DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to the amendment dated 11/18/2025, for which the amendment and corresponding arguments filed on the same date have been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application, with claims 1 and 11 being independent. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 21-26 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the objection for minor informalities of claim 1 made in the Non-Final Rejection dated 9/23/2025, applicant’s argument filed 11/18/2025 has been fully considered and is persuasive. This objection is withdrawn.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/18/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 11,620,877 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Regarding the teachings of Thirumaleshwar, applicant states on pg. 12 that Thirumaleshwar does not appear to disclose how the output of the sensor might be used in the game, which is described in Thirumaleshwar, let alone in the manner claimed in claim 1. Applicant states the Applicant thus asserts that Thirumaleshwar never discloses any process for using a sensor to collect information about a participant of an already started game via a sensor and using that collected information to determine if the participant (e.g. the person providing skill-based inputs which are detected by a second sensor) is the person who first identified themselves as the player of the game. Applicant also states that the Examiner points to Thirumaleshwar at [0114] as disclosing that a user might perform a login to a gaming device, stating player tracking systems which allow a player to identify themselves at a gaming machine (such as for tracking their game play and providing them loyalty rewards) are known.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in the cited [0109], the one sensor 1060 includes sensors used for detecting the identity of various persons (e.g., players), the players being players of a gaming system that refers to one or more central servers or remote hosts, as taught in [0070] cited earlier in the rejection, indicating how the sensor is used in the game for receiving, at a game server, via at least one first sensor, information captured regarding a participant in said game, as required by the claim. Examiner respectfully asserts that [0114], cited by Applicant was not used to teach or address the argued limitation.
Applicant also states on page 13 that “The recited rationale for combining Esses that the Examiner asserts supports combination into Thirumaleshwar has nothing to do with the purpose of the present invention, and is in fact entirely opposite the purpose thereof (the purposes of the claimed invention is not to make the game more exciting to the player, but to ensure the integrity of the skill-based event to the operator). Thus, as admitted by the Examiner, one or ordinary skill who was looking to solve the problem that the invention solves would not look to Esses because Esses discloses use of certain features for entirely different purposes than the problems which the present invention is directed at solving”. In other words, the applicant’s argument is that Esses cannot be used in combination with the Thirumaleshwar reference to make a 103 rejection, because the Thirumaleshwar reference is not used for the same purpose as that of the applicant’s invention and thus would not solve the same problem.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Esses cannot be used in combination with Thirumaleshwar and would not solve the same problem because the Esses reference is not used for the same purpose as that of the applicant’s invention, specifically, because the purposes of the claimed invention is not to make the game more exciting to the player, but to ensure the integrity of the skill-based event to the operator, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Esses, in particular, teaches the limitation “receiving, at said game server from one or more second sensors, information regarding said player's performance in said at least one event based upon at least one skill-input by said player”. As explained in the cited [0033], at output 200, a player picks his or her skill level, for example the player picks hard (e.g., by touching the screen (touch input includes sensor input)), and in addition, as explained in the cited [0055] at a casino server, the game can also be served to a remote client playing. As explained in the cited [0036] and [0037], the player guesses which container he or she thinks the object is in by selecting on the touch screen, subsequent to which, as output, the container wherein the diamond is actually in is revealed (player’s performance in event). Therefore, since recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention did not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the prior art structure of Esses is capable of performing the intended use and it meets the claim.
Applicant also states on pg. 15 that Luciano does not disclose or suggest generating a wager offer to a player in the middle of a skill-based game event (e.g. after a first skill input by said player to said game), let alone the generation of such a wager offer at that point in the event where the offer has a payout which is based upon the skill-level of the player and a difficultly of obtaining a winning outcome in relation to the status of the game after that first skill-based input.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in the cited [0040], difficult targets may offer a higher probability of winning the jackpot, a higher prize value, a higher overall prize return percentage to players and different wager amounts for play, which occurs subsequent to a game in which golf balls are aimed at a group of targets (concentric rings of FIG. 3A), where, upon successfully hitting a target, a computerized game is initiated which has various prize levels, indicating that Luciano discloses generating a wager offer to a player in the middle of a skill-based game event after a first skill input by said player to game and thus generating a wager offer where the offer has a payout based upon the skill-level of the player and a difficultly of obtaining a winning outcome in relation to the status of the game after the skill-based input.
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 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luciano, et al (US PG Publication 2016/0358425), hereafter Luciano.
Regarding claim 11, Luciano teaches
a method of presenting a wagering skill-based game to a player, said game having an outcome which is determined primarily by a skill-input of said player relative to an event which requires at least two skill-inputs by said player, comprising the steps of:
receiving at a game server, information regarding a status of said event after a first of said skill-inputs by said player
([0040] Another embodiment of the invention combines a skill element with a game of chance in a gambling game. One example is a game in which golf balls are aimed at a group of targets (e.g. concentric rings as in FIG. 3A). Upon successfully hitting a target, a computerized game is initiated which has various prize levels
[0070] A score and randomized prize are determined on central computer 140 for each ball landing in a target 115
(A determination is made by a central computer (server) of whether a player aiming golf balls at targets a during a game and successfully hitting the target, based on skill of player));
generating, by said game server, a wager offer to said player, said wager offer having a payout which is based upon a skill-level of said player and a difficulty level of achieving a winning outcome of said event after said first of said skill-inputs by said player based upon said information regarding said status
([0040] Another embodiment of the invention combines a skill element with a game of chance in a gambling game. The skill element may be used to increase or modify the probability of winning prizes in the game of chance. One example is a game in which golf balls are aimed at a group of targets (e.g. concentric rings as in FIG. 3A). Upon successfully hitting a target, a computerized game is initiated which has various prize levels. More difficult targets may offer a higher probability of winning the jackpot, a higher prize value, a higher overall prize return percentage to players and different wager amounts for play
(After successfully hitting a target with a golf ball (status of golf ball location), a determination is made to offer different wager amounts for play (wager offer), the wager amount for play associated with a prize (payout) that is based on player skill for hitting targets with the golf ball (skill level), where the probability of winning and the more difficult targets (difficulty level of winning) offer higher prize values));
receiving, at said game server, a wager from said player relative to said wager offer
([0077] The player may be prompted to set the wager(s) level at which they wish to participate);
receiving, at said game server, from one or more sensors, information regarding said player's performance in said event based upon at least one second skill-input by said player
([0040] Upon successfully hitting a target, a computerized game is initiated which has various prize levels
[0058] The system can also confirm the time that the golf ball has been hit, and further, determine the direction and speed of the ball as well as where it has landed
[0059] A way of accomplishing this is to position two optical sensor frames 300a-b in front of the area where the golf ball is to be struck as illustrated in FIG. 6
(A determination is made with sensors of information regarding where golf ball went when player struck ball (skill in striking golf ball)
and whether player performance indicated player was successful));
determining, via said game server, an outcome of said wager offer based upon said player's performance
([0040] Upon successfully hitting a target, a computerized game is initiated which has various prize levels. More difficult targets may offer different wager amounts for play
(A determination is made outcome was player successfully hit target and wager offer based on the player performance indicating player was successful)); and
awarding said payout to said player when said outcome is a winning outcome
([0040] Upon successfully hitting a target, a computerized game is initiated which has various prize levels
[0041] The game is modified so that a different prize structure is available to the player, depending on which target area is hit. For example, the prize structure may be as follows: [0042] Target 1—Top prize $10,000).
Regarding claim 12, Luciano teaches the method in accordance with claim 11,
wherein said event comprises a golf event utilizing a golf ball relative to a golf course
([0040] A game in which golf balls are aimed at a group of targets (e.g. concentric rings as in FIG. 3A)).
Regarding claim 13, Luciano teaches the method in accordance with claim 12,
wherein said first of said skill-inputs comprises a first hit of said golf ball and said information regarding a status of said event comprises information regarding a location of a golf ball relative to said golf course after said first hit
([0058] The system can also confirm the time that the golf ball has been hit, and further, determine the direction and speed of the ball as well as where it has landed
[0059] A way of accomplishing this is to position two optical sensor frames 300a-b in front of the area where the golf ball is to be struck as illustrated in FIG. 6
(A determination is made with sensors of information regarding where golf ball went when player struck ball (skill in striking golf ball) and where golf ball landed (status of golf ball location))).
Regarding claim 14, Luciano teaches the method in accordance with claim 11,
wherein said step of receiving comprises receiving said information from one or more sensors
([0058] The system can also confirm the time that the golf ball has been hit, and further, determine the direction and speed of the ball as well as where it has landed
[0059] A way of accomplishing this is to position two optical sensor frames 300a-b in front of the area where the golf ball is to be struck as illustrated in FIG. 6
(Information received from sensors regarding where golf ball went when player struck ball (skill in striking golf ball) and where golf ball landed)).
Regarding claim 15, Luciano teaches the method in accordance with claim 14,
wherein said one or more sensors comprise at least one of:
an RFID sensor
([0019] An RFID (or other electronic ID) enabled golf balls that are hit from a hitting bay 125 onto a target range 105),
a GPS,
a radar,
a LIDAR, and
an image capture device.
Regarding claim 19, Luciano teaches the method in accordance with claim 11,
further comprising the step of determining said difficulty level of achieving a winning outcome of said event based upon said information regarding said status of said event
([0040] More difficult targets may offer a higher probability of winning the jackpot, a higher prize value, a higher overall prize return percentage to players and/or different wager amounts for play
(A determination is made of difficulty of hitting a particular target area (status of golf ball location) and winning jackpot).
Regarding claim 20, Luciano teaches the method in accordance with claim 11,
wherein said information regarding said status of said event comprises one or more of:
a location of a ball
([0058] The system can also confirm the time that the golf ball has been hit, and further, determine the direction and speed of the ball as well as where it has landed
(A determination is made of where golf ball landed (status of golf ball location))),
a location of one or more bowling pins,
weather conditions, and
golf course conditions.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thirumaleshwar (US PG Publication 2019/0172317), in view of Esses, et al (US PG Publication 2008/0153570), hereafter Esses.
Regarding claim 1, Thirumaleshwar teaches
a method of presenting a wagering skill-based game to a player, said game having an outcome which is determined primarily by a skill-input of said player relative to at least one event, comprising the steps of:
receiving at a game server, from at least one input device, player identification information
([0070] A “gaming system” as used herein refers to various configurations of: (a) one or more central servers or remote hosts
[0109] The at least one sensor 1060 may be used for a variety of functions, such as: detecting the identity of various persons (e.g., players));
utilizing said player identification information to identify said player as said participant in said game
([0109] The at least one sensor 1060 includes at least one of: image sensors and is used for a variety of functions, such as: detecting the identity of various persons (e.g., players));
receiving, at said game server, a wager from said player
([0004] At least one processor to: place a wager on a play of a wagering game for a player responsive to an actuation of a wager button of the at least one input device);
receiving, at said game server, via at least one first sensor, information captured regarding a participant in said game
([0109] The at least one sensor 1060 includes at least one of: image sensors and is used for a variety of functions, such as: detecting the identity of various persons (e.g., players)
(image and identity of player received));
comparing said captured game participant information to stored player identification information regarding said player
([0114] The current user is required to perform a login process at the EGM in order to access one or more features. Alternatively, the EGM is configured to automatically determine the identity of the current user).
Thirumaleshwar does not teach
when said comparison confirms said participant as said player:
receiving, at said game server from one or more second sensors, information regarding said player's performance in said at least one event based upon at least one skill-input by said player;
determining, via said game server, an outcome of said game based upon said information regarding said player's performance; and
awarding a payout to said player when said outcome is a winning outcome.
In the same field of endeavor, Esses teaches
when said comparison confirms said participant as said player:
receiving, at said game server from one or more second sensors, information regarding said player's performance in said at least one event based upon at least one skill-input by said player
([0033] In a first output 200, a player picks his or her skill level which he or she is most comfortable with. The player picks hard (e.g., by touching the screen)
[0036] After the animation is completed, output 206 allows the player to guess which container he or she thinks the object is in. The player can make his or her selection by touching the screen. In this example, the player picks the rightmost container
[0037] In output 207, the container wherein the diamond is actually in is revealed
[0055] Casino server. The game can also be served to a remote client playing at an online casino over a computer communications network (such as the internet)
(The server receives, from the touch input sensor, information regarding whether player selected container in which diamond is located and thus how they performed in game, based on skill input by the player));
determining, via said game server, an outcome of said game based upon said information regarding said player's performance
([0037] The player picked correctly); and
awarding a payout to said player when said outcome is a winning outcome
([0037] Since the player picked correctly, the player wins $100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Thirumaleshwar, which includes determining information regarding players during an event, to include Esses’ teaching of determining information regarding players during an event, for the benefit of providing features which will generate more excitement for players and/or more revenue as well (see [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Thirumaleshwar, in view of Esses, teaches the method in accordance with claim 1.
Thirumaleshwar further teaches
wherein said player identification information comprises login information to an account assigned to said player
([0114] The at least one user identification module 1077 is configured to determine the identity of the current user of the EGM (Electronic gaming machine). The current user is required to perform a login process at the EGM in order to access one or more features).
Regarding claim 3, Thirumaleshwar, in view of Esses, teaches the method in accordance with claim 1.
Thirumaleshwar further teaches
wherein said information captured regarding a participate in said game comprises at least one image of a face of said participant
([0109] In certain embodiments, the at least one sensor 1060 includes at least one of: image sensors).
Regarding claim 4, Thirumaleshwar, in view of Esses, teaches the method in accordance with claim 3.
Thirumaleshwar further teaches
wherein said at least one sensor comprises an image capture device
([0109] In certain embodiments, the at least one sensor 1060 includes at least one of: image sensors).
Regarding claim 5, Thirumaleshwar, in view of Esses, teaches the method in accordance with claim 3.
Thirumaleshwar further teaches
wherein said step of comparing comprises comparing said at least one image of said face to a stored image of said player
([0109] The at least one sensor 1060 includes at least one of: image sensors and is used for a variety of functions, such as: detecting the identity of various persons (e.g., players)
[0114] The current user of the EGM (Electronic gaming machine) is required to perform a login process at the EGM in order to access one or more features).
Regarding claim 6, Thirumaleshwar, in view of Esses, teaches the method in accordance with claim 1.
Thirumaleshwar further teaches
wherein when said comparison does not confirm said participant as said player, invaliding a succeeding input by said participant to said game
([0114] The current user of the EGM (Electronic gaming machine) is required to perform a login process at the EGM in order to access one or more features. Various security features are incorporated into the EGM to prevent unauthorized users from accessing confidential or sensitive information).
Regarding claim 7, Thirumaleshwar, in view of Esses, teaches the method in accordance with claim 1.
Thirumaleshwar further teaches
wherein said input device comprises at least one of:
a player mobile communication device, a kiosk and a gaming device
([0070] A “gaming system” as used herein refers to various configurations of: (c) one or more personal gaming devices, such as mobile phones, and other mobile computing devices).
Regarding claim 8, Thirumaleshwar, in view of Esses, teaches the method in accordance with claim 1.
Thirumaleshwar further teaches
comprising receiving, at said game server, via said at least one first sensor, information captured regarding a participant in said game and comparing each captured information to said stored player identification information before each skill-input of said player
([0004] The plurality of instructions cause the at least one processor to: enable the player to input at least one quantifiable skill input
[0109] The at least one sensor 1060 includes at least one of: image sensors and is used for a variety of functions, such as: detecting the identity of various persons (e.g., players)
[0114] The current user of the EGM (Electronic gaming machine) is required to perform a login process at the EGM in order to access one or more features).
Regarding claim 10, Thirumaleshwar, in view of Esses, teaches the method in accordance with claim 1.
Thirumaleshwar further teaches
wherein said one or more first and second sensors are selected from the group consisting of:
an RFID sensor, a GPS, a radar, a LIDAR, and
an image capture device
([0109] The at least one sensor 1060 includes at least one of: RF sensors, image sensors).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thirumaleshwar, in view of Esses, and further in view of Luciano.
Regarding claim 9, Thirumaleshwar, in view of Esses, teaches the method in accordance with claim 1.
Thirumaleshwar further teaches
further comprising:
determining, at said game server, a player skill level assigned to player
([0004] The plurality of instructions cause the at least one processor to: enable the player to input at least one quantifiable skill input).
Esses further teaches
determining, at said game server, a difficultly level for said at least one
event
([0009] The above aspects can also be obtained by a method that includes (d) presenting a player with a bonus game involving physical skill, with a difficulty of the bonus game being based on the particular skill level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Thirumaleshwar, in view of Esses, which includes determining information regarding players during an event, to include Esses’ teaching of determining information regarding players during an event, for the benefit of providing features which will generate more excitement for players and/or more revenue as well (see [0007]).
Thirumaleshwar, in view of Esses, does not teach
determining, at said game server, odds of said player achieving a successful outcome of said at least one event based upon said difficultly of said at least one event and said player skill level;
determining, at said game server, said payout for said winning outcome of said game based upon said odds and an amount of said wager.
