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 5/2/25. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended. Claims 1 – 14 are pending in the current application.
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 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 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by McClintic (U.S. 2007/0129128).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, McClintic discloses a method for processing data in a server-based data system, (fig. 2), wherein said system determines a plurality of scheduled events and bets on the outcome of said events, (“The gaming machine may include a single processor or group of processors that effect play of the base game and the bonus game”, par. 0025), wherein said bets are input into the gaming system via input devices in which credits are given, (“Coins or tokens may be inserted in coin acceptor 52 and added to the game credits that are available on the gaming machine”, par. 0041), wherein said gaming system further discloses offers a combined bet for at least two events, which combined bet links said events wherein a player is credited if combined bet is correct, (“ a "double or nothing" wager”, par. 0102), wherein the gaming system provides an amendment routine which keeps a players bet valid, (“For example, the game may be configured so that the player receives a given number of game credits for attaining the second level 20B; these credits comprise the "pot" which is wagered for double or nothing, or alternatively taken without playing second level 20B. The game may be configured so that additional winnings or losses during play at the second level 20B may be added to the pot or wager”, par. 0102).
Regarding claim 2, McClintic discloses in which the crediting amount the participant taking the amendment routine is changed during the course of the event, (“For example, the game may be configured so that the player receives a given number of game credits for attaining the second level 20B; these credits comprise the "pot" which is wagered for double or nothing, or alternatively taken without playing second level 20B. The game may be configured so that additional winnings or losses during play at the second level 20B may be added to the pot or wager”, par. 0102).
Regarding claim 3, McClintic discloses bets are credited according to quotes which reflect the probability for a certain outcome of an event, and that the crediting quote for the participant taking the amendment routine is decreased over the run time of the at least one event of the combined bet, (“ a "double or nothing" wager”, par. 0102).
Regarding claims 4 - 9, McClintic discloses a bet to the outcome of an event can be input during an access time period prior to the outcome of the event, (“the final level 20B of the bonus event 20 comprises a "double or nothing" wager”, par. 0102).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, McClintic discloses data processing system (10) handles member-accounts (26) , comprising at least the participant's ID data and his current guess data, (“A gaming apparatus of the present invention may be adapted for use with a player tracking card, such as a so-called "smart card", for recording the player's progress level in the game”, par. 0023).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, McClintic discloses that the communication between the participant and the data processing system is realized via an App installed on a client terminal device, (fig. 1a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 – 14, Applicants argue that “the wildcard healing option of the system” and the routine being a healing option for one incorrect wager that is part of a multi-wager bet is not taught or suggested by McClintic. In response to this in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wildcard healing option) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner encourages the Applicants to contact the Examiner in order to further prosecution. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that McClintic anticipates the present invention 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