The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 04/24/2025, the following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application No. 19188043.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 04/24/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2025 and 06/02/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on: 19188043 filed 04/24/2025 is a Continuation of PCT/JP2023/037798 , filed 10/19/2023 claims foreign priority to 2022-172296, filed 10/27/2022.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for receiving, means for registering, means for allowing access in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims fall within statutory class of process or machine or manufacture; hence, the claims fall under statutory category of Step 1.
Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
Claim 1 A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions thereon to be executed by a computer comprising a processor and a memory, the computer-readable instructions causing the processor to perform a method, the method comprising: receiving, from a first player, a request to register a deck created by combining a plurality of digital cards; determining whether predetermined conditions are satisfied, the predetermined conditions including a condition that the deck having received the request for registration from the first player is the first created deck; registering, in a case that the predetermined conditions are satisfied, the deck in association with the first player who first created the deck; and allowing a second player to access information about the registered deck and the information about the deck to include information about the first player who created the deck.
[or]
Claim 8 A method to be executed by a computer comprising a processor and a memory, the method performed by the processor comprising: receiving, from a first player, a request to register a deck created by combining a plurality of digital cards; determining whether predetermined conditions are satisfied, the predetermined conditions including a condition that the deck having received the request for registration from the first player is the first created deck; registering, in a case that the predetermined conditions are satisfied, the deck in association with the first player who first created the deck; and allowing a second player to access information about the registered deck and the information about the deck to include information about the first player who created the deck.
[or]
Claim 15 An information processing device, comprising: processing circuitry configured to receive, from a first player, a request to register a deck created by combining a plurality of digital cards; determine whether predetermined conditions are satisfied, the predetermined conditions including a condition that the deck having received the request for registration from the first player is the first created deck; register, if the predetermined conditions are satisfied, the deck in association with the first player who first created the deck; and allow a second player to access information about the registered deck and the information about the deck to include information about the first player who created the deck.
[or]
Claim 16 A system comprising means for receiving, from a first player, a request to register a deck created by combining a plurality of digital cards; the step of determining whether predetermined conditions are satisfied, the predetermined conditions including the condition that the deck having received the request for registration from the first player is the first created deck; means for registering, if the predetermined conditions are satisfied, the deck in association with the first player who first created the deck; and means for allowing a second player to access information about the registered deck and the information about the deck to include information about the first player who created the deck.
The claim(s) recite(s) the following summarization of the abstract idea which includes allowing a second player to access information about the registered deck and the information about the deck to include information about the first player who created the deck which is executed by the additional element(s) of non-transitory computer readable storage medium, memory, computer, processing circuitry and/or processor. This falls into at least the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mental Processes since the information can be analyzed by an abstract evaluation judgment process. The above non-boldface portion of the independent claims recites a judicial exception because all of the steps could be performed entirely with the human mind or with pen and paper as a human could play a game such as a tabletop role playing game wherein a player creates a deck and registers it to a universal log for credit tracking. Thus, per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity since the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions).
Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium, computer and/or processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic non-transitory computer readable storage medium, computer and/or processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, allow a second player to access information about the registered deck and the information about the deck to include information about the first player who created the deck by a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, memory, computer, processing circuitry and/or processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B.
Per Step 2B, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: non-transitory computer readable storage medium, memory, computer, processing circuitry and processor. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, allow a second player to access information about the registered deck and the information about the deck to include information about the first player who created the deck by a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, memory, computer, processing circuitry and/or processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶0054 wherein “The server 20 is implemented by, for example, a computer connected to the network 80. As shown in Fig. 4, the server 20 includes a communication IF 22, an input/output IF 23, a memory 25, a storage 26, and a processor 29.” Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims).
The dependent claims do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Thus, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardison (US 20130296008 A1) hereinafter referred to as Hardison in view of Kunimatsu et al. (US 20080154779 A1) hereinafter referred to as Kunimatsu.
Hardison teaches:
Claim 1 A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions thereon to be executed by a computer comprising a processor and a memory, the computer-readable instructions causing the processor to perform a method, the method comprising (¶0048 some exemplary embodiments may be implemented as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer readable code stored thereon for programming a computer, server, appliance, device, etc. each of which may include a processor to perform methods as described and claimed herein. Examples of such computer-readable storage mediums include, but are not limited to, a hard disk, an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, a ROM (Read Only Memory), a PROM (Programmable Read Only Memory), an EPROM (Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory), an EEPROM (Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory), Flash memory, and the like. When stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium, software can include instructions executable by a processor that, in response to such execution, cause a processor or any other circuitry to perform a set of operations, steps, methods, processes, algorithms, etc.):
receiving, from a first player, a request to register a deck created by combining a plurality of digital cards (¶0035 In its simplest form, an image processing system and method enables users to register their chip embedded playing cards 12, make it public, control privacy settings and set timing intervals and the ability to send to the registered playing card decks a defined set of images/graphics for display in certain areas, time frames, while in play or not and the like under previously agreed to limits or conditions. Users can view on their computer, iPad, smart phone and enabled with the playing card application.);
determining whether predetermined conditions are satisfied, the predetermined conditions including a condition that the deck having received the request for registration from the first player is the first created deck (¶0018 using the command center's communication capability to update the version of the system 10, upgrade chip specs such as on the card 12, the app, the box 30, etc., program new card designs via the display areas 20, 22, etc., it is further able to build a community of users who could play in virtual tournaments, invent new games or "house rules" provide remote expert help and training, create new card designs, and more. This new delivery system and method may include parental controls (age and content limits) as well as tracking when, where and how long a contest has been ongoing (lifetime achievement) and post to social networking services like Facebook, Google and Twitter. ¶0040 the playing card system 10 can also include a Web portal where the player registers as well as plays online games with other players or a computer to determine the player's handicap. The handicap can be some numerical representation of the player's skill at a particular game, e.g. poker. For example, the handicap can be developed based on how well a player performs each hand, whether the player makes good or bad decisions based on a particular hand as well as the hands of other players, and the like.);
registering, in a case that the predetermined conditions are satisfied, the deck in association with the first player who first created the deck (¶0035 In its simplest form, an image processing system and method enables users to register their chip embedded playing cards 12, make it public, control privacy settings and set timing intervals and the ability to send to the registered playing card decks a defined set of images/graphics for display in certain areas, time frames, while in play or not and the like under previously agreed to limits or conditions. Users can view on their computer, iPad, smart phone and enabled with the playing card application. Additional services, offers, options or other flexible business model rules may be included in a model such as offering discounts for frequent or continuous usage, or rewards if the user hits defined usage or display levels consistently or if they achieve targeted quality levels.); and
allowing a second player to access information about the registered deck and the information about the deck to include information about the first player who created the deck (¶0005 An algorithm executed by the controller can be configured to selectively modify the modifiable electronic display on a front of each card to display training information for a selected game to teach a player. An algorithm executed by the controller can be configured to selectively modify the modifiable electronic display on a front of each card to display assistance for a selected game to enable a player with a defined handicap to player with other players with more skill; wherein the algorithm executed by the controller can be further configured to track the player's progress to define the defined handicap or the defined handicap is manually input into the algorithm. ¶0035 In its simplest form, an image processing system and method enables users to register their chip embedded playing cards 12, make it public, control privacy settings and set timing intervals and the ability to send to the registered playing card decks a defined set of images/graphics for display in certain areas, time frames, while in play or not and the like under previously agreed to limits or conditions. Users can view on their computer, iPad, smart phone and enabled with the playing card application. Additional services, offers, options or other flexible business model rules may be included in a model such as offering discounts for frequent or continuous usage, or rewards if the user hits defined usage or display levels consistently or if they achieve targeted quality levels. A key advantage of a digital chip embedded deck of playing card system 10 and method is the operational simplicity and flexibility it provides to the content providers willing to host social game play while also providing the user with more control over their overall operations.).
Although not explicitly taught by Hardison, Kunimatsu teaches in the analogous art of electric comic book delivering server:
the deck having received the request for registration from the first player is the first created deck (¶0055 In response to acceptance of the mask data, the client terminal 21 displays the translation character description sheet in the translation character layer further above the mask layer for displaying the created mask sheet to accept description by the user A for describing characters in a second language (such as English) at a desired position on the translation character description sheet in place of the characters in the first language masked by the mask color drawn on the mask sheet displayed through the translation character description sheet. The client terminal 21 then accepts a request to register the translation data indicating the translation character description sheet including characters described in the second language (Step S111). ¶0059 FIG. 10 is an explanatory drawing that shows an example of a state of the mask data stored in the speech balloon mask data database 17. As shown in FIG. 10, the mask data is registered in the speech balloon mask data database 17 in units of pages so that the corresponding original electric comic book data can be identified. The mask data are stored in the mask data database 17 so as to be encrypted by an encryption key for the mask data. In the example as shown in FIG. 10, mask data created by the user A and mask data created by the user B are stored in the mask data database 17 so as to correspond to a first page of the original electric comic book data having a title A (such as a title name). Mask data created by the user A and mask data created by the user D are also stored in the mask data database 17 so as to correspond to a first page of the original electric comic book data having a title B. Further, in the mask data database 17, payment demand information corresponding to each of mask data (for example, 2 per one transmission thereof) is stored. In this regard, the payment demand information on mask data is determined by the administrator or the like of the electric comic book delivering server 10.);
the information about the deck to include information about the first player who created the deck (¶0049 Subsequently, the data transmitter/receiver 12 in the electric comic book delivering server 10 stores the received payment approval information in the payment approval information database 19 (Step S107). In the payment approval information database 19, for example, as shown in FIG. 4, a title name and the like of the original comic book whose payment is approved (including a name of the corresponding original comic book data, the kinds of the data (for example, original comic book data, mask data, translation data), detailed information on the data (for example, a creator, the number of pages), payment demand information (for example, 500, 2), a user ID of the client terminal that transmits payment approval information, and the like are stored ¶0060 FIG. 11 is an explanatory drawing that shows an example of a state of the translation data stored in the translation data database 18. As shown in FIG. 11, the translation data is registered in the translation data database 18 in units of pages so that the corresponding mask data and the corresponding original electric comic book data can be identified. The translation data are stored in the translation data database 18 so as to be encrypted by an encryption key for the translation data. In the example shown in FIG. 11, translation data created by the user A corresponding to the mask data created by the user A, and translation data created by the user B corresponding to the mask data created by the user B are stored in the translation data database 18 so as to correspond to a first page of the original electric comic book data having a title A. Translation data created by the user A corresponding to the mask data created by the user A and translation data created by the user B corresponding to the mask data created by the user B are also stored in the translation data database 18 so as to correspond to a first page of the original electric comic book data having a title B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric comic book delivering server of Kunimatsu with the system for providing systems for playing cards with digital enhancements and electronic ink of Hardison for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Hardison ¶0003 teaches that it is desirable to have a plurality of features associated with a deck of playing cards;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Hardison Abstract teaches a playing card system includes a plurality of playing cards each comprising an identification mechanism, and Kunimatsu Abstract teaches an electric comic book delivering server delivers translated electric comic book by transmitting original electric comic book data, mask data and translation data to a client terminal via a communication network; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Hardison at least the above cited paragraphs, and Kunimatsu at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the electric comic book delivering server of Kunimatsu with the system for providing systems for playing cards with digital enhancements and electronic ink of Hardison. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Hardison teaches:
Claim 2 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined conditions include use conditions of the first created deck (¶0014 The server 16 and/or the mobile device 18 can include a central command center host to control the use of NFC (near field communication) or other transponder technology (RFID, Bluetooth, etc.) to communicate with individual cards 12. As such, the deck of playing cards 12 can function as a group of cards allowing for such activities as keeping score, teaching aid, alerting a winning hand or error in play, using an algorithm to determine an acceptable shuffle, handicapping, or the like.).
Hardison teaches:
Claim 3 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 2, wherein the use conditions of the first created deck include at least one of the number of battles using the deck, the number of wins in battles using the deck, the number of entries of the deck in a predetermined tournament, and acquisition of a predetermined rank of the first player using the deck in the predetermined tournament (¶0014 The server 16 and/or the mobile device 18 can include a central command center host to control the use of NFC (near field communication) or other transponder technology (RFID, Bluetooth, etc.) to communicate with individual cards 12. As such, the deck of playing cards 12 can function as a group of cards allowing for such activities as keeping score, teaching aid, alerting a winning hand or error in play, using an algorithm to determine an acceptable shuffle, handicapping, or the like.).
Hardison teaches:
Claim 4 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein information about the plurality of digital cards constructing the deck and information about the first player are stored in a distributed ledger formed by a computer network (¶0033 Further, exemplary embodiments include or incorporate at least one database which may store software, descriptive data, system data, digital images and any other data item required by the other components necessary to effectuate any embodiment of the present system and method known to one having ordinary skill in the art. The databases may be provided, for example, as a database management system (DBMS), a relational database management system (e.g., DB2, ACCESS, etc.), and an object-oriented database management system (ODBMS), a file system or another conventional database packages as a few non-limiting examples. The databases can be accessed via a Structure Query Language (SQL) or other tools known to one having skill in the art. With the programs 66, an exemplary embodiment includes an electronic service which utilizes the embedded chip 14 in the printed playing cards 12 with a system and method for users to manage game play. The electronic service can also design and functions using a mobile device and a digital chip embedded deck of playing cards 12 equipped with NFC or similar technology to fully manage their use, image display, features and revenue, from a central platform.).
Hardison teaches:
Claim 5 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising: in a case that the deck created by a predetermined player is registered, notifying other players that the deck created by the player has been newly registered (¶0040 Referring to FIG. 5, in an exemplary embodiment, a flowchart illustrates a handicapping method 200 utilizing the playing card system 10. The handicapping method 200 is used with the playing card system 10 to enable lower skilled players to participate in games with higher skilled players. The handicapping method 200 includes identifying a player and maintaining historical records of that player's games to develop a handicap (step 202).).
Hardison teaches:
Claim 6 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising: offering a bonus to the first player based on a degree of contribution of the registered deck to the second player (¶0035 In its simplest form, an image processing system and method enables users to register their chip embedded playing cards 12, make it public, control privacy settings and set timing intervals and the ability to send to the registered playing card decks a defined set of images/graphics for display in certain areas, time frames, while in play or not and the like under previously agreed to limits or conditions. Users can view on their computer, iPad, smart phone and enabled with the playing card application. Additional services, offers, options or other flexible business model rules may be included in a model such as offering discounts for frequent or continuous usage, or rewards if the user hits defined usage or display levels consistently or if they achieve targeted quality levels).
Hardison teaches:
Claim 7 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising: offering a bonus to the first player on a basis of a degree of contribution of the first player to the second player (¶0035 In its simplest form, an image processing system and method enables users to register their chip embedded playing cards 12, make it public, control privacy settings and set timing intervals and the ability to send to the registered playing card decks a defined set of images/graphics for display in certain areas, time frames, while in play or not and the like under previously agreed to limits or conditions. Users can view on their computer, iPad, smart phone and enabled with the playing card application. Additional services, offers, options or other flexible business model rules may be included in a model such as offering discounts for frequent or continuous usage, or rewards if the user hits defined usage or display levels consistently or if they achieve targeted quality levels.).
Although not explicitly taught by Hardison, Kunimatsu teaches in the analogous art of electric comic book delivering server:
offering a bonus to the first player on a basis of a degree of contribution of the first player to the second player (¶0077 the translated electric comic book can be created while the originality of the original electric comic book is secured. Further, since the mask sheet and the translation character description sheet are created by a user side, a processing load of the server to obtain the translated electric comic book can be reduced. In addition, since the translation data can be obtained from a large number of general users, it can be expected that the mask sheet and the translation sheet are obtained for a short period of time after issuance of each of original electric comic books. Therefore, the translated electric comic book data can be delivered promptly. Moreover, in the case where the reward is paid to the translator whenever delivering the translated electric comic book, it can be expected that the mask sheet and the translation sheet are obtained for a very short period of time, and this makes it possible to deliver the translated electric comic book data more promptly. ¶ 0040 The translation data database 18 includes a storage medium for storing translation data. The term "translation data" means data indicating translation sheets in which speeches described with original language of the original comic book are translated to another language. The payment approval information database 19 includes a storage medium for storing an event of payment approval information indicating that payment from a client terminal is approved. The term "payment approval information" means data indicating payment for original electric comic book data (or mask data, or translation data) from a client terminal (for example, 500). Further, in the case where the contents of a response indicate that payment for consideration is approved, information on the payment of the consideration is to be stored in the payment approval information database 19.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric comic book delivering server of Kunimatsu with the system for providing systems for playing cards with digital enhancements and electronic ink of Hardison for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Hardison ¶0003 teaches that it is desirable to have a plurality of features associated with a deck of playing cards;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Hardison Abstract teaches a playing card system includes a plurality of playing cards each comprising an identification mechanism, and Kunimatsu Abstract teaches an electric comic book delivering server delivers translated electric comic book by transmitting original electric comic book data, mask data and translation data to a client terminal via a communication network; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Hardison at least the above cited paragraphs, and Kunimatsu at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the electric comic book delivering server of Kunimatsu with the system for providing systems for playing cards with digital enhancements and electronic ink of Hardison. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
As per claims 8-14 and 15 and 16, the method and device and system tracks the manufacture of claims 1-7 and 1 and 1, respectively, resulting in substantially similar limitations. The same cited prior art and rationale of claims 1-7 and 1 and 1 are applied to claims 8-14 and 15 and 16, respectively. Hardison discloses that the embodiment may be found as a method and device and system (Fig. 2 and ¶0014).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9219830 B1
Ciorba; Ilie et al.
Methods and systems for page and spread arrangement in photo-based projects
US 8517819 B2
Kelly; Bryan M. et al.
System gaming
US 20110275442 A1
Hawkins, III; William M.
NETWORKED COMPUTER GAME SYSTEMS AND METHODS WITH SOCIAL NETWORK FUNCTIONS
EP 1936556 A2
KUNIMATSU, ATSUSHI et al.
Electric comic book delivering server, system for delivering electric comic book and method of delivering electric comic book
US 20050227769 A1
Morrow, James W. et al.
Gaming device network managing system and method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURTIS GILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3315. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 PM.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KURTIS GILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights