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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 19/200,541 originally filed on May 6, 2025. Claims 1-15 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 7, 2018 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
This application claims priority of US Provisional Application 63/643,333, filed May 6, 2024.
Drawings
Regarding FIGS. 2-10, though the Examiner could not find any explicit rule requiring consistently printed figure numbers, it is recommended that the figure numbers in the drawings are printed using a consistent standard typeface. FIGS. 2-10 have handwritten figure numbers that may be unclear and inconsistent.
Regarding FIGS. 5-8, 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1), stated in part, indicates that black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs (and in this case, screenshots), are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. Therefore, the use of a black and white photographs lacking sufficient reproducible quality prevents FIGS. 5-8 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
Regarding FIGS. 9 and 10, 37 CFR 1.84(m), stated in part, prefers the use of shading when parts are shown in perspective. In the present case, the drawings use shading in an otherwise non-perspective view that would not be of sufficient quality so that all details in the drawings are reproducible in the printed patent. Therefore, the use of shading in an otherwise non-perspective view prevents FIGS. 9 and 10 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(m).
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), claim 6 is directed to “a gaming machine” (i.e. a machine), and claim 11 is directed to “a control method” (i.e. a process), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “playing a card game” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, the claims abstract idea is reasonably construed as “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of fundamental economic principles or practices which include hedging (i.e. wagering/gambling), insurance, or mitigating risk.
The claims are also drawn to the abstract idea of “playing a card game” in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Claims that require a computer may also recite a mental process, as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
“receive the input…
presenting the predetermined number of the… cards…
the predetermined number of… cards being determined by the RNG;
receiving an input… for an amount of credits and decreasing the amount of credits…
receiving a selection of one of the predetermined number of the… cards…
revealing all of the predetermined number of the… cards…
if a special… card or other winning outcome was selected, displaying… an award amount and crediting… the award amount.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a system,” “a gaming machine,” “a gaming device,” “a game display,” “at least one input device,” “a credit meter,” “a win meter,” “a controller,” and “a processor” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “playing a card game” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a system,” “a gaming machine,” “a gaming device,” “a game display,” “at least one input device,” “a credit meter,” “a win meter,” “a controller,” and “a processor” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “system,” which comprises “a gaming machine,” “a gaming device,” “a game display,” “at least one input device,” “a credit meter,” “a win meter,” “a controller,” and “a processor,” is described in paragraph [0020] as follows: “each of the methods and individual steps recited herein may be partially or wholly carried out in a variety of ways and/or systems, which may include, but are not limited to, an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") or electronic game machine such as video game for use by one or more players, a multiplayer platform which may include a player interface such as a touchscreen display and involve physical or virtual game symbols, a home computer and/or portable computing device, such as a tablet computer or mobile phone capable of communicating with a network or over the Internet, global telecommunication network or world wide web.”
The “a credit meter” and “a win meter” are not described in the specification as physical meters, but rather as graphical meters that are displayed on screen by the device (for example, specification paragraph [0044], “The touchscreen can be used to provide inputs used to play the skill-based game and include a win meter.”).
These elements are reasonably interpreted as being generic computing devices or generic computing components, which provide no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed “a system” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1, 6, and 11.
Therefore, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoseloff (US 6,386,973) in view of Johnson (US 2019/0259248).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 6 and 11, Yoseloff discloses a system for playing an electronic card game (Yoseloff Abstract, “playing a hybrid live casino and video wagering game”), said system comprising:
a gaming machine having a game display configured to display a plurality of electronic cards from a number of card decks of the electronic card game, at least one input device to provide an input (Yoseloff col. 12 lines 50, “displaying a randomly selected card(s),” display plurality of electronic cards; also Yoseloff col. 9 lines 29-30, “A keypad 254 is provided that permits the dealer to input game information,” input device; also ) …
a controller programed to display, on the game display, the electronic cards, and having a Random Number Generator (RNG), wherein the RNG calls are limited to a predetermined number of the electronic cards (Yoseloff col. 9 lines 49-55, “the dealer preferably activates a random number generator or random virtual deck selection program in the SBC (not shown) by activating a button on the keypad controls 254. The random number generator or program randomly selects a number corresponding to a card from a virtual deck. The corresponding virtual card is then displayed.”) …
wherein the controller includes a processor to execute an algorithm of instructions to (Yoseloff col.7 lines 39-41, “The game is therefore preferably played as a combination live table game with a video display and software/computer game component.”):
receive the input from the at least one input device (Yoseloff col. 9 lines 29-33, “A keypad 254 is provided that permits the dealer to input game information. The keypad 254 is in communication with the game CPU (not shown). A single monitor 234 is shown generally disposed towards the dealer's side 202 of the gaming table 200.”);
presenting the predetermined number of the electronic cards on the game display, the predetermined number of electronic cards being determined by the RNG (Yoseloff col. 9 lines 49-54, “the dealer preferably activates a random number generator or random virtual deck selection program in the SBC (not shown) by activating a button on the keypad controls 254. The random number generator or program randomly selects a number corresponding to a card from a virtual deck. The corresponding virtual card is then displayed.”);
Yoseloff does not explicitly teach a gaming machine having a game display configured to display … a credit meter, and a win meter … electronic cards in a 13-card suit-less card deck… receiving an input from the at least one input device for an amount of credits and decreasing the amount of credits from a credit meter; receiving a selection of one of the predetermined number of the electronic cards from the at least one input device; revealing all of the predetermined number of the electronic cards on the game display; and if a special electronic card or other winning outcome was selected, displaying by the win meter an award amount and crediting the credit meter with the award amount.
Yoseloff does disclose displaying certain portions of a game on a display screen, and making use of an “artificial deck” having thirteen cards (Yoseloff col. 18 lines 25-27). However, Yoseloff combines the display screen with live play and certain live play elements of the game are not displayed on-screen. Also, although the artificial deck does not mention suits, it is also unclear whether or not it uses a standard deck to construct the artificial deck.
However, Johnson discloses a gaming machine having a game display configured to display … a credit meter, and a win meter … electronic cards in a 13-card suit-less card deck… receiving an input from the at least one input device for an amount of credits and decreasing the amount of credits from a credit meter; receiving a selection of one of the predetermined number of the electronic cards from the at least one input device; revealing all of the predetermined number of the electronic cards on the game display; and if a special electronic card or other winning outcome was selected, displaying by the win meter an award amount and crediting the credit meter with the award amount (see Johnson Fig. 2, showing credit spot 10, and payout tables 4 and 8 [according to instant specification paragraph 006, win meter displays award amount, and the payout tables also display award amounts]; also Johnson [0014], “The game is a card game played with a unique deck of 65 cards. The 65-card deck consists of 13 cards a card which represent either a 1 or a 14 (1/14 card), and cards numbered 2 through 13. The cards are of five different colors where each 1-14 series of cards is a particular and distinct color. For example, in the preferred embodiments the cards are green, blue, purple, orange, and red. The 11 thru 1/14 card can optionally be substituted for the Jack, Queen, King and Ace cards. The Ace card can optionally be the 1/14 card,” using a deck of suit-less cards, which includes five thirteen-card sets, each having a different color; also Johnson [0145], “The credits spot (10) shows the balance of credits the player has to wager with. The display also includes a cash out button (11). The cash out button (11) visually indicates a location on the display which can be used by the player to withdraw credits from the game,” a credit meter keeping track of the player’s credit balance; also Johnson [0146], “The deal button (13) visually indicates a location on the display which allows the player to begin the deal after the player has placed their bet,” receive selection to deal electronic cards to the player; Johnson [0147], “The Ante wager is won if the player's initial three cards form a pair or a link, additional Ante wagers are won if the community card revealed pair with the player's cards, or link with the player's cards and community cards,” determining a win and crediting the award amount).
Johnson is analogous to Yoseloff, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Yoseloff, to include a gaming machine having a game display configured to display … a credit meter, and a win meter … electronic cards in a 13-card suit-less card deck… receiving an input from the at least one input device for an amount of credits and decreasing the amount of credits from a credit meter; receiving a selection of one of the predetermined number of the electronic cards from the at least one input device; revealing all of the predetermined number of the electronic cards on the game display; and if a special electronic card or other winning outcome was selected, displaying by the win meter an award amount and crediting the credit meter with the award amount, as taught by Johnson, since it applies known techniques of Johnson, such as suit-less cards and entirely electronic gameplay, to a known system of Yoseloff ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claims 7 and 12, Yoseloff in view of Johnson discloses wherein the electronic cards are shuffled by the RNG and are dealt by the input from the at least one input device to pick sequentially which of the electronic cards are dealt (Yoseloff col. 9 lines 49-55, “the dealer preferably activates a random number generator or random virtual deck selection program in the SBC (not shown) by activating a button on the keypad controls 254. The random number generator or program randomly selects a number corresponding to a card from a virtual deck. The corresponding virtual card is then displayed.”).
Regarding claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 8 and 13, Yoseloff in view of Johnson discloses wherein the electronic card game is a 13-card Blackjack game (Yoseloff col. 9 lines 7-16, “Although the following disclosure describes the method of the present invention in the context of draw poker, the method can be used to enhance the excitement and entertainment value of nearly any casino card game, such as 5 card stud poker, Blackjack, Pai Gow poker, Let it Ride® Stud Poker, Caribbean Stud® poker, Baccarat, mini Baccarat, and variations of draw poker, including Texas Hold 'Em, Deuces Wild, and Triple Play Poker® as well as symbol oriented games such as Mah Jong, dice betting, and the like.”).
Regarding claim 4, and substantially similar limitations in claims 9 and 14, Yoseloff in view of Johnson discloses wherein the electronic card game is a 13-card Baccarat game (Yoseloff col. 9 lines 7-16, “Although the following disclosure describes the method of the present invention in the context of draw poker, the method can be used to enhance the excitement and entertainment value of nearly any casino card game, such as 5 card stud poker, Blackjack, Pai Gow poker, Let it Ride® Stud Poker, Caribbean Stud® poker, Baccarat, mini Baccarat, and variations of draw poker, including Texas Hold 'Em, Deuces Wild, and Triple Play Poker® as well as symbol oriented games such as Mah Jong, dice betting, and the like.”).
Regarding claim 5, and substantially similar limitations in claims 10 and 15, Yoseloff in view of Johnson discloses wherein the electronic card game is a 13-card Poker game (Yoseloff col. 9 lines 7-16, “Although the following disclosure describes the method of the present invention in the context of draw poker, the method can be used to enhance the excitement and entertainment value of nearly any casino card game, such as 5 card stud poker, Blackjack, Pai Gow poker, Let it Ride® Stud Poker, Caribbean Stud® poker, Baccarat, mini Baccarat, and variations of draw poker, including Texas Hold 'Em, Deuces Wild, and Triple Play Poker® as well as symbol oriented games such as Mah Jong, dice betting, and the like.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lizak (US 6,592,125) Game of chance
Dreaper et al. (US 2003/0153380) Method, table game, slot machine game, video game and video computer game for a player to bet on receiving certain pre-selected numerical values
Young (US 2010/0248829) Gaming platform and method using same
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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 at 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights