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, 10 and 18 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 the following term "player location" and when a tracked physical playing card is moved to a different player location,” it is unclear whether it means the physical location of the player, a virtual location, an area designated to the player, etc. Also, it is unclear how the card is moved between locations and when one would know that the card is actually in a different location from a previous location. As a result, claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1, 10 and 18 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “tracking a spatial location of each of a plurality of physical playing card, moving a card to a different player location, changing a value of the tracked physical playing card.”
The limitations of:
tracking, during a gameplay session, a spatial location of each of a plurality of physical playing cards, wherein one or more players and/or player locations in the gameplay session comprises one or more player locations; and
when a tracked physical playing card is moved to a different player location, changing a value of the tracked physical playing card.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a microprocessor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a microprocessor” language, “tracking a spatial location of each of a plurality of physical playing card, moving a card to a different player location, changing a value of the tracked physical playing card.” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity / gaming rules” grouping of abstract ideas. Such activities are abstract ideas under USPTO guidance and case law (e.g., Alice, Electric Power Group, etc.), particularly when implemented on generic computers for economic or organizational purposes.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. There is no indication of a technological improvement or a technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not recite a specific or unconventional way of tracking a spatial location of each of a plurality of physical playing card. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim recites conventional steps such as “tracking a spatial location of each of a plurality of physical playing card, moving a card to a different player location, changing a value of the tracked physical playing card.” No element or combination provides a technical improvement or “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible because it is directed to an abstract idea method of organizing human activity / gaming rules, is not integrated into a practical application, and lacks an inventive concept beyond generic computer implementation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited on PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached on 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/Ronald Laneau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights