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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount o significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 – Statutory category?
Claims 1-20 are directed to electronic gaming systems and therefore recite machines, one of the statutory category of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong One – Abstract idea?
Under the USPTO’s eligibility framework, “certain methods of organizing human activity” are abstract ideas, including rules for playing games and rules for conducting wagering games. The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to rules for conducting a wagering game using cards or dice, even with physical implements or generic computerization, are abstract ideas. See, e.g., In re Smith (Blackjack variation using playing cards) and In re Marco Guldenaar (dice game), where the court characterized such claims as “rules for playing a game.”
Here, the specification repeatedly describes the invention as “electronic gaming systems that provide electronic gaming, such as craps gaming, using playing cards” and “electronic gaming techniques for games with dice (e.g., craps) based on physical cards,” where card values are mapped to dice values and craps outcomes and payouts are determined under craps rules. The disclosed advantages are business/gaming advantages: reducing dealer labor, allowing players to play at different paces, offering more games from a single table, supporting side bets, and enabling electronic craps in jurisdictions that prohibit RNG-based outcomes. These are all improvements to how wagering games are offered, not to computer technology itself.
Claim 1 reflects that focus. It recites:
continuously identifying sets of common playing cards as they are dealt
in response to a request to start a game, selecting a first and second set of cards
identifying, in each set, a card whose card value is mapped via mapping data to a dice value
determining a game outcome by applying a gaming rule to the sum of the two dice values, and returning the outcome
As the spec explains, the mapping data and “gaming rule” implement craps or similar dice games: card values are mapped to dice values, non-value cards like kings are discarded, and the outcome is based on whether the summed dice values equal 7 or a “point” for the game. This is a specific rule set for converting card draws into dice results and applying craps rules to determine a wagering outcome, which falls squarely within the “rules for playing and administering a wagering game” abstract-idea category identified in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) and the gaming case law.
Dependent claims 2–20 add further details of administering and presenting the same wagering game, such as:
using a scanner at gaming tables to identify physical cards as they are dealt, and table computers to manage the game
allowing players to participate from local or remote devices and at different paces
providing GUI craps tables, selectable options to roll dice/place bets, and overlays of dice values on card graphics in particular positions.
handling edge conditions when no card in a set maps to a dice value by selecting alternative sets, and using different combinations of sets to generate two dice values.
applying craps-style rules (e.g., summation equals 7 or a point; game ends or continues to next stage) and side bets.
These limitations are all variations on how the card-based dice craps game is conducted and displayed, and therefore do not change the fundamental character of the claims as directed to rules for playing and administering a wagering game.
Accordingly, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea (rules for playing and administering a wagering game with cards mapped to dice values).
Step 2A, Prong Two – Integration into a practical application?
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract game-rule idea into a practical application.
The non-abstract elements in claim 1 are:
generic “player computing devices” providing individualized gaming interfaces.
a generic “gaming computing device” in communication with the player devices.
generic operations of transmitting data representing cards, mapped dice values, and game outcomes between the devices.
The specification confirms that these are standard computing components (e.g., table computers, mobile devices, networked systems) performing their conventional roles of receiving inputs, executing game logic, and presenting results. There is no change to processor architecture, memory management, networking protocols, random number generation, or other underlying technology. The system simply uses networked computers as a platform to execute and present the claimed game rules.
The additional elements in the dependent claims likewise do not effect a technical improvement:
the scanner and table-computer arrangement is described as a conventional configuration where physical cards are scanned and translated into electronic card data; the spec does not attribute any unconventional scanning technique or hardware improvement to this feature
the GUI features, including craps-table graphics, options to roll dice or place bets, overlays of dice values on card graphics, and toggling between multiple games, are standard ways of displaying game information and taking player inputs, not new GUI mechanisms that change the way the computer itself operates
the “continuous dealing” and “different pacing” behavior discussed in the spec (cards dealt at time windows t1,t2,t3 and matched to player requests) is implemented with timestamps and selection rules, but the claims do not recite any specific, improved synchronization or network protocol, rather they recite only high-level selection logic tied to the game rules.
The benefits highlighted in the specification, including reduced dealer labor, higher earn rate per table, ability to offer electronic craps in no-RNG jurisdictions, allowing players to play at their own pace, are business and regulatory advantages of the gaming model, not technological improvements to computers or networks. Under the MPEP, such non-technical advantages do not constitute integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and card-handling equipment as tools, without improving the functioning of those tools or any other technology.
Step 2B – Is there “significantly more” or an inventive concept?
Under Step 2B, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Individually:
the player computing devices, gaming computing device, table computer, network, and GUI displays are generic computing elements performing routine functions such as receiving requests, identifying data, applying stored mapping rules, determining outcomes, and transmitting/displaying results. The specification does not describe these components as unconventional or improved
the scanner and physical playing cards are used in their ordinary capacities to identify card values, and the spec treats continuous dealing and scanning as standard operations for dealer-assist electronic gaming systems, thus the alleged novelty lies in how the card values are mapped and used in the game, not in an improved scanner
the mapping data, card-identification rules, and “gaming rules” are expressly described as rules for mapping card values to dice values and applying craps (or other game) rules to determine outcomes and payouts, where under In re Smith and In re Guldenaar, such rules and mappings, even when applied to physical cards or dice, are part of the abstract idea, not an inventive concept
As an ordered combination, the claims implement the abstract idea of a card-based dice wagering game in a straightforward way: continuously deal and identify sets of cards, map card values to dice values according to mapping data, select cards for one or more dice based on timing rules, apply known craps-style gaming rules to the resulting dice values, and use generic computing devices to present the cards, dice values, and outcomes and to accept bets and other inputs. The specification’s discussion of multiple games from one stream of cards, side bets, and different player pacing confirms that the core innovation is in game design and casino operations (how to use common cards to run many games, including craps, under regulatory constraints), not in an unconventional computer or scanner implementation.
The specification does not provide nor do the claims recite, any technical feature that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application, such as a new algorithm for card recognition, a novel data structure that improves memory or processor performance, or a non-conventional GUI component that changes the way the computer operates. Thus, there is no “inventive concept” beyond the abstract game rules themselves.
Accordingly, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate that idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the idea itself.
Claims 1–20 are therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights