DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Amendment received on 09/15/2025. Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 (and its dependencies) states on line 17-18 that there is “a gaming device” however, there is no recitation of a gaming device prior to line 12. It is unclear as to how “a gaming device” would be encompassed into a “A payment device”. Further clarification is required to properly examine the claim, and no patentable weight will be given to the limitation of: said payment card reader is not part of a gaming device.
Further, regarding claim 12, the same arguments are provided for “a gaming device” of line 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 12, 15-17, 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Lam et al. 2011/0319169
Regarding claim 1, Lam discloses a payment device (the game interface system 320 with virtual currency on client system 210/330) [FIG 2A-3] comprising: a processor (hardware system 500 with processor 502) [¶59]; and an output device (“An operating system manages and controls the operation of hardware system 500, including the input and output of data to and from software application” [¶62]) operable to provide payment data (payment to purchase for the game) to a payment card reader[¶ 12-16], wherein said payment data is usable to authorize a payment transaction and said game play action data (in game asset) is usable to impact game play in a video game [¶15] [¶17-32] [¶12-14]
Regarding claim 4, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lam further discloses output device is an IC chip (on chip with processor 502) [¶61].
Regarding claim 5, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lam further discloses a plurality of buttons (the buttons on the screen of payment device such as #220, #230, #240, #250) [¶42,44] [FIG 2A].
Regarding claim 6, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lam further discloses a plurality of buttons (the buttons on the screen of payment device such as #220, #230, #240, #250), wherein at least one of said plurality of buttons is associated with said game play action data (section on “Harvest Mechanic”) [¶17-32] [¶42,44] [FIG 1-2A].
Regarding claim 7, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lam further discloses a plurality of buttons (the buttons on the screen of payment device such as #220, #230, #240, #250) and a display (game display interface 170) [¶2] [¶33-34].
Regarding claim 10, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lam further discloses said payment device is a mobile telephonic device (#210 client system, FIG 2A) [abstract] [¶39-46].
Regarding claim 12, Lam discloses a payment device (the game interface system 320 with virtual currency on client system 210/330) [FIG 2A-3] comprising: a processor (hardware system 500 with processor 502) [¶59]; and an output device (“An operating system manages and controls the operation of hardware system 500, including the input and output of data to and from software application” [¶62]) and game currency award data to an in-store (of the mobile device, the store being that of the game where you make the purchase for a said item or reward) payment card reader (“…where the legal currency is transferred using a credit/debit/charge card transaction conveyed over a financial network.” [¶14]
Regarding claim 15, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Lam further discloses output device is an IC chip (on chip with processor 502) [¶61].
Regarding claim 16, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Lam further discloses plurality of buttons, (the buttons on the screen of payment device such as #220, #230, #240, #250), wherein at least one of said plurality of buttons is associated with said game currency award data [Fig 2A].
Regarding claim 17, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Lam further discloses a plurality of buttons (the buttons on the screen of payment device such as #220, #230, #240, #250) and a display (game display interface 170) [¶2] [¶33-34].
Regarding claim 19, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Lam further discloses said payment device is a mobile telephonic device [(#210 client system, FIG 2A) [abstract] [¶39-46].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3, 8, 11, 13-14, 20-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lam et al. 2011/0319169 in view of Stockdale et al. 2010/0304819.
Regarding claim 2, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lam fails to disclose an RF based communication device. Stockdale discloses an RF-based communication device [89] [FIG 3D]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lam in view of Stockdale as it is well known in the art for payment systems to be RF based for their increased efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lam fails to disclose a dynamic magnetic stripe communications device. Stockdale discloses a dynamic magnetic stripe communications device (magnetic stripe 901) [¶77]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lam in view of Stockdale as Stockdale discloses, “Advantages of using a magnetic striped cards are that they are portable (generally, credit card size) and inexpensive” [¶40]
Regarding claim 8, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lam fails to disclose a plurality of displays. Stockdale discloses a plurality of displays (display 904a, 904b) [¶79] ]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lam in view of Stockdale as Stockdale’s system would allow for more data to be displayed at the same time, thus a more efficient means of communication with the user.
Regarding claim 11, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lam fails to disclose a payment device is a payment card (Lam does disclose that the system uses a payment card to make the purchases virtually). Stockdale discloses a payment card (902a, 902b It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lam in view of Stockdale as it is well known in the art for payment devices to be payment cards, particularly as it is well known in the art that mobile devices can emulate the data of payment cards.
Regarding claim 13, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Lam fails to disclose an RF based communication device. Stockdale discloses an RF-based communication device [89] [FIG 3D]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lam in view of Stockdale as it is well known in the art for payment systems to be RF based for their increased efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Lam fails to disclose a dynamic magnetic stripe communications device. Stockdale discloses a dynamic magnetic stripe communications device (magnetic stripe 901) [¶77]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lam in view of Stockdale as Stockdale discloses, “Advantages of using a magnetic striped cards are that they are portable (generally, credit card size) and inexpensive” [¶40].
Regarding claim 20, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Lam fails to disclose a payment device is a payment card (Lam does disclose that the system uses a payment card to make the purchases virtually). Stockdale discloses a payment card (902a, 902b) [FIG 3A-3D]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lam in view of Stockdale as it is well known in the art for payment devices to be payment cards, particularly as it is well known in the art that mobile devices can emulate the data of payment cards.
Regarding claim 21, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Lam fails to disclose comprising a first and a second button, wherein said game action data is associated with said first button via a wireless communication. Stockdale discloses a first and a second button, wherein said game action data is associated with said first button via a wireless communication. Stockdale discloses a first and a second button (e.g. input buttons 905) [FIG 3B], wherein said game action data (“In the interrogation mode, gaming information stored on the card may be passed to the remote device and possibly updated. Gaming information may include but is not limited to 1) account information, such as player tracking account information, credit account information or banking account information, 2) personal information, such as name, 3) gaming preference information, such as preferred games, 4) credit information, such as information that allows a record of a credit amount associated with a cashless system to be transferred to the gaming machine.”; para [¶8, ¶78-0079, ¶104]) is associated with said first button via a wireless communication (e.g. the card is a contactless card, RFID communication 907) [FIG 3D] [¶78-0079].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lam in view of Stockdale as it is well known in the art for payment systems to be RF based for their increased efficiency.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lam et al. 2011/0319169 in view of Walker 2010/0113161.
Regarding claim 9, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. While Lam discloses a client system 210/330, which may be a mobile device [¶39-46], Lam a is silent on whether the mobile device discloses a light sensor. Walker discloses a remote gaming device 102, with a handheld payment device 106 (#106 may be cell phone, laptop, portable device) [¶16], in which 106 has a barcode reader (which inherently detects reflected light, thus having a light sensor) [FIG 1] [¶56] [¶16]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lam in view of Walker as allows for a device that allows for greater communication and facilitate game play virtually [78].
Regarding claim 18, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. While Lam discloses a client system 210/330, which may be a mobile device [¶39-46], Lam a is silent on whether the mobile device discloses a light sensor. Walker discloses a remote gaming device 102, with a handheld payment device 106 (#106 may be cell phone, laptop, portable device) [¶16], in which 106 has a barcode reader (which inherently detects reflected light, thus having a light sensor) [FIG 1] [¶56] [¶16]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lam in view of Walker as allows for a device that allows for greater communication and facilitate game play virtually [78].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered, however are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant alleges on page 7 of the Remarks dating 09/15/2025, “Read in light of the specification, “payment card reader” is a physical card-accepting device (e.g., magnetic-stripe reader, EMV/IC chip reader, or RFID/contactless reader) of the type used at merchant points of sale, not a remote server or generic financial network. See, e.g., dynamic magnetic-— stripe communications to a read-head of a magnetic stripe reader ([0005], [0026]); electromagnetic field generators 170/180/185 transmitting track data serially to a read-head housing of a magnetic-stripe reader and read-head detectors 171/172 that sense the reader’s presence ([0026]);” However, there are no structural limitations in claim 1 or claim 12 that would preclude a remote server to read upon the current claims. Further Applicant alleges on page 7, “explicit “in-store payment” through a payment card reader and point of sale routing with later settlement/chargeback effects...” however, “in-store” with NO structural limitation does not have as narrow of a scope as the Applicant claims. What is “in store?” Virtual stores would also be “in-store” of the virtual world. Thus, further clarification is required. Claims 1-21 thus stand rejected. Stockdale and Walker are introduced to teach the deficiencies of Lam for the dependent claims.
Further, the Applicant has amended claim 1, however now poses new 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections, please see above for citations. The Examiner has provided a new 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection for claims 1-21, see above for citations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASIFA HABIB whose telephone number is (571)270-7032. The examiner can normally be reached 10-4:30pm.
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, Steve Paik can be reached on 571-272-2404. 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.
/ASIFA HABIB/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/STEVEN S PAIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876