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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite, “common playing cards”. The use of the term “common” is exemplary language and renders the claims indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(d). This can be fixed by just deleting the word “common”.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of wagering or fundamental economic practice. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Please see recent Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International for guidance.
Claim 1 is an independent claim directed to an electronic gaming system. Products fall within statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to an exception. In this case, the claims are drawn the commercial practice or fundamental economic practice of the abstract idea of wagering. The administration of the wagering game includes the steps of defining/displaying a game, accepting a wager, providing a random outcome, and determining a winner or loser.
a plurality of sets of playing cards; (step of defining/displaying a game)
a request to play a game of roulette; (step of defining/displaying a game)
identify a first set of playing cards; (step of defining/displaying a game)
receive a bet on an outcome of the game of roulette; (step of accepting a wager)
identify a first card; (step of providing a random outcome)
determine a roulette value for the first card using mapping data; (step of providing a random outcome)
determine the outcome of the game of roulette, including a payout based on the bet received and (step of determining a winner or loser)
return the outcome of the game of roulette to players (step of determining a winner or loser)
(Step 2A, prong one: YES)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims recite addition elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In this case, the claims recite
player computing devices and
a gaming computing device
The player computing devices and a gaming computing device are merely parts of a generic computer network.
(Step 2A, prong two: NO)
Viewing the limitations individually,
The physical components of a generic computer such as memory do not make the claims less abstract, nor do they meet the “significantly more” criterion.
The individual steps of the abstract idea also do not meet the “significantly more” criterion.
Viewing the limitations as a combination, the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the concept of an electronic method of gaming with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claim, as a whole, does not add significantly more to the abstract idea of an electronic method of gaming.
(Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-20 have been considered each as whole claim as to the abstract idea and the “significantly more” criterion. While being more specific, the limitations did not make the claims less abstract nor provide “significantly more” to the claims to make them 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.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamilton (US PG pub 2021/0166518).
Hamilton shows,
In regards to claim 1,
An electronic gaming system using common playing cards, the system comprising:
a plurality of player computing devices (figure 5, player station 412) that are configured to provide individualized gaming interfaces (player interface 416) for a plurality of players; and
a gaming computing device (a central game processor 428 (shown in dashed lines) may be employed and may communicate directly with player interfaces 416) that is in communication with the plurality of player computing devices,
the gaming computing device configured to:
based on a plurality of sets of playing cards (paragraph [0042], “For example, some game decks may include 37, 38 or 55 cards”) with one set of playing cards being dealt successive to another set of playing cards, continuously identify the plurality of sets of playing cards; (paragraph [0042], “Upon play of the game, as discussed with regard to method 200, a card shuffler containing the respective game deck with the cards as shown on the surface 250A-C, is activated to shuffle the game deck.”)
based on a request to play a game of roulette from at least one of the plurality of player computing devices, identify a first set of playing cards among the plurality of sets of playing cards being continuously identified; (paragraph [0042], “A display area 252 may illustrate the types of wagers, which in this embodiment are referred to as “poker” and “roulette” wagers, along with locations thereof for placement of wagers (that is, the physical chip or virtual representation thereof) for each respective wager on the surface 250A-C. Upon play of the game, as discussed with regard to method 200, a card shuffler containing the respective game deck with the cards”)
receive, from at least one of the plurality of player computing devices, a bet on an outcome of the game of roulette; (see above, placement of wagers for each respective wager)
identify, among the first set of playing cards, a first card; (paragraph [0042], “the first card deal is used to resolve any “roulette” wagers defined in display area 252”)
determine a roulette value for the first card using mapping data, the mapping data indicating a mapping of card values to roulette values; (see figures 3A-C.)
transmit, to each of the at least one of the plurality of player computing devices, data representative of the first card and the roulette value for the first card; (display area 252)
determine the outcome of the game of roulette for each of the plurality of player computing devices, wherein the outcome includes a payout based on the bet received from the respective player computing device of the plurality of player computing devices; and return, to each of the at least one of the plurality of player computing devices, the outcome of the game of roulette. (figure 2, steps 206, 208 and 210)
In regards to claim 2,
a plurality of physical playing cards that are physically dealt by a dealer; a scanner that is configured to identify each of the playing cards as they are dealt by the dealer, wherein the scanner is in communication with the gaming computing device; and a plurality of gaming tables, wherein each of the plurality of gaming tables allows the dealer to deal the physical playing cards, wherein the scanner is configured to read one or more of the physical playing cards for the gaming table. (paragraph [0050], “For embodiments using physical cards, the table 400 may further include a tumbler or may include an automated electromechanical card shuffler 422 for automatically shuffling and reading the results and displaying them on a display, such as display 430 described further below.” Reading the results is considered scanning.)
In regards to claim 3,
wherein at least one of the plurality of player computing devices is physically located at at least one of the plurality of gaming tables. (figure 5)
In regards to claim 4,
wherein at least one of the plurality of player computing devices is physically remote from a location of at least one of the plurality of gaming tables. (paragraph [0053], “A player interface 576 can be presented on display device 574. Player interface 576 may be a virtual representation of a game table layout such as surface 250 and/or one or more player positions 252 for facilitating the transmittal and receipt of wagers in accordance with any of the embodiments herein, such as methods 100 or 200. Game outcomes are displayed and wagers are tracked using display device 574 and processing device 568 compares the cards with the relevant wager outcome criteria, and determines an outcome and payout to be displayed on display device 574 accordingly.” This is part of a portable device embodiment, see whole paragraph.)
In regards to claim 5,
wherein the gaming computing device is configured to deal the playing cards. (paragraph [0050], “For embodiments using virtual cards, the virtual cards may be displayed at the individual player interfaces 416.”)
In regards to claims 6 and 7,
wherein each of the at least one of the plurality of player computing devices is configured to output, in a graphical user interface (GUI) display at the at least one of the plurality of player computing devices, a graphical representation of a roulette table and wherein each of the at least one of the plurality of player computing devices is further configured to receive user input selecting a portion of the graphical representation of the roulette table, wherein the user input indicates the bet. (paragraph [0048], “Each player station 412 may include a player interface 416, which may be used for displaying game information (e.g., game instructions, input options, wager information, game outcomes, etc., and accepting player elections).” and from paragraph [0042], “A display area 252 may illustrate the types of wagers, which in this embodiment are referred to as “poker” and “roulette” wagers, along with locations thereof for placement of wagers (that is, the physical chip or virtual representation thereof) for each respective wager on the surface 250A-C.)” The display area 252, where wager placement is done, is considered to be part of “input options” in player interface 416.)
In regards to claim 8,
wherein the bet includes at least one of a player-selected roulette value, a player-selected pair of roulette values, a player-selected row of roulette values on a graphical representation of a roulette table, a player-selected column of roulette values on the graphical representation of the roulette table, player-selection of each corner of the graphical representation of the roulette table, player-selection of red roulette values on the graphical representation of the roulette table, player-selection of black roulette values on the graphical representation of the roulette table, player-selection of first, second, or third roulette values on the graphical representation of the roulette table, player-selection of a lower half of roulette values on the graphical representation of the roulette table, or player-selection of an upper half of roulette values on the graphical representation of the roulette table. (see figures 3A-C.)
In regards to claim 9,
wherein, based on receiving the data representative of the first card and the roulette value for the first card, each of the at least one of the plurality of player computing devices is configured to output, in a GUI display at the at least one of the plurality of player computing devices, a graphical representation of the first card with the roulette value overlaying a portion of the graphical representation of the first card. (see figures 3A-C.)
In regards to claim 11,
wherein the playing cards are physical playing cards and the gaming computing device is configured to translate the first set of playing cards into a first set of electronic cards. (paragraph [0050], “For embodiments using physical cards, the table 400 may further include a tumbler or may include an automated electromechanical card shuffler 422 for automatically shuffling and reading the results and displaying them on a display, such as display 430 described further below.” Reading the results and displaying them electronically is considered translating.)
In regards to claim 12,
wherein the first card is a first card in a card sequence in the first set of playing cards. (paragraph [0042], “In some embodiments, the first card deal is used to resolve any “roulette” wagers defined in display area 252, and the first, second and third cards are used to resolve any “poker” wagers defined in display area 252.” The first, second and third cards are considered to be a card sequence.)
In regards to claim 13,
wherein the first set of playing cards is a set of five playing cards, and the gaming computing device is configured to discard second, third, fourth, and fifth cards in the card sequence in the first set of playing cards. (see figures 3A-C, the straight flush has 5 cards.)
In regards to claim 14,
wherein identifying, among the first set of playing cards, a first card comprises identifying the first card in a card sequence of the first set of playing cards having a card value that is mapped to a roulette value in the mapping data. (from above, paragraph [0042], “the first card deal is used to resolve any “roulette” wagers defined in display area 252”)
In regards to claim 17,
wherein the first card is identified among the first set of playing cards based on one or more card identification rules. (see figures 3A-C. The mapping is considered to have card identification rules.)
In regards to claim 18,
wherein the outcome of the game of roulette is determined based at least in part on one or more rules for playing a game of roulette. (see figures 3A-C. The cited odds are considered to be rules for playing a game of roulette.)
In regards to claim 19,
wherein the gaming computing device is further configured to: receive, from at least one of the at least one of the plurality of player computing devices, data representative of a side bet; and determine one or more game outcomes for the at least one of the at least one of the plurality of player computing devices based on the side bet. (see figures 3A-C.)
In regards to claim 20,
wherein the gaming computing device is further configured to provide, in GUI displays of the at least one of the plurality of player computing devices, selectable options to play multiple different games simultaneously with the plurality of sets of playing cards that are being continuously identified. (see figures 3A-C. “roulette” wagers and “poker” wagers are for different games simultaneously played.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 USC 112 and 35USC 101. The claims are also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and the 35 USC 112 and 35USC 101 rejections are resolved.
Claims 10 and 15-16 recite specific limitations which are not shown nor taught by the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights