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 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 - 4 are directed towards an apparatus, (machine), which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A gaming apparatus for facilitating player participation in electronic poker games, the gaming apparatus comprising: a display; a user interface configured to receive at least player input to facilitate player participation in the poker game; a wager input device structured to identify and validate player assets, and to permit the player to participate in the electronic poker games in which the player assets are provided; a processor configured to: randomly select cards to present in a first multi-hand poker game where a plurality of poker hands are concurrently played, and present the randomly selected cards via the display; randomly designate zero, one or more card positions of the plurality of poker hands of the first multi-hand poker game; if any of the card positions of the plurality of poker hands of the first multi-hand poker game was randomly selected, assign count values thereto, wherein the count values are displayed on the display in connection with the respective selected card positions; advance the count values towards a threshold on each of the multi-hand poker games played, wherein the displayed count values associated with the respective selected card positions are updated to reflect the advance in the count values; determine when any of the count values reach the threshold; and in response to any of the count values reaching the threshold, provide an enhanced card at a location based on the randomly designated card position of the first multi-hand poker game, and facilitate completion of the multi-hand poker game in which the count value reached the threshold using the enhanced card.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1. Dependent claims 2 – 4 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (rules for conducting a game)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of a rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that provides a game to a player, wherein the game represents the exchange of consideration based on probabilities created during the dealing and displaying of randomly displayed outcomes. Controlling a game that allows a player to participate represents rules for conducting a game, (See Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a wagering game, wherein the claims require displaying poker cards and determining results of plays of the poker game. The claims further disclose providing an enhanced based on a threshold requirement. The claims recite instructions for controlling a game with these features. Here, a human can observe the displaying of poker cards and determine an outcome, wherein based on the state of the game with respect to an enhanced card, a player can observe the outcome of the poker game and determine that an enhanced card may be provided based on said poker game outcome of the game. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor and memory along with instructions that generate and present a game to a player and determine the result of plays of the game, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a processor, display, an interface and poker card symbols, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, ( See Luciano et al. 2002/0111210 par. 0047 regarding video poker machines being conventional games of chance). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights