DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter including mental steps and method of organizing human activity.
3. Step 2A:
4. Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of a mental process as well as a method of organizing human activity and a series of mental processes.
5. The claim language recites the steps of playing a dice tile game wherein the tiles are organized into a particular areas to indicate winning combinations of said tiles. The game further includes generating the dice tiles and placing them in a particular area before organizing the tiles and in said winning combinations. However, this is merely a reflection of mental steps for playing a card game in the same manner one plays solitaire or poker, that uses a computer as a tool for performing said steps. Additionally, rules for a game also reflects a method of organizing human activity as stated by MPEP 2106 (“The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “rules for playing games”, which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. 911 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 1011.”). Thus, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application because the claims are directed towards rules for a dice tile game, which is not a problem rooted in computer history. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
7. Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more than a generic computer with generic computer components including a processor, input, display, and memory that Examiner takes Official Notice are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computer gaming art. The claim is directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (U.S. PGPUB 2016/0086451).
Re claim 1: Brown discloses a gaming system comprising:
a processor (see paragraph [0024]: processor); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (see paragraph [0070]: memory), cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of a hand (see Fig. 2A: the hand is the totality of the hands presented on the display);
cause a display, by the display device, of indications of different runs of the hand, and for each run, a tile application area associated with that run and an indication of dice tiles required to complete the run (see Fig. 2D: each hand contains a tile accumulation area for hold cards from the community area. Each hand shows the remaining cards that must be presented to complete the run);
cause a display, by the display device, of symbol display elements (see Fig. 2A-2D: symbol elements including a specific card suit is displayed on every card);
cause a display, by the display device, of activations of the symbol display elements (see Fig. 2, the display causes the display of the symbol display elements by initiating the selection sequence, i.e. spinning of the reels, or other methods of making them appear);
cause a display, by the display device, of dice tiles associated with the activations of the symbol display elements, each dice tile have an indicated number of that dice tile (see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0027]: the processor can cause the display to display playing cards that only have numbers between 2-10);
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the displayed dice tiles, of an indication of whether the dice tile is accumulated in the tile accumulation area or the dice tile is discarded (Fig.2D);
cause a display, by the display device, of one the displayed dice tiles accumulated in the tile accumulation area, a change of the indicated number of that dice tile (see paragraph [0027]: “ For example, if the determined modifier is a deuces wild which turns all cards in the applied player hand having a rank of two to wild, that is, substituting them for any other card in the deck to achieve the highest possible payout, the wild modifier is applied prior to determining the payout for that hand.”);
cause a display, by the display device, for the displayed dice tiles in the tile accumulation area, of placements of the dice tiles into the tile application areas associated with the runs (see Fig. 2D: the held community cards are transferred to the tile accumulation area of the individual hands/runs);
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the runs, an indication of a completion of the run based on the dice tiles placed in the tile application area associated with the run and that are required to complete the run (see Fig. 2E: each hand/run is completed when the hands have five cards); and
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a completion of the hand after all of the indications of the completions of all of the runs (see Fig. 2E: the display inform the user that they have won).
Re claim 2: Brown discloses with respect to the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for each run, of an indication of an award associated with that run (see Fig. 2E, for each winning run as presented in Hands 1-10, an award amount is displayed for each winning hand, e.g. Hands 3, 5, 6, 10).
Re claim 3: Brown discloses with respect to the gaming system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for each run that is completed, of an indication that the award associated with that run is unlocked (see Fig. 2E, objects 206, 250: the display informs players that they are being awarded said award for each winning run. Therefore, said awards are unlocked).
Re claim 4: Brown discloses with respect to the gaming system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for each run that is completed, of an indication that the award associated with that run is provided to the player (see Fig. 2E, objects 206, 250: the player is awarded their award from the winning runs, see object 250).
Re claim 5: Brown discloses with respect to the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of an award associated with the hand (see Fig. 4, object 126: the award for all of the runs is combined into a total award of the game, wherein all of the runs together represents the enitre hand of the game).
Re claim 6: Brown discloses with respect to the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, cause a display, by the display device, of the indications of whether the dice tiles are accumulated and displayed in the tile accumulation area or the dice tiles are discarded based on received player inputs (see Fig. 7B, the system contains indications of whether card in the tile accumulation area is kept or discarded, wherein the kept cards are placed onto the “runs” presented in Fig. 8, and the discarded cards are disregarded for new cards to appear).
Re claim 7: Brown discloses with respect to the gaming system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, cause a display, by the display device, of the indications of the tiles in the tile accumulation area placed in the tile application areas associated with the runs based on received player inputs (see Fig. 7B, when the players accepts the community cards, the cards are then placed in the tile application area).
Claim(s) 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jackson (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0181742).
Re claim 15. Jackson discloses a gaming system comprising:
a processor (see paragraphs [0060, 0061]: processor); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor (see paragraphs [0061]: memory) to:
cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of a hand comprising different runs, and for each run an indication of any dice tiles required to complete the run, wherein for one of the runs, the run can be completed by different quantities of dice tiles (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, indicating multiple runs/hands, wherein each hand is comprised of a different number of tiles);
cause a display, by the display device, of symbol display elements (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2: the display displays each card with their various symbol elements and numbers);
cause a sequential display, by the display device, of each of a plurality of different dice tiles, each dice tile have an indicated number of that dice tile (see Abstract: the game deals first the community cards, i.e. a first plurality of different dice tiles, and then the game deals cards out of a deck, i.e. a second plurality of dice tiles, wherein it is quite possible that only numerical cards are dealt as in the case of Fig. 10);
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the displayed dice tiles, of an indication of whether the dice tile is accumulated or the dice tile is discarded, wherein a limited quantity of the dice tiles can be accumulated at any one time (See Fig. 3, object 90: cards can be accepted, i.e. not discarded, through player input and accumulated to be placed within the card accumulation area. Here, only the card or cards that area dealt, can be accepted at one time. Such also applies to claim 18);
cause a display, by the display device, for the accumulated dice tiles, of placements of the dice tiles in association with the runs, wherein for each placement of a dice tile in association with one of the runs, the quantity of accumulated dice tiles is reduced (see Fig. 3-Fig. 4: cards that are accumulated are then placed within on the appropriate hand location. As shown by Figs 3 and 4, the 10 of hearts, moves from position 100 to area 12);
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the runs, an indication of a completion of the run based on the dice tiles associated with the run and that are required to complete the run (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5: shows a completion of the run/hand when the hand requirements are complete); and
cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a completion of the hand after all of the indications of the completions of all of the runs (see Figs. 4 and 5).
Re claim 16: Jackson discloses with respect to the gaming system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for each run that is completed, of an indication of an award associated with that run is unlocked, and after all the runs are completed, of an of an award associated with the hand and provided to the player (see Fig. 11, objects 140 and 142: award)
Re claim 19: Jackson discloses with respect to the gaming system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, cause a display, by the display device, of the indications of the tiles associated with the runs based on received player inputs (see Fig. 3-4).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Jackson.
Re claim 9: Brown fails to disclose with respect to the gaming system of claim 1, wherein one of the runs can be completed using two different quantities of accumulated dice tiles. However, Jackson teaches a card game with runs of different lengths (see Fig. 1, objects 4 and 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to modify the card game of Brown with runs of different amounts to achieve the predictable results of a poker game with different hand sizes to play games of Pai Gow Poker (see paragraph [0004, 0054]).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Brown.
Re claim 17: Jackson fails to disclose with respect to the gaming system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for each run that is completed, of an indication of an award associated with that run is provided to the player, and after all the runs are completed, of an award associated with the hand and provided to the player. However, Brown teaches associating an award with each run within a hand of a card game (see Fig. 2E, objects 250 and associated hands that each have accompanying awards). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the card game of Jackson with associated awards for each run as taught by Brown, for the purpose of informing players what actions in particular lead to an associated award.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights