101 patent ruling

Just curious if anyone on these boards is running into some issues with getting patents allowed based on the 101 issue. It may be more of a video poker problem or a table game issue, but the ruling is basically saying these types of games are unpatentable because the are considered abstract ideas. I have 3-4 games that are only dealing with 101 and that is the only thing stopping them from being an issued patent. I also check for newly granted patents each week at the patent office website and it is becoming rare to see a new game. What has been everyone else's experience?

Quote: RealizeGaming

Just curious if anyone on these boards is running into some issues with getting patents allowed based on the 101 issue. It may be more of a video poker problem or a table game issue, but the ruling is basically saying these types of games are unpatentable because the are considered abstract ideas. I have 3-4 games that are only dealing with 101 and that is the only thing stopping them from being an issued patent. I also check for newly granted patents each week at the patent office website and it is becoming rare to see a new game. What has been everyone else's experience?

I think you were thinking about the software patent or process that relies on computer processing. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank International makes it difficult to patent software. I highly suggest you search the internet using keywords “software patents Alice 101” or similar keywords for more info. There shouldn’t be anything new to worry if your table game does not involve computer or software.

Read Alice and then Mayo for a discussion of what's abstract. He's not talking about the software/"do it on a computer" part, he's talking about overcoming the abstract hurdle in the first place.

Quote: Alice v CLS Bank re: section 101, 573 U. S. ____ (2014) at 5

“We have long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 11, emphasis mine)

Quote: MathExtremist

Read Alice and then Mayo for a discussion of what's abstract. He's not talking about the software/"do it on a computer" part, he's talking about overcoming the abstract hurdle in the first place.

Quote: Alice v CLS Bank re: section 101, 573 U. S. ____ (2014) at 5

�We have long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.� Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 11, emphasis mine)

Correct. According to the USPTO video poker games are not patentable due to being abstract.