Help Patent Help PLEASSE

I was just going to leave patent out of the title, but obeying Mike's request. Long story short. A decade ago I helped an inventor demonstrate a game at Blacklhawk. Even sent emails about which casino's were treating the game fairly, players attitudes, etc. Would request they open that table up for me whenever I was there to gamble.
Today, out of the blue, I get a phone call. That person in now the head of a major gaming entity. Seems I had requested access on the website for par sheets, trials, etc. ( you never know ) I had given my name and title ( Inventor lol ). At a board meeting ,the web page designer remarked about a fool name BUZZ trying to get access.
No I did not get access but the head person called and asked how was doing with my inventions. Suggested I get protected and then send them for review. Seems before the ideas can be submitted to full board for license, he needs to be at least able to say they are patent pending.

Now for the HELP plea. have no reason to doubt that person, but this is what I was also told.
USPTO will no longer patent a method of play ? You must have apparatus ? Plus I could save money by putting all 3 games in the body of a single PPA, and draw each one out for a full patent when needed within that year time frame ??

Always reluctant to ask the experts here, as this is how you make your living. But will accept any and all opinions GRATEFULLY !

I have a feeling it might be too late, but call Rich Newman.

He's who I used for Poker For Roulette.

Now that I've read your post a second (and third) time....

I repeat that it may be too late.


Yeah, methods are out, you need an apparatus. I don't recall how he said he was getting around that for my idea, but talk to Rich.

A PPA (Provisional Patent Application) gives you limited protection, allowing you to talk about the idea, and up to one year to file for the full utility patent. However, since the idea is already out there, there may be no point to the PPA. Again, talk to Rich about it.

Personally, I think the idea of combining several games into one patent is a bad idea. It causes the patent wordig to become combersome, and therefore more likely to have holes which can be a problem in the future. Rich can address that as well.


Bottom line, call Rich.

Yes.

Three Words:

Call Rich Newman.

I should point out that Rich Newman is a patent attorney, based in Las Vegas, specializing in gaming patents.

So let me say it again. Call Rich Newman.

Hi. Inventor here, with several patents.

I am not sure of what is the situation you describe nor am I sure of what you are asking.

Sounds like the "board" will not review unprotected ideas, which may or may not be a wise move on their part. Probably, the "board" is afraid to be bound by NDAs (non-disclosure agreements), so they require that the inventor have some other sort of protection before they agree to review outside ideas.

These days, the small inventor has to bear a prohibitive burden, due to increasing corporate paranoia and due to changes in USPTO requirements/procedures over the past three decades that favor big companies.

It used to be that an inventor could merely claim that their invention was "patent pending," and that was enough to satisfy most manufacturers and enough to make the corporations hesitant to steal from the independent inventor. Nowadays, anyone can review your patent application on the web. It is very likely that the manufacturers who require "patent pending" status will search for your patent application immediately after your first contact with them.

I am ignorant of whether or not the USPTO will patent a "method" of play, but an "apparatus" can be patent drawings, with descriptions and claims. If your idea is a card game (or a new bet for a table game), a felt (or a labeled area on felt) would probably qualify as an "apparatus," especially in a design patent.

I am not in favor of a lot of recent moves by the USPTO and the organization has been getting somewhat erratic in the last decade. However, I would generally support a decision not to patent "methods." I also oppose granting patents to software.

By the way, I do understand some of the challenges of a game inventor. I created a casino game a long time ago. I pounded the pavement and met with several game manufacturers. Some of them were nice; some of them were paranoid and crazy; and some of them were lousy. One of the companies that reviewed my idea and signed an NDA has released two relatively successful variations of my game, for which I have received no compensation.

Judging from all of the recommendations, Rich Newman seems like a great guy. Wish that I had someone like him on my side, back in the day.

Thanks for all the great advice. I am sure Rich is a great guy. 2 years ago I used a great guy, Mark I forget last name, not goona look in correspondence right now, he is Roger Snow's patent attorney. Had given him $1,000 retainer and he did some preliminary work for me. Quoted about $5,000 total to get patent issued. Then my adult daughter started hearing voices, Schizo-effective) wife's diabetes went to stage 2, lost my job and only had SS income. Asked Mark to put on hold. He sent me a check back for $500 without my asking for anything but to put things on hold.

Don't get me wrong. I am a rich man, just don't have any money. Lol Got beautiful wife, 3 daughters, 8 grand daughters, 1 grandson. Am 71, never taken a pill in my life, not even aspirin. Am gonna try PPA pro-se, have 2 NOLO books and keeping fingers crossed.

