DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-17, 19-21 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 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) [¶ 12-16] and game play action data (game actions) [¶14-16] [¶17-32] [¶12-14] to a payment card reader [¶14], 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.
Lam fail to explicitly disclose said output device is selected from the group consisting of a dynamic magnetic stripe communication device or RF based communication device, and an exposed IC chip. Stockdale discloses an RF based communication device [41-42] [089] [FIG 3D]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lam in view of Stockdale as it is well known in the art to use RFID systems for card communication.
Regarding claim 5, Lam view of Stockdale 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 view of Stockdale 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 view of Stockdale 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 8, Lam in view of Stockdale 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 10, Lam in view of Stockdale 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 11, Lam in view of Stockdale 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 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], wherein said output device is operable to provide payment data (payment to purchase for the game) [¶ 12-16] 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], said payment data is usable to authorize a payment transaction, and said game currency award data is usable to provide virtual currency in a virtual environment of a video game [¶14-16] [¶17-32] [¶12-14].
Lam fail to explicitly disclose said output device is selected from the group consisting of a dynamic magnetic stripe communication device or RF based communication device, and an exposed IC chip. Stockdale discloses an RF based communication device [41-42] [089] [FIG 3D]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lam in view of Stockdale as it is well known in the art to use RFID systems for card communication.
Regarding claim 13, Lam in view of Stockdale 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 in view of Stockdale 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 15, Lam in view of Stockdale 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 in view of Stockdale 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 in view of Stockdale 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 in view of Stockdale 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].
Regarding claim 20, Lam in view of Stockdale 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 in view of Stockdale 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 Stockdale et al. 2010/0304819, as applied to claims 1, 5-8, 10-17, 19-21 above, and in further view of Walker 2010/0113161.
Regarding claim 9, Lam in view of Stockdale 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 and Stockdale 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 and Stockdale 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 and Stockdale 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 and Stockdale 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 1-21Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, on page 3-4 of Remarks,” In the current case, the prior art cited, Lam, is not from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, payment systems, because the primary focus of Law is directed at computer-implemented online games playable on mobile devices. Further, Lam is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor as reflected in the Specification, linking a game play action to a payment data through a point-of-sale reader.” In response to applicant's argument that Lam is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Lam is indeed in the same field of endeavor, virtual game play with payment means. Thus, the Examiner does not field the argument persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that on page 4, “In the current case, the combination of Lam and Stockdale would render Lam inoperable, because the apparatus of Lam is directed at webpage-based game interfaces not physical payment systems.” the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Third, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
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
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights