal to the second quantity, and wherein the method further comprises: a) designating one of the two individuals as player one and the other of the two individuals as player two (See fig. 1); b) creating a player one hand and a player two hand by dealing three cards from the card deck each to the player one and the player two (See fig. 1); c) choosing by the player one and then the player two to selectively relinquish and display one of the cards in the corresponding player hand into a pond region between the player one and the player two (See fig. 1).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “each of the card groups is associated with a card value from a range of one to ten” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Simon does not teach d) drawing cards by the player one and then the player two into the corresponding player hand to reach a total card value of less than or equal to twenty-one, wherein said cards are drawn from the card deck but may instead be taken from the pond region in turn by the player one and then the player two when at least one card has already been drawn by the corresponding player from the card deck; and e) determining a winner by the player one or the player two that has the greatest total card value in the corresponding player one or two hand that is less than or equal to twenty-one.
Walker teaches d) drawing cards by the player one and then the player two into the corresponding player hand to reach a total card value of less than or equal to twenty-one (Para. 0060), wherein said cards are drawn from the card deck but may instead be taken from the pond region in turn by the player one and then the player two when at least one card has already been drawn by the corresponding player from the card deck (Para. 0060); and e) determining a winner by the player one or the player two that has the greatest total card value in the corresponding player one or two hand that is less than or equal to twenty-one (Para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Simon with determining a winner by the player that has the greatest total card value that is less than or equal to twenty-one as taught by Walker as a means of incorporating rules of blackjack into a card game (Walker: Para. 0048, 0060).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Simon (Figures 1-5) teaches the step of drawing cards by the player one and then the player two (See fig. 1).
The modified Simon does not teach splitting doubles of the same card in the player hand of one of the players into nests, the step of determining the winner further comprises determining the winner by the player that has the greatest total card value in one of the nests of said player hand that is less than or equal to twenty-one.
Walker teaches splitting doubles of the same card in the player hand of one of the players into nests (Para. 0019), the step of determining the winner further comprises determining the winner by the player that has the greatest total card value in one of the nests of said player hand that is less than or equal to twenty-one (Para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Simon with determining the winner by the player that has the greatest total card value that is less than or equal to twenty-one as taught by Walker as a means of incorporating rules of blackjack into a card game (Walker: Para. 0048, 0060).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Simon (Figures 1-5) teaches a card game, using a deck of cards (See fig. 1) (Col. 2, Lines 20-34; Col. 3, Lines 28-42), the card game comprising card groups (See fig. 1).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the plurality of card groups comprises one card group for each of the card values from the range of one to ten, and: the number of cards within the card groups associated with the card values of one through five is equal to the first quantity, the number of cards within the card groups associated with the card values of six through nine is equal to the second quantity, and the number of cards within the card group associated with the card value of ten is equal to a third quantity” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Simon (Figures 1-5) teaches the selectively relinquishing and displaying, by the player one or by the player two, further comprises: turning upwards, to reveal the card, the lowest value card in the player one or the player two hand when the player one or the player two, respectively, chooses to discard no card to the pond region; and stealing, by the player two or the player one, the lowest value card from the player one or the player two who turned the lowest value card upward (Col. 4, Lines 16-25).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the numeric indicia” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. An example in which a product merely serves as a support would occur for a deck of playing cards having images on each card. See In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished). In Bryan the applicant asserted that the printed matter allowed the cards to be “collected, traded, and drawn”; “identify and distinguish one deck of cards from another”; and “enable the card to be traded and blind drawn”. However, the court found that these functions do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and were instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 12, Simon teaches a method of random card selection, comprising: providing a card deck consisting of eighty physical cards (Col. 2, Lines 20-34); shuffling the card deck to produce a random ordering of a shuffled card deck (Col. 3, Lines 43-49); sequentially drawing a plurality of cards from the shuffled card deck to form a hand of drawn cards (See fig. 1).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the eighty physical cards having a predetermined non-uniform numeric distribution comprising: twenty cards printed with a numeric indicium of"10;" eight cards each printed with numeric indicia of "5,""4,""3,""2," and "1;" and five cards each printed with numeric indicia of "9,""8,""7," and "6;" wherein the numeric value of each card is equal to the numeric indicia on the card, and wherein the predetermined non-uniform numeric distribution is configured such that a probability of drawing a card of numeric value ten exceeds the probability of drawing any other value” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. An example in which a product merely serves as a support would occur for a deck of playing cards having images on each card. See In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished). In Bryan the applicant asserted that the printed matter allowed the cards to be “collected, traded, and drawn”; “identify and distinguish one deck of cards from another”; and “enable the card to be traded and blind drawn”. However, the court found that these functions do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and were instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Simon does not teach calculating, by a processor or by a player using a display interface, a sum of the numeric values of the drawn cards to determine an outcome of play, wherein the predetermined non-uniform numeric distribution provides a random-draw distribution differing from a standard deck of cards by a measurable entropy variance of at least ΔH> 0.1 bit per draw.
Walker teaches calculating, by a processor or by a player using a display interface, a sum of the numeric values of the drawn cards to determine an outcome of play, wherein the predetermined non-uniform numeric distribution provides a random-draw distribution differing from a standard deck of cards by a measurable entropy variance of at least ΔH> 0.1 bit per draw (Para. 0176).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Simon with calculating, by a processor or by a player using a display interface, a sum of the numeric values of the drawn cards to determine an outcome of play as taught by Walker as a means of using a computer to play a blackjack game (Walker: Para. 0176).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simon (4437670).
Regarding claim 13, Simon (Figures 1-5) teaches a card deck for implementing a random-draw method, comprising: eighty physical playing cards (Col. 2, Lines 20-34), each having printed indicia, wherein the printed numeric indicia and distribution of the eighty physical playing cards of the card deck collectively produce a random-draw probability distribution differing from a standard deck of cards, such that a statistical entropy of card draws is modified relative to a deck of equal-quantity numeric cards.
It is noted that the prior art of Simon (Col. 2, Lines 20-34) discloses: “in the preferred embodiment the game includes two decks of cards, deck #1 and deck #2, three game token containers, and a plurality of game tokens. The game token containers are represented in FIG. 1 as circular dishes, although any type of receptacle would suffice. The term "tokens" as used herein is defined as to include any suitable objects which can have an individual value attached thereto, such as poker chips, coins, play money, etc. Deck #1 contains forty cards having identical back surfaces, as represented in FIG. 1 by diagonal lines with a numeral 1 in the center, although any decorative design would suffice.” Simon (Col. 3, Lines 28-42) discloses: “deck #2 also contains forty cards and is identical to deck #1 except that the back surface is distinguishable, shown in FIG. 1 as diagonal lines with a numeral 2 in the center. The playing surface of each of the cards in deck #2 is identical to a corresponding one of the cards in deck #1 so that the decks are identical except for the decorative back surfaces which can be of contrasting color and/or of different designs.” It is noted that Simon teaches a total of a total of 80 cards used in a game along with tokens.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “eighty physical playing cards, each having printed numeric indicia corresponding to a numeric value selected from the group consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, wherein a quantity of cards at each numeric value is non-uniform, comprising: twenty cards of value 10; eight cards each of values 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1; and five cards each of values 9, 8, 7, and 6; wherein the printed numeric indicia and distribution of the eighty physical playing cards of the card deck collectively produce a random-draw probability distribution differing from a standard deck of cards,” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. An example in which a product merely serves as a support would occur for a deck of playing cards having images on each card. See In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished). In Bryan, the applicant asserted that the printed matter allowed the cards to be “collected, traded, and drawn”; “identify and distinguish one deck of cards from another”; and “enable the card to be traded and blind drawn”. However, the court found that these functions do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and were instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 1-3 and 5-10 are not directed to an abstract idea, this is not found persuasive because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: a card deck (for claims 1-3 and 5-12 ), a display interface (for claim 12). The recited judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The examiner takes official notice that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and are widely prevalent and in common use in the relevant field (See for example: Pettrie (20220105422), McKee (20160175695), Jackman (20160067590), Fujka (20070194531), Berman (20050151319), Walker (20030218303), Berman (4437670)), comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
.
Applicant argues that the claimed indicia on the cards should be given patentable weight, this is not found persuasive because to be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. An example in which a product merely serves as a support would occur for a deck of playing cards having images on each card. See In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished). In Bryan the applicant asserted that the printed matter allowed the cards to be “collected, traded, and drawn”; “identify and distinguish one deck of cards from another”; and “enable the card to be traded and blind drawn”. However, the court found that these functions do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and were instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. In the instant case, the printed matter on the cards do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Applicant argues that the claimed card deck is new and novel, this is not found persuasive because the printed matter on the cards is not given patentable weight as noted. The difference between the claimed cards and the prior art is the printed matter o on the cards and the rules governing the clamed game. As noted in the 35 USC 101 rejection, the rules of the game are directed to an abstract idea (See: In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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