TNotice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 to 18 (independent Claims 1 and 13, and their dependents) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are drawn to a gaming machine, and so are statutory classes under 101. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the
following reasons. Independent Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below; the abstract idea is underlined and the structural limitations are not. The dependent claims have no more structure than the independent claim and fail 101 for similar reasons.
An electronic gaming machine ("EGM") configured to manage a virtual element associated with a virtual gaming environment, the system comprising: (processing data according to the rules of a game, and presenting an output to the player)
a game controller comprising processor circuit; and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the EGM to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request from a first device to perform an action associated with the virtual element; (receiving an input from a player, processing data according to the rules of a game, and presenting an output to the player)
determining information associated with the virtual element; (processing data according to the rules of a game, and presenting an output to the player)
determining whether to perform the action associated with the virtual element based on the information associated with the virtual element and an identity of a first entity associated with the first device; and (processing data according to the rules of a game, and presenting an output to the player)
subsequent to determining whether to perform the action associated with the virtual element, controlling a graphical user interface ("GUI") to present, by a display device, the virtual element. (processing data according to the rules of a game, and presenting an output to the player)
The dependent claims 2 and 11 cite an extended reality device (XR device), but do not specify any structural limitations, such as input transducers, a memory, a processor, or output transducers. The dependent claims do not specify how the extended reality is superimposed over the virtual reality of the virtual gaming environment to create an extended reality, or how the structural limitations of the extended reality device interact with the steps of the game being played. None of the other dependent claims have any structural limitations. The dependent claims thus do not add anything to the independent claims for purposes of 101 compliance.
The claims taken together or individually do not represent an improvement to the abstract idea in an ordered combination. It is unclear what type of game is being played—sports, action, combat, role-playing, cards, slots, wagering, etc. Cards and tokens are only cited in the dependent claims. It is unclear what type of game object the virtual element is—a player-controlled character, a non-player-controlled character, a sprite, a virtual card, a virtual wagering token, a virtual sports implement, etc. It is unclear how the virtual element is manipulated according to the rules of the game, whether by input from a player or by the gaming device according to rules in software. It is unclear that the result of the game play is tangibly displayed to the player via an output device of some sort (the last clause of Claim 1 merely displays an indication without being clear as to what type of indicia is displayed, how it pertains to the overall game being played, or what type of output device is used to output the indicia to the player) The extended reality limitations are not included in the claims until dependent claims 2 and 11. It is unclear whether the game is virtual reality (completely in virtual space in the memory of the gaming device, wherein game characters and game objects are manipulated according to the rules of a game), or augmented reality/extended reality in which properties of a real person or object are read via an input device (camera, microphone, etc.) with the properties of the real person or object being substituted into the game to act as the properties of a virtual person or object. These relationships are unclear from the claim language. Dependent Claim 2 mentions augmented reality in passing, but does not patentably clarify the extended reality properties. The claims do not cite specific processor or memory structures for processing data in memory according to the rules of a game. The claims do not cite specific input structures such as touchscreens, touchpads, directional pads, joysticks, trackballs, keyboards, mice, cameras, or microphones. The claims do not cite specific output structures such as screens, displays, or speakers. The claims do not represent an improvement in the functioning of a computing device or gaming device since they do not represent an improvement in processor speed, memory management, random number generation, thermal management, ergonomics, network speed and management (such as load balancing or rerouting of packets), bus speed and management, authentication, encryption, graphics rendering, or reduced instruction sets for carrying out complex operations (such as RISC processors). Applying an abstract idea to a computer is not patent-eligible (Alice, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf, page 12). Electronic recordkeeping, obtaining data, adjusting balances, issuing automated instructions, creating and maintaining accounts are typical computer functions (Alice, page 15). Requiring the use of a computer to implement the claim does not make it patent-eligible (pages 14 & 15). Communications controllers, data storage units, and data processing systems are typical computer structures (Alice, page 16). Calculation, storage, and transmission are basic computer functions (Alice, page 16). Claims cannot simply be a draftsