DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 8/1/25. Claims 1 – 3, 7 – 15, 17, and 18 are pending in the current application.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 3, 7 – 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich et al. (U.S. 2009/0061999) in view of Walker et al. (U.S. 2003/0228901) and in further view of Heaton et al. (U.S. 8,734,226).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 18, Popovich discloses a program for causing a computer to perform a game by using a game element, (fig. 7), wherein the program causing the computer to perform display processing wherein a player may be granted a reward if said player plays at least a second battle consecutively after a first battle after a win or loss of the first battle is determined, (“the regulated game may further include a second reward table associated with the second reward generating assets, the second reward table including a second reward multiplier probability distribution and a corresponding range of second reward multipliers, the second reward generating assets being configured such that, upon successful player interaction therewith, the second random number may be used as a second index into the second reward multiplier probability distribution to obtain a corresponding second reward multiplier within the range of second reward multiplier”, par. 0021).
Popovich, however, is silent on the issue of disclosing reward information on a display. In related art, Walker discloses a program for causing a computer to perform a game by using a game element, (“The data storage device 204 stores a program 206 for controlling the processor 200. The processor 200 performs instructions of the program 206, and thereby operates in accordance with the present invention”, par. 0073 and fig. 5), wherein Walker further discloses displaying reward information indicating that there is a possibility that a reward is granted if a player at least plays a second game consecutively after a first game after an outcome of the first game is determined, (fig. 4, part 400), however, both Popovich and Walker are silent upon disclosing reward and probability information on a display. In a related art, Heaton discloses a program for causing a computer to perform a game by using a game element, (fig. 1), wherein Heaton further discloses displaying reward information with a given probability on a display, (“the game and wagering assistant system may provide probability information, statistics, or mathematical progression wagering analysis for a particular game or wagering event. For example, this information may be used to determine game play and wagers during the course of a series of rounds of a particular casino game in order to minimize the casino advantage, minimize player losses, or maximize "comps" (complimentary goods or services given by the casino to a player). The user may access this information on a screen of the game and wagering assistant system”, col. 2, lines 28 – 38), and the given probability is variable probability, (fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine displayed reward of Walker into the art disclosed by Popovich in order to alleviate player disappointment, as disclosed by Walker, (par. 0009), and to provide systems and methods for providing advice or information in playing or wagering decisions for electronic, on-line, or table casino games, traditional games, and wagering events, as disclosed by Heaton, (col. 1, lines 46 – 49).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Popovich discloses wherein in the display processing, the reward information is displayed on a condition that the first battle is won or lost, (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Popovich discloses wherein the variable probability varies in accordance with at least one of the number of players who have logged therein when the player logs in; the number of battles played by the player; the number of wins or losses of the battles played by the player; and a level of the player or a class to which the player belongs, (fig. 1, “player skill”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Popovich discloses wherein the reward information is displayed in the display processing after determination of a win or loss of a first battle, which is played after the player initially logs in within a predetermined time period, (“the second reward due may be a product of the second reward multiplier and a second collision wager that may be dependent upon the time elapsed”, par. 0021).
Regarding claims 10 - 14, Popovich discloses wherein the reward information includes information of a condition for granting the reward, (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Popovich discloses wherein the second battle is a battle played by the player consecutively after the first battle without logging out from the game, (fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 8/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that “the applied art including Popovich, Walker, and Heaton fails to teach or suggest the reward information is displayed with a given probability on a display”. More specifically, it is argued that the Heaton reference fails to disclose the claim limitation of “the reward information is displayed with a given probability”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Heaton discloses a displaying reward information on display by teaching that “the D'Alembert progression diagram 410 of display screen 400 illustrates probability information for a roulette wheel (double zero version with 38 pockets). Players may bet on numbers 1-36, where half the numbers are red, and the other half are black. For example, if one wagers on red or black, there are 18 ways (one-half of 36, since half are red and half are black) out of 38 ways (numbers 1-36, plus zero and double zero) to win the wager”, (col 7, lines 5 – 14), this is viewed by the Examiner as displaying reward information with a given probability. Furthermore, on the bottom of fig. 4, Heaton discloses an example reward, (win $5), with its given probability (P=47.37), which is viewed by the Examiner as being equivalent the claim limitation of reward information being displayed with a given probability. The Applicants are encouraged to contact the Examiner in order to further prosecution. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the cited art references render the present invention obvious as claimed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715