In the same field of endeavor, Luciano teaches
determining, at said game server, odds of said player achieving a successful outcome of said at least one event based upon said difficultly of said at least one event and said player skill level
([0040] Another embodiment of the invention combines a skill element with a game of chance in a gambling game. The skill element may be used to increase or modify the probability of winning prizes in the game of chance. One example is a game in which golf balls are aimed at a group of targets (e.g. concentric rings as in FIG. 3A). Upon successfully hitting a target, a computerized game is initiated which has various prize levels. More difficult targets may offer a higher probability of winning the jackpot, a higher prize value
[0070] A score and randomized prize are determined on central computer 140 for each ball landing in a target 115
[0078] A pay table like the one below (*see table after [0078]) specifies possible prizes, and based on a random selection using the probability of each type of prize as a weight, a prize amount will be chosen which will be the Prize Value multiplied by the wager amount
(A determination is made by a central computer (server) of weighted probability of winning prizes (odds of a player winning a golf game), based on difficulty of targets (difficulty of the golf game) and player skill for hitting targets with the golf ball (skill level)));
determining, at said game server, said payout for said winning outcome of said game based upon said odds and an amount of said wager
([0040] More difficult targets may offer a higher probability of winning the jackpot, a higher prize value, a higher overall prize return percentage to players and different wager amounts for play
[0077] The player may be prompted to set the wager(s) level at which they wish to participate
[0078] A pay table like the one below (*see table after [0078]) specifies possible prizes, and based on a random selection using the probability of each type of prize as a weight, a prize amount will be chosen which will be the Prize Value multiplied by the wager amount
(A determination is made of a prize for winning the game (payout), based on the weighted probability of winning prizes (odds of a player winning a golf game) and a wager amount set by player (wager))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Thirumaleshwar, in view of Esses, which includes determining information regarding players during an event, to include Luciano’s teaching of determining information regarding players during an event, for the benefit of making wagering systems feasible in a regulated environment, providing new ways of playing a game and improving reliability, in order to meet standards required by regulatory bodies (see [0007]).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciano, in view of Vann (US PG Publication 2014/0302898).
Regarding claim 16, Luciano teaches the method in accordance with claim 11.
Luciano does not teach
wherein said event comprises a bowling event.
In the same field of endeavor, Vann teaches
wherein said event comprises a bowling event
([0034] A skill-based game is a sports game including a bowling game where a virtual bowling alley is displayed and where a player can manipulate the virtual bowling ball).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Luciano, which includes determining information regarding players during an event, to include Vann’s teaching of determining information regarding players during an event, for the benefit of providing wagering game apparatuses and methods including a skill-compensation features (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 17, Luciano, in view of Vann, teaches the method in accordance with claim 16.
Vann further teaches
wherein said information regarding said status of said event comprises a status of pins of said bowling event
([0042] Then, based simply on the received player input, with no correction applied, the player's bowling ball 630a slides past the target 610a (e.g., pin) and completely misses it
(information regarding the bowling game includes pins)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Luciano, in view of Vann, which includes determining information regarding players during an event, to include Vann’s teaching of determining information regarding players during an event, for the benefit of providing wagering game apparatuses and methods including a skill-compensation features (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 18, Luciano, in view of Vann, teaches the method in accordance with claim 16.
Vann further teaches
wherein said information regarding said status of said event is obtained from a pinsetter
([0034] A skill-based game is a sports game including a virtual playing field or course, such as a bowling game where a virtual bowling alley is displayed and where a player can manipulate the virtual bowling ball to knock down virtual pins
(information regarding the bowling game determined from pins being knocked down)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Luciano, in view of Vann, which includes determining information regarding players during an event, to include Vann’s teaching of determining information regarding players during an event, for the benefit of providing wagering game apparatuses and methods including a skill-compensation features (see [0003]).
Conclusion
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Luciano (US PG Publication 2020/0302732), hereafter Luciano ‘732, teaches a gaming system includes an immersive gaming terminal, at least one motion sensing sensor, at least one game of chance and at least one game of skill, where the motion sensing sensor receives a plurality of player gesture gaming inputs.
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 extension fee 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 Examiner Frank Donado whose telephone number is (571) 270-5361. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays between 8 am and 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Patent Examiner (SPE) Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANK E DONADO/Examiner, Art Unit 2641
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641