Patents
February 4th, 2013 at 12:57:27 PM
permalink
Just got a non-final rejection letter from the patent and trademark office. Abstract idea are not patentable, Bilski v Kappos decision. If this holds up, than all people trying to get into the proprietary game business can close up shop including the big boys like SM, DEQ, Galaxy etc..
Any thought on how to get pass this and if anyone got a patent approved after meeting this obstacles, let me know.
Any thought on how to get pass this and if anyone got a patent approved after meeting this obstacles, let me know.
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
February 4th, 2013 at 1:39:48 PM
permalink
Wish I knew something. As usual.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
February 4th, 2013 at 1:42:14 PM
permalink
You can't patent an idea, like a gambling system or a recipe, its
always been that way. Its why Coke and KFC have always kept
their recipes under lock and key. And why you should keep your
mouth shut if you have a winning system.
My rule of thumb is you can't patent something obvious or that
can be stumbled upon by somebody else. Like combining flour
and water and yeast, you just invented bread. But so could
anybody.
always been that way. Its why Coke and KFC have always kept
their recipes under lock and key. And why you should keep your
mouth shut if you have a winning system.
My rule of thumb is you can't patent something obvious or that
can be stumbled upon by somebody else. Like combining flour
and water and yeast, you just invented bread. But so could
anybody.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 4th, 2013 at 1:51:33 PM
permalink
Pure card games played on felt were always patentable up until a few years ago. In late 2008 there was the In re Bilski decition which was decided by the Federal Circuit (the highest patent court but for the Supreme Court). This decision held that to be patentable, an invention must pass the "machine or transformation test" (i.e. be a machine or involve a chemical process). The USPTO in early 2010 adopted this holding to mean that card games were no longer patentable since they did not satisfy the MoT test (the Solicitor at the USPTO sat down with the supervisors in the games units and instructed them that they can no longer allow patents on card games dealt by hand). In 2010 the Supreme Court corrected the Federal Circuit's absurd holding and ruled that to be patentable, an invention must not be an abstract idea (which was for the most part always the test throughout history). Card games are clearly (IMO) not an abstract idea. However, nobody at the USPTO instructed the supervisors to start allowing card games again. I have spoken to numerous personnel at the USPTO about this issue and everyone just seems to pass the buck.
So, yes, currently, the USPTO is not allowing claims to pure card games dealt on felt. However, you can amend your claims to recite an electronic processor/computer (as long as your application supports this) and they will allow claims to the card game if implemented by a machine (because the USPTO is still erroneously applying the MoT test for card games). While most game inventors of course would prefer claims to the table game version, machine game claims aren't so bad because these days many games are being played on electronic tables (and soon online gaming is coming to NV and other states).
Stay tuned, there are more 35 U.S.C. 101 cases coming up before the Supreme Court which may add clarity to the situation and may cause the USPTO to reconsider their current handling of these claims. Even though I am losing patience, I do believe that eventually the USPTO will go back to allowing these claims again.
So, yes, currently, the USPTO is not allowing claims to pure card games dealt on felt. However, you can amend your claims to recite an electronic processor/computer (as long as your application supports this) and they will allow claims to the card game if implemented by a machine (because the USPTO is still erroneously applying the MoT test for card games). While most game inventors of course would prefer claims to the table game version, machine game claims aren't so bad because these days many games are being played on electronic tables (and soon online gaming is coming to NV and other states).
Stay tuned, there are more 35 U.S.C. 101 cases coming up before the Supreme Court which may add clarity to the situation and may cause the USPTO to reconsider their current handling of these claims. Even though I am losing patience, I do believe that eventually the USPTO will go back to allowing these claims again.
February 4th, 2013 at 2:24:52 PM
permalink
Thanks for this clarification. It looks like I need to add a C++ code to the patent and show how this will be played on a machine. Will this be enough you think or do I have to jump through more hoops still?
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
February 4th, 2013 at 3:07:36 PM
permalink
I'm not sure, but I think computer code, much like music and the recipe for Coke, is not patentable. They may be copyrightable.
And for computer code, even if it WERE patentable, there are a thousand ways to write code and achieve the same result.
And for computer code, even if it WERE patentable, there are a thousand ways to write code and achieve the same result.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
February 4th, 2013 at 3:11:34 PM
permalink
Processes using computer code are patentable, I thought. Least ways, this is part of the patent trolls and patent wars...
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 4th, 2013 at 3:22:07 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitProcesses using computer code are patentable, I thought. .
Processes are patentable, if its unique enough.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 4th, 2013 at 3:24:23 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobProcesses are patentable, if its unique enough.
It's the last part of that phrase which is the big part in the trolls. Lots of stuff isn't that unique. Some of it is. Makes life kinda hard in the software business.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 4th, 2013 at 3:37:44 PM
permalink
Jon, have you ever tried to argue that a deck or cards, or a pair of dice or a wheel falls under the definition of a machine as a "device". They all serve the same purpose as an electronig RNG in any electronic game, they just happen to be manual RNG's.
I don't know of a requirement that the "Machine" (or device) be electronic or self powered. If claims are limited to the use of an RNG to play a game and then dependent claims furher narrow the RNG to an electronic RNG and separately a manual RNG (i.e. cards drawn from a random deck, dice rolled to generate a value or a wheel spun to generate a value), the USPTO Examiner is going to have to argue that those manual RNG's aren't devices and are somehow different than an electronic RNG for which they currently allow patent claims. I think that is going to be tough to do.....or I should say, tough to do with a well thought out, logical argument.
From what I have seen, they have attacked physical cards from the standpoint that no "transformation" takes place when the physical cards are re-arranged (i.e. dealing the cards). But what if you argued that the deck of cards and the act of dealing them is the employment of a manual RNG device to determine a numerical value and you limited your method claims to the use of that specific device thereby not making the method claims not "abstract"?
On my next rejection, which I know is coming, I am going to have my attorney try this tactic. He, like you, is not hopeful of the result. But I am going to be very curious to follow the logical argument that the UPSTO Examiner puts forth to counter the argument that the roll of two dice is not a device under Machine Test whereas two electronic RNG's that randomly produce values between 1-6 on an unweighted basis are somehow devices that do pass the Machine Test. We intentionally used RNG language in the independent claims and then narrowed the RNG to physical and electronic alternatives.
Big question is has anyone tried to argue a manual RNG is a device and dealing random cards, rolling dice or spinning a wheel with a ball in it are all manual RNG devices that meet the definition of "machine" in the MoT Test? If so, how did USPTO respond?
I don't know of a requirement that the "Machine" (or device) be electronic or self powered. If claims are limited to the use of an RNG to play a game and then dependent claims furher narrow the RNG to an electronic RNG and separately a manual RNG (i.e. cards drawn from a random deck, dice rolled to generate a value or a wheel spun to generate a value), the USPTO Examiner is going to have to argue that those manual RNG's aren't devices and are somehow different than an electronic RNG for which they currently allow patent claims. I think that is going to be tough to do.....or I should say, tough to do with a well thought out, logical argument.
From what I have seen, they have attacked physical cards from the standpoint that no "transformation" takes place when the physical cards are re-arranged (i.e. dealing the cards). But what if you argued that the deck of cards and the act of dealing them is the employment of a manual RNG device to determine a numerical value and you limited your method claims to the use of that specific device thereby not making the method claims not "abstract"?
On my next rejection, which I know is coming, I am going to have my attorney try this tactic. He, like you, is not hopeful of the result. But I am going to be very curious to follow the logical argument that the UPSTO Examiner puts forth to counter the argument that the roll of two dice is not a device under Machine Test whereas two electronic RNG's that randomly produce values between 1-6 on an unweighted basis are somehow devices that do pass the Machine Test. We intentionally used RNG language in the independent claims and then narrowed the RNG to physical and electronic alternatives.
Big question is has anyone tried to argue a manual RNG is a device and dealing random cards, rolling dice or spinning a wheel with a ball in it are all manual RNG devices that meet the definition of "machine" in the MoT Test? If so, how did USPTO respond?
February 4th, 2013 at 3:45:49 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitLots of stuff isn't that unique. Some of it is..
Edison patented the process of making filaments
for his light bulb. To make light bulbs for his own
projects, Tesla had to come up with his own process.
I wonder if you could even patent a filament today,
when Edison did it, they were unique.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 4th, 2013 at 3:46:28 PM
permalink
Consider this:
http://www.foundpersuasive.com/101_rejection_bilski.aspx
http://www.foundpersuasive.com/101_rejection_bilski.aspx
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
February 4th, 2013 at 4:00:18 PM
permalink
That is really good stuff, ME. Aces take note of that suggestion for sure!
February 4th, 2013 at 4:09:28 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistConsider this:
http://www.foundpersuasive.com/101_rejection_bilski.aspx
I will need to reread this many more times before I can respond to USPTO. On one instance, when they claimed that my results were not repeatable, I showed that it was, albiet the possible choices were in the quadrillions.
