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 .
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. No support for a board game variation is present in the original disclosure.
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.
Claim 1 recites “plurality of color-coded cards and a plurality of special action cards, the relative quantities of which may be varied to adjust game complexity or number of players” (emphasis added) this recitation does note have clear metes and bounds because what variation would be considered an adjustment of “game complexity” or “number of players” is not clear to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 recites “game structure” and what type of physical structure is required is not clearly recited or understood.
Claim 1 recites “a probability-based deck distribution where each color has four total cards, but players only need three to form a set;” it is unclear how this deck distribution relates to the prior recited deck.
Claim 1 recites “a gameplay strategy where players compete for the same color sets without knowing their opponents’ hands, creating competitive tension” and the metes and bounds of what is required for “a gameplay strategy where players compete for the same color sets without knowing their opponents’ hands, creating competitive tension” is not clear and one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of what would be infringing.
Claim 8 recites “forced exchanges and swaps are performed with a player selected by the player executing the action, or according to predefined game rules” (emphasis added) this recitation does not provide for clear metes and bounds as what is included in the set of “predefined game rules” is not clearly recited and it appears as if any limitation can be inserted into this claim.
Claims 2-8 recite additional gameplay steps or mechanics and it is unclear if a method of structural limitation is required by each of these claims.
Claim 9 recites “providing a structured deck” and what limitations are intended by “structured” with regard to “deck” are not clear. What limitations distinguish a “deck” from a “structured deck”?
Claim 9 provides for “a probability-based scoring system” but does not provide any details regarding that system. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention because any limitation can be inserted into this claim to alter the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the number and types of special action cards are configurable to modify game duration, complexity and scalability” this recitation does not have clear metes and bounds because what elements would “modify game duration, complexity and scalability” is not clearly defined.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " the scoring algorithm " . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the game system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “the game system comprises physical or digital cards configured for color- or attribute-based set collection, probabilistic scoring, and competitive interaction through special action mechanics, and wherein variations in deck composition, set criteria, scoring methodology, or special action implementation do not materially alter the core gameplay mechanic” one having ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised regarding how any of the above characteristics creates a reasonable limit to the claims. This claim is similar to the other claims in that it is laden with subjective terminology and what appears to be marketing buzzwords. If any meaningful limitation is intended, it should be clearly recited.
Claim 18 recites “doe not materially alter the core gameplay mechanic” this limitation does not have a clear limit and what changes fall within the limits of “materially alters” is unclear.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the board game system is configurable for multiple rule variations, scoring structures, and gameplay mechanics without materially altering the strategic set-collection core of the game” one having ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised regarding how any of the above characteristics creates a reasonable limit to the claims. This claim is similar to the other claims in that it is laden with subjective terminology and what appears to be marketing buzzwords. If any meaningful limitation is intended, it should be clearly recited.
Claim 19 recites “without materially altering the strategic set-collection core of the game” this limitation does not have a clear limit and what changes fall within the limits of “materially altering” is unclear.
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. The claims will be analyzed with respect to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test at MPEP§2106.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 1 (see MPEP§2106.03)
The claims recite one of the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 1 (see MPEP§2106.04(a-c))
The claims recite abstract ideas in the following categories;
Methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) see specifically ii. rules for conducting a wagering game, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016);.
The abstract ideas have been noted in the claims below.
Claims 1-20 recite generic game rules regarding game elements, game progression, win conditions, etc.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP§2106.04(d))
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are generic game elements, generic computer hardware; insignificant extra solution activity such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data; and the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. These additional elements individually and in combination provide for limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements (1) add “insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) and (2) generally link “the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I).
These additional elements individually and in combination are not limitations that provide for “improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) apply or use the “judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) implement the “judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) effect “a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) or apply or use “the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). As such the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2B (see MPEP§2106.05)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional generic computer hardware and insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP§2106.05).
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. 4,489,948 by Keyser.
Regarding claim 1, Keyser discloses a card game comprising: a) a deck of plurality of color-coded cards and a plurality of special action cards, the relative quantities of which may be varied to adjust game complexity or number of players (col. 3, ln. 14-col. 7, ln. 10 – see the deck of cards and suits); b) a game structure that requires players to form three sets of three matching-colored cards to win (col. 3, ln. 14-col. 7, ln. 10 – see matching color/suits of cards); c) a probability-based deck distribution where each color has four total cards, but players only need three to form a set (col. 3, ln. 14-col. 7, ln. 10 – see the probability distribution of cards); d) special action cards that introduce wildcards, forced swaps, forced exchanges, and declaration mechanics (col. 3, ln. 14-col. 7, ln. 10 – see the mechanics); and e) a gameplay strategy where players compete for the same color sets without knowing their opponents’ hands, creating competitive tension (col. 3, ln. 14-col. 7, ln. 10 – see the gameplay).
Regarding claim 2, Keyser discloses the card game of claim 1, wherein additional color sets may be incorporated into the deck to accommodate an increased number of players, maintaining a ratio of three full color sets per player (col. 3, ln. 14-col. 7, ln. 10 – see the ratio of cards).
Regarding claim 3, Keyser discloses the card game of claim 1, wherein winning occurs upon a player forming three valid sets and making a declaration indicating completion of the required sets (col. 3, ln. 14-col. 7, ln. 10 – see completion of suits/colors).
Regarding claim 4, Keyser discloses the card game of claim 1, wherein each player maintains a hand of ten cards during gameplay, except when temporarily altered by the effect of special action cards (col. 3, ln. 14-col. 7, ln. 10 – see hands sizes).
Regarding claim 5, Keyser discloses the card game of claim 1, wherein a bonus scoring system grants bonus points of a predetermined or variable amount for collecting all four cards of a specific color or meeting other bonus conditions (col. 3, ln. 14-col. 7, ln. 10 – see scoring system).
Regarding claim 6, Keyser discloses the card game of claim 1, wherein the first player to reach a predetermined target score is declared the overall winner (col. 3, ln. 14-col. 7, ln. 10 – see target scores).
Regarding claim 7, Keyser discloses the card game of claim 1, wherein the game includes a two-phase shuffling process, wherein the color-coded cards are shuffled separately before the special action cards are introduced into the draw pile (col. 3, ln. 14-col. 7, ln. 10 – see shuffling).
Regarding claim 8, Keyser discloses the card game of claim 1, wherein forced exchanges and swaps are performed with a player selected by the player executing the action, or according to predefined game rules (col. 3, ln. 14-col. 7, ln. 10 – see game rules).
Regarding claims 9-20, Keyser discloses these claims as noted above regarding claims 1-8, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, EUGENE KIM can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