Appreciate all the advice, have great respect for most forum members. I will spend the money to put 4 game ideas an/or enhancements
on separate PPAs.

THANKS for all the input !

Hey I might be able to hire an attorney after all. Just bought a book at a moving sale. Spin roulette gold.

No, I am not dumb enough to think a 25 cent book will work, But inside is an advertisent for only $295 and Lawrence Scott will teach me to track short term wheel bias and I can win 25 to 40% WOW !!!

I know I klnow Just can't sleep tonight !!!!

Um, yeah. Good luck with that.

yeah you win 25 - 40 % and lose 60-75%

" yeah you win 25 - 40 % and lose 60-75% "

But John Patrick says I can still win if I chart the tables and dealers first !

You could try the Relativity method first propposed by Albert Einstein: steal chips when the dealer isn't looking.

Actually I think you mean Guido Einstein Gumba

Quote: buzzpaff

Actually I think you mean Guido Einstein Gumba

Maybe Bugsy Einstein Siegel ;P

But I hear he favored the quantum mechanics method: all numbers hit and payoff as long as the ball doesn't land on the wheel. Of course this requries collusion with the dealer...

All Bugsy got for upgrading Vegas was a few lousy, but well aimed, bullets.

Quote: buzzpaff

2 years ago I used a great guy, Mark I forget last name

Am gonna try PPA pro-se, have 2 NOLO books and keeping fingers crossed.

Appreciate all the advice, have great respect for most forum members. I will spend the money to put 4 game ideas an/or enhancements
on separate PPAs.

THANKS for all the input !

Thanks for the kind words - much appreciated!

Hi Buzz - Mark Litman is the attorney your thinking of. Great guy and a talented patent attorney. He was Shuffle Master's outside patent counsel for many years and he is still in private practice.

If you don't mind I'll put my 2 cents in and try to answer your questions.

Currently patent claims to gaming methods involving decks of conventional playing cards are being rejected as non-patentable subject matter unless they incorporate some kind of hardware. This is coming from an art unit in the patent office that is not applying the law but has essentially decided on their own what constitutes patentable subject matter without caselaw, legislation or any legal authority directly supporting their position. The rejections themselves are largely devoid of actual reasoning as support. They almost literally state something along the lines of the claims are not directed to a machine or transformation and although that's not the only test, they have considered various other factors, all of which favor a finding that the claims to the gaming method are attempting to cover something abstract which is non patentable subject matter. And that's it. There is no discussion of these other factors what was considered. A conclusory legal rejection without support in law and fact is flawed, regardless of what anyone might think about the patentability of gaming methods. A recent patent appeals board decision agreed and reversed one of those same unsupported rejections. So I don't think their position will stay this way forever. However, until things begin to change, I've been delaying the full prosecution - without doing anything that would jeopardize any rights of course - or getting patents issued with claims to gaming methods as they would be performed by hardware, such as a online through a computer, computer readable media, egm, multiplayer platform, player kiosk, mobile device, etc., which are all still worthwhile to get coverage on, but it would be hard to argue that they also cover a live table game version of the same game. I believe filing a provisional application is an excellent method for delaying a year without losing any rights, provided that the provisional discloses the gaming method well enough.

With regard to provisionals, combining more than one invention into one provisional application to save money is generally fine. The primary drawback I think of by doing this is that if you end up pursuing only one of the inventions disclosed in the provisional, the others are effectively publicly disclosed once your non-provisional application is published because the full provisional is available to the public. In other words, the other inventions would become part of the public domain if not eventually covered by the claims of a subsequent patent claiming priority to the provisional. This is probably more a theoretical issue than an actual one because there are ways to avoid it, namely by filing a continuation. You can also redact portions if you want to disclose one of the inventions to a potential licensee or investor but not the others. Go ahead and combine if you'd like. Just make sure you describe the invention in a way that someone skilled in the relevant area would be able to make or use it. Also, given the current status as mentioned above, I recommend including various hardware included embodiments of any gaming method.

Hope the above helps. Best of luck!

Quote: RichN

Currently patent claims to gaming methods involving decks of conventional playing cards are being rejected as non-patentable subject matter unless they incorporate some kind of hardware. This is coming from an art unit in the patent office that is not applying the law but has essentially decided on their own what constitutes patentable subject matter without caselaw, legislation or any legal authority directly supporting their position. The rejections themselves are largely devoid of actual reasoning as support.

Well said, Rich.

As hard as I've tried, I cannot understand this position the USPTO has taken and can only conclude that it's bureaucracy run amok!