Thanks to all that responded. If I get anything new, I will post it so others can benefit from it.
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
February 4th, 2013 at 5:15:40 PM
permalink
Aces, I am hoping you are not responding to USPTO yourself, but have an attorney retained for such matters. If not, you may want to get a hold of Jon Muskin in PA (he is expert that is closest to you geographically and quite good).
Unlike differing opinions on selling your game yourself or through a distributor, this is area is black and white: you should not be trying to accomplish patent prosecution without an expert.
Unlike differing opinions on selling your game yourself or through a distributor, this is area is black and white: you should not be trying to accomplish patent prosecution without an expert.
February 4th, 2013 at 5:18:46 PM
permalink
I have talked with Jon before and met him at G2E. He is definitely an option. My kid brother is a patent lawyer and he worked at the USPTO. I am going to swallow my pride and give him a call first.
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
February 4th, 2013 at 5:19:16 PM
permalink
Quote: ParadigmJon, have you ever tried to argue that a deck or cards, or a pair of dice or a wheel falls under the definition of a machine as a "device". They all serve the same purpose as an electronig RNG in any electronic game, they just happen to be manual RNG's.
I've tried that approach and even tried claiming an electronic card shuffler. There are a lot of good suggestions in this thread. However, the real problem is, the examiners have their hands tied as they have to answer to their SPE (supervisor) who is under orders to reject these claims, so no matter what you write, a claim to a physical card game will get a 101 rejection. The SPEs have their hands tied as they answer to the USPTO Solicitor (the head attorney at the USPTO). Nobody there seems to care about this issue. So you can make all the good arguments you wish to the examiner, but they won't get anywhere.
The best bet is to appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (formerly the Board of Appeals, a board of judges at the USPTO you can appeal to if you can't get anywhere with your examiner). I have seen some Board decisions which allow claims to physical card games and some affirming rejections under 101. So the whole situation is a mess right now at the USPTO.
February 4th, 2013 at 5:30:46 PM
permalink
Quote: jonI've tried that approach and even tried claiming an electronic card shuffler. There are a lot of good suggestions in this thread. However, the real problem is, the examiners have their hands tied as they have to answer to their SPE (supervisor) who is under orders to reject these claims, so no matter what you write, a claim to a physical card game will get a 101 rejection. The SPEs have their hands tied as they answer to the USPTO Solicitor (the head attorney at the USPTO). Nobody there seems to care about this issue. So you can make all the good arguments you wish to the examiner, but they won't get anywhere.
The best bet is to appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (formerly the Board of Appeals, a board of judges at the USPTO you can appeal to if you can't get anywhere with your examiner). I have seen some Board decisions which allow claims to physical card games and some affirming rejections under 101. So the whole situation is a mess right now at the USPTO.
So with the USPTO giving you 3 months to reply to their rejection letter, where does one go from here? How does one claim machine or transformation test on a card game based on rules and math that gives a house an edge. The cards are not transformed. But without the math and rules, the game will be useless to the casino.
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
February 5th, 2013 at 11:47:16 AM
permalink
Quote: AceCrAAckersSo with the USPTO giving you 3 months to reply to their rejection letter, where does one go from here? How does one claim machine or transformation test on a card game based on rules and math that gives a house an edge. The cards are not transformed. But without the math and rules, the game will be useless to the casino.
Ace, one approach would be (if you have support in your spec) amend your independent claim(s) to start with , "performing, on an electronic processor, the operations of:" to make it clear that the method is being implemented by a machine. This would satisfy both the "machine or transformation" test (even though someone needs to explain to the USPTO that this test is no longer valid) and the "abstract idea" test and can cover (depending on how the spec was written) your game played on a smart phone, digital table, internet casino, electronic gamine machine, etc. Some attorneys are of the opinion that such a claim would also have some bite in court against the game being played on a felt table as well, although this has not yet been tested in court.
I know as a game inventor you really want claims to the felt (non-electronic) version which is how it will be leased to the casinos. You can always try to argue to the examiner that the non-electronic version meets the "abstract idea" test using some of the arguments presented herein, and the USPTO does once in a while let a felt claim slip through, but this is becoming increasingly rare. Note that many gaming companies and casinos continue to license gaming patents for table use even though they may only contain the machine claims. Most companies/casinos I believe are interested in being fair to inventors and not looking to exploit this latest outlandish conduct taking place at the USPTO. Also, game inventors should keep a live continuation to all of their issued patents so that if/when the USPTO changes back to allowing felt claims again, these can be added later on. The Supreme Court will hear other 101 cases in the near future which should hopefully put an end to this madness, so stay tuned...
February 5th, 2013 at 6:51:01 PM
permalink
DAMN What a mess !
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
February 5th, 2013 at 8:58:31 PM
permalink
I talked with my lawyer brother. Here is what he said, since he does not represent me, I need to take all information he gives me as only a hypotheical. The most important point is to try to prove that casino games are machine or tranformation has taken place. We are not just stating rules but something has changed. What that something is, no one can say. In the game of Monopoly, it is not just a mental excerise but more has happened. This is because we use dice to create a random number. Pieces are used to move around a game board, and rules are established. in his opinion, one cannot patent the game of spade or hearts.
If anyone can tell me how casino card games pass machine or transformation test, I would be very interested in hearing it. Thx
If anyone can tell me how casino card games pass machine or transformation test, I would be very interested in hearing it. Thx
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
February 25th, 2013 at 6:08:16 PM
permalink
I ran this thread past an attorney I had been working with. He kindly noted "A very brief review turned up the two attached patents, both of which were issued within the last nine months and contain claims that cover "felt versions" of card games. See, for example, claims 1 and 18 of the '324 patent and claims 1 and 21 of the '042 patent. This demonstrates that the Patent Office still considers card games to be patentable subject matter, if the utility and nonobviousness requirements are met."
8216042
8812324
These were the two he found. I don't know what it took to get these through, but thought it might help to take a look.
8216042
8812324
These were the two he found. I don't know what it took to get these through, but thought it might help to take a look.
February 25th, 2013 at 7:06:41 PM
permalink
Recipes can be patented to be correct. The problem doing it is to get a patent you must reveal the recipe and after 20 years the patent expires. So, they use trade secrets to protect it as long as they want. You can even patent living beings now if you want such as GMO now(and new slave races probably someday).
I am a robot.
February 25th, 2013 at 10:55:46 PM
permalink
Quote: 21Revolution
8812324
this isn't a valid patent #, could you post the valid patent # please? Thanks.
February 26th, 2013 at 6:13:34 AM
permalink
Sorry about that 8182324...
February 26th, 2013 at 1:48:20 PM
permalink
8,216,042 appears to have been examined by Art Group 2894 as opposed to Art Group 3717 which normally reviews Casino Games. I think Group 2894 didn't get the "No new casino game approvals" memo, but excellent news for that inventor.
8182324 is an interesting one in that USPTO bought the argument "cards are transformed when dealing" and that games are a physical processes. Also cited prior art as evidence of patentability (i.e. Derek Webb Patents) which is odd as I didn't think you could use prior art as precedent for why the current matter is patentable. Do not believe either of these arguments fly today with the majority of examiners.
I think both of these are anomalies and not an indication of current state at USPTO so don't get your hopes up on these cases.....the USPTO is firmely in the camp of disallowing these applications.
8182324 is an interesting one in that USPTO bought the argument "cards are transformed when dealing" and that games are a physical processes. Also cited prior art as evidence of patentability (i.e. Derek Webb Patents) which is odd as I didn't think you could use prior art as precedent for why the current matter is patentable. Do not believe either of these arguments fly today with the majority of examiners.
I think both of these are anomalies and not an indication of current state at USPTO so don't get your hopes up on these cases.....the USPTO is firmely in the camp of disallowing these applications.
March 29th, 2013 at 11:34:37 PM
permalink
check out the response in 13/562,178 filed 2/19. I made the argument that a randomly-ordered deck of cards met the fed circuit's definition of a machine, imposed a meaningful limit on the claims, was not insignficant post solution activity etc., among other arguments, at least because the deck of cards was necessary to perform the method and the results of the deck couldn't be duplicated mentally. Got a final rejection now. The electronic version is already patented so this is now ripe for appeal.
March 30th, 2013 at 11:12:00 AM
permalink
Good info Rich.....I will review what you filed on this matter after my tax deadline passes.
Someone is going to have to appeal one of these cases and force the Office to logically support their position on how the use of cards and dice is not a manual random number generating device and is a significant limitation to the method making it non-abstract. I think Jon has a case that he is close to filing an appeal. We will all be watching that very closely.
The distinction between what USPTO is allowing and what it is determining is abstract doesn't make sense. If you use an electronic RNG device, your method qualifies as non-abstract based on MoT. If you use a manual RNG device it doesn't.
For "lawyers" that doesn't seem to be a very logical/supportable position when arguing in front of the bench as you are essentially saying that electricity is the determining factor on calling something a device/machine. I don't think that is supported by any precedent that I have seen.
Someone is going to have to appeal one of these cases and force the Office to logically support their position on how the use of cards and dice is not a manual random number generating device and is a significant limitation to the method making it non-abstract. I think Jon has a case that he is close to filing an appeal. We will all be watching that very closely.
The distinction between what USPTO is allowing and what it is determining is abstract doesn't make sense. If you use an electronic RNG device, your method qualifies as non-abstract based on MoT. If you use a manual RNG device it doesn't.
For "lawyers" that doesn't seem to be a very logical/supportable position when arguing in front of the bench as you are essentially saying that electricity is the determining factor on calling something a device/machine. I don't think that is supported by any precedent that I have seen.
March 30th, 2013 at 11:35:44 AM
permalink
RichN keeps a low-profile, but I don't mind tooting a horn for him.
He's Richard Newman, the gaming patent attorney that PaiGowDan and I and some other WoV members have used for our patent work.
He's Richard Newman, the gaming patent attorney that PaiGowDan and I and some other WoV members have used for our patent work.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
March 30th, 2013 at 12:28:41 PM
permalink
As always, Rich makes good arguments. B. Layno is the examiner and he happens to be a nice/helpful guy, I have met personally with him many times and he is usually reasonable about allowing stuff. He has been examining games for over 25 years. After 25+ years of allowing games, it wasn't his decision to stop allowing them now. He told me that if it was up to him he would allow these claims but that he was instructed by the "powers that be" at the USPTO to do otherwise. So no matter what arguments you make, they will ignored in this art unit by all examiners and you will get a stock 101 rejection. Here is the proof: see the office action I received dated 12/23/2011 in US 8,308,542. The text of the 101 rejection is EXACTLY THE SAME as the final rejection dated 3/15 in 13/562,178 (Dan's application). The examiners in this unit just paste their stock 101 rejections without even addressing the applicant's arguments. I am in no way criticizing examiner Layno, he is just doing what he was told to do by his art unit in order to keep his job. He isn't the problem.
Curiously, see the claims in US 8,216,040. I never even got a 101 rejection in this application because it was sent outside of the 3711 art unit (at the time the USPTO was shifting around cases to reduce the backlog). That art unit was not under the directive that 3711 is to reject these claims. So no 101 rejection.
In a bit of bad news, see PTAB decision in application 11/011,373 that just came out a few days ago, which affirmed Layno's 101 rejection of a card game. Rich, you may want to study the appeal brief filed and the decision for clues when you write your appeal. In my opinion the PTAB decision is flawed for a number of reasons and is really just a bunch of nonsense. On a positive note, there are other BPAI decisions (the predecessor of the PTAB) which did allow game claims. All of these decisions are not precedential. Further, these decisions are very panel specific, it all just depends on which 3 administrative law judges you happen to get in your appeal. I'm not familiar with these three ALJ's but I know others who would allow these claims.
Curiously, see the claims in US 8,216,040. I never even got a 101 rejection in this application because it was sent outside of the 3711 art unit (at the time the USPTO was shifting around cases to reduce the backlog). That art unit was not under the directive that 3711 is to reject these claims. So no 101 rejection.
In a bit of bad news, see PTAB decision in application 11/011,373 that just came out a few days ago, which affirmed Layno's 101 rejection of a card game. Rich, you may want to study the appeal brief filed and the decision for clues when you write your appeal. In my opinion the PTAB decision is flawed for a number of reasons and is really just a bunch of nonsense. On a positive note, there are other BPAI decisions (the predecessor of the PTAB) which did allow game claims. All of these decisions are not precedential. Further, these decisions are very panel specific, it all just depends on which 3 administrative law judges you happen to get in your appeal. I'm not familiar with these three ALJ's but I know others who would allow these claims.
March 30th, 2013 at 12:29:47 PM
permalink
And he is also a hell of a nice guy......met him for the first time at the post meeting lunch following the May 2012 Focus Group.
April 1st, 2013 at 11:42:34 PM
permalink
I appreciate the kind words and info. The bilski problem has been extremely frustrating. There's no consideration of the arguments or reasoned analysis, just conclusions, which as Jon noted are copied and pasted. I've already mentioned this to Jon but I'd be happy to contribute some of my free time to help out or just provide a second set of eyes on an appeal brief or other legal challenge to the worthy cause of defeating this bilski bs, provided that the client OKs it.
April 20th, 2013 at 7:02:48 PM
permalink
I sent in my application though a patent agent 4 years ago. After Bilski, we modified it attaching a computer device to the events. I just was approved this week for the patent. It is a casino card based reverse blackjack type game. Now we must file a continuation in part (with a new rule) and change it so it is not tied to a computer. Just before they decided on the application 1.5 years ago, we contacted patent lawyers who told us to first go the computer software rout. They were all being approved. Then if it clears, fight the battle for non computer. That way if it clears you'll have a patent that does not infringe on someone else's patent. So yes. games will be approved (as of April 2013) if linked to a computing device because the big software companies fought and won that these were machines.
Now I'd like someone to so some homework and find any patent awarded to any game after bilski. We have 2 here: 8216042 and 8182324. More would be better. if 1 passes, then that leaves the floodgates open for more hopefully.
Now I'd like someone to so some homework and find any patent awarded to any game after bilski. We have 2 here: 8216042 and 8182324. More would be better. if 1 passes, then that leaves the floodgates open for more hopefully.
June 17th, 2013 at 6:46:28 PM
permalink
Hello .. first day as a member on this site and the first time I have written anything on any site. S0 ... be kind to me ....
This thread is one of three that have I read so far today, and it seems like the place to ask the following (sorry if it has been dicussed before or elsewhere):
If someone like "NewToCraps" has a fantastic felt based side bet invention for a dice game (if you want to succeed you have to KNOW that you are the 1% of 1% - 100th of a percent - that is going to make it) and you are ready to patent the invention, do you:
A) file a utility patent application knowing that in 18 months you might not have anything except a publicized patent application, and be spending time and money dealing with rejections from USPTO to MAYBE succeed in eventually protecting your IP ?
B) file a utility patent application and attach a computer device to the events to beat the MoT test, hoping that in 18 months you get a patent and follow the route of SlifkerGames ?
C) file a provisional utility patent application hoping that the extra year might allow the patent attorney "Wizards" to be successful is selling the idea to overturn USPTO policy that a manual RNG machine consisting of someones hand tossing the dice is no different than a RNG pop-o-matic machine that tumbles the dice like in the game "trouble", which is no different than a computer program RNG. Then later a patent might be able to be obtained ?
D) file a design patent application of the table layout to somewhat protect your side bet invention from being thought of and submitted by another developer, mean while figure out which of the above three options is best ? Could this backfire by exposing what your utility patent application would entail once the design patent is publicized (if you are still waiting to submit the utility patent at that time) ?
E) contact a patent attorney with casino game related experience to disclose your invention to, and get a deeper insite from an expert as to which option would work best for you.
F) go to 2013 G2E and hope to learn all about this process of being a casino game developer as well as make some connections that may help in the future, then proceed with one of the above being a lot more knowledgable.
G) continue reading the threads on this site to learn so much more than you ever imagined was out there about this subject ? This is my way a saying I am VERY impressed with this site !
Thanks for the time spent reading this, and thanks in advance to anyone that responds.
This thread is one of three that have I read so far today, and it seems like the place to ask the following (sorry if it has been dicussed before or elsewhere):
If someone like "NewToCraps" has a fantastic felt based side bet invention for a dice game (if you want to succeed you have to KNOW that you are the 1% of 1% - 100th of a percent - that is going to make it) and you are ready to patent the invention, do you:
A) file a utility patent application knowing that in 18 months you might not have anything except a publicized patent application, and be spending time and money dealing with rejections from USPTO to MAYBE succeed in eventually protecting your IP ?
B) file a utility patent application and attach a computer device to the events to beat the MoT test, hoping that in 18 months you get a patent and follow the route of SlifkerGames ?
C) file a provisional utility patent application hoping that the extra year might allow the patent attorney "Wizards" to be successful is selling the idea to overturn USPTO policy that a manual RNG machine consisting of someones hand tossing the dice is no different than a RNG pop-o-matic machine that tumbles the dice like in the game "trouble", which is no different than a computer program RNG. Then later a patent might be able to be obtained ?
D) file a design patent application of the table layout to somewhat protect your side bet invention from being thought of and submitted by another developer, mean while figure out which of the above three options is best ? Could this backfire by exposing what your utility patent application would entail once the design patent is publicized (if you are still waiting to submit the utility patent at that time) ?
E) contact a patent attorney with casino game related experience to disclose your invention to, and get a deeper insite from an expert as to which option would work best for you.
F) go to 2013 G2E and hope to learn all about this process of being a casino game developer as well as make some connections that may help in the future, then proceed with one of the above being a lot more knowledgable.
G) continue reading the threads on this site to learn so much more than you ever imagined was out there about this subject ? This is my way a saying I am VERY impressed with this site !
Thanks for the time spent reading this, and thanks in advance to anyone that responds.
Learned Craps in 2013 .... Developed and have a PATENT on Craps "Back On Bet" side bet ...
Working on Craps game variations hope to have patents in 2018 - Second Chance Craps and Sub-Crap-tion ...
A completely new dice game idea is next - D.. Dice D......
June 18th, 2013 at 8:06:05 PM
permalink
Hi NewToCraps- might try moving this to the game design thread to see if you get some feedback. It's a question that has been hard to answer, but is in line with why I asked Dan to start that thread. If distributors do want to attract ideas, it helps for people to know how to get going without leaving a bad taste the first go round. So, this would be good to have on there.
June 18th, 2013 at 8:53:33 PM
permalink
Thanks for the help in getting me to the right place. My misunderstanding of the thread being about getting a patent started, but not aware of the other thread. Is there a way to have this moved, or should I cut and past it there ?
Thanks again 21Revolution for your feedback.
Thanks again 21Revolution for your feedback.
Learned Craps in 2013 .... Developed and have a PATENT on Craps "Back On Bet" side bet ...
Working on Craps game variations hope to have patents in 2018 - Second Chance Craps and Sub-Crap-tion ...
A completely new dice game idea is next - D.. Dice D......
June 19th, 2013 at 12:47:23 PM
permalink
Quote: NewToCraps
If someone like "NewToCraps" has a fantastic felt based side bet invention for a dice game (if you want to succeed you have to KNOW that you are the 1% of 1% - 100th of a percent - that is going to make it) and you are ready to patent the invention, do you:
I know this isn't an answer to your question, but how do you KNOW you are in that 100th of a percent who is going to make it? I'm interested in hearing what steps you've taken to vet this fantastic side bet out... because many on this board probably are wondering the same thing.
Cheers,
Spinner
Everyone's an expert.
June 19th, 2013 at 1:00:32 PM
permalink
Yes because there's a dilemma of how does one keep it quiet while being developed compared with a field trial finding out whether it's any good with the public / casinos. At what stage in this does one commit money for patents or whatever (and is it the same in say the UK as US)? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.Quote: Spinner14...interested in hearing what steps you've taken to vet this...
June 19th, 2013 at 1:18:42 PM
permalink
Quote: charliepatrickYes because there's a dilemma of how does one keep it quiet while being developed compared with a field trial finding out whether it's any good with the public / casinos. At what stage in this does one commit money for patents or whatever (and is it the same in say the UK as US)? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
File a provisional US patent, small ultility, gives you a year to field test it but be ready before filing to give yourself as much of that 12 months as possible, UK doesn't allow provisional patents, or Europe
Controversial sometimes, brutally honest..Always
June 19th, 2013 at 1:23:01 PM
permalink
Quote: McDemonFile a provisional US patent, small ultility, gives you a year to field test it but be ready before filing to give yourself as much of that 12 months as possible, UK doesn't allow provisional patents, or Europe
But the UK and Europe also don't allow patents on methods for playing games. From the UK Patents Act of 1977:
Quote: UK Patents Act
(2) It is hereby declared that the following (among
other things) are not inventions for the purposes of
this Act, that is to say, anything which consists of -
(c) a scheme, rule or method for
performing a mental act, playing a game
or doing business, or a program for a
computer;
but the foregoing provision shall prevent anything
from being treated as an invention for the purposes
of this Act only to the extent that a patent or
application for a patent relates to that thing as such.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patentsact1977.pdf
How are you planning to protect your new games in the UK?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
June 20th, 2013 at 12:20:40 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistBut the UK and Europe also don't allow patents on methods for playing games. From the UK Patents Act of 1977:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patentsact1977.pdf
How are you planning to protect your new games in the UK?
All my games seek US Patent protection as standard, in the UK European community design, trademarks and registered names is all we have. You can't patent a game per se but non gaming elements of the product can be patented, so say you use a particular mechanism that is used in the game but not the actual game itself. You guys have it easy in the US. Perhaps that why us Brits try harder, we have to
Controversial sometimes, brutally honest..Always
September 20th, 2013 at 11:56:37 AM
permalink
Has there been anymore progress with Bilski? I talked with one examiner who said he was against granting any patent on games. Even if one came up with backgammon or Monopoly, he saw this as only a mental exercise. Any ideas on plan of attack to get pass this hurdle?
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
September 22nd, 2013 at 9:52:22 PM
permalink
Quote: AceCrAAckersHas there been anymore progress with Bilski? I talked with one examiner who said he was against granting any patent on games. Even if one came up with backgammon or Monopoly, he saw this as only a mental exercise. Any ideas on plan of attack to get pass this hurdle?
I'm pretty sure I know who the examiner you are referring to is. Most other examiners aren't as negative regarding this kind of subject matter. The problem has gotten much more complicated because of how the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit operates. The CAFC is the high court (but for the Supreme Court who created this mess in their ambiguous Bilski decision) that (in theory) should clarify these issues. The CAFC has 17 judges, about half believe in patenting a broad scope of subject matter and the other half thinks things like business methods, software, human steps should not be patented. Each CAFC case is decided by a random panel of 3 judges. So for the past number of years, the decisions regarding section 101 are incredibly inconsistent as it simply depends on which random panel of judges a case gets assigned to. Talk about blind justice. So there is no clarity and thus the USPTO has no clear guidance. Even the chief justice of the CAFC thinks patents should be granted on a broad range of subject matter (which I assume would include card games) and he commonly criticizes the other judges for not applying the law.
I plan on appealing a gaming case all the way up but it will take some time.
September 22nd, 2013 at 10:00:32 PM
permalink
Is it even worth appealing when the Examiner will not let anything get by the 101 rejection? His answer for everything is that a game is merely a mental exercise. I disagree because one cannot play chess without a board and pieces but I have not been able to get by this Examiner with this argument.
What does one do with a patent application that is in the pipeline before the courts give the final decision?
What does one do with a patent application that is in the pipeline before the courts give the final decision?
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
September 24th, 2013 at 8:23:33 AM
permalink
I would suggest contacting the Examiner's supervisor to confirm that the art unit is calling all games unpatentable under 101.
The vanity license plate that is a patent is all well and good, but if you have a novel game, you can still copyright the thing.
The vanity license plate that is a patent is all well and good, but if you have a novel game, you can still copyright the thing.
November 25th, 2013 at 5:52:48 AM
permalink
.....
November 25th, 2013 at 8:28:05 AM
permalink
Quote: vegas702so are new dice games patentable at all? for instance, a new twist on the whole game of craps. doesn't sound like it
vegas702,
I am totally a newbie to the patent field with my game; it's a tortuous path. I strongly recommend you consult a patent attorney; there are 2 good ones on here: RNewman (Rich), and jon (Jon Muskin). Having said that, discussion on this issue is that you have a better chance of getting a patent approved if you include electronic/mobile app uses in your table game filing, as it extends the applicable fields.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
November 25th, 2013 at 2:21:05 PM
permalink
.....
November 25th, 2013 at 9:48:24 PM
permalink
Quote: vegas702thx for the reply. I did talk to an attorney today but he wasn't very knowledgeable about what's patentable. basically said I should apply for a patent and see what the patent office says. sheesh
I'd love to contact the attorneys here but funds are tight now. I really need to scrape up some money & get this thing going
the attorney did say to only disclose my idea to someone after a non-disclosure is signed. I'd love to take mission146 up on his offer since my math isn't up to par, but I guess I'm stuck. [in no way am I questioning mission146's integrity, so I hope no one takes offense. it's driving me crazy not being able to get any input tho
guess I gotta put this on hold indefinitely. damn
Hey Vegas702,
If your patent attorney doesn't know whats patenatable than hes probably not the right guy. They get paid whether or not you get it, even more if you keep trying!
There are cheaper ways to do it, if the design is specific than you can copy write or trade mark the designs for a fraction of the price especially if you do it yourself.
Non-disclosures (NDA's) don't really protect you so much against the big guys but should work well with people on this forum.
If your not going to do it share it, at least give hints!...maybe you will find someone on here that wants to partner with you.
Best of luck!
April 3rd, 2014 at 9:50:50 AM
permalink
I have a follow-up question to that posed by NewToCraps on June 13th last year. If there is such trouble getting a game patented nowadays, how does one protect his game before shopping it to a casino or one of the major game distributors? What action do you take to prevent theft of your game if patent law is not an option?
Also, in general, even if you're pessimistic about the final patent, is applying for a provisional patent enough to start showing your game to DEQ or Galaxy or a casino?
Also, in general, even if you're pessimistic about the final patent, is applying for a provisional patent enough to start showing your game to DEQ or Galaxy or a casino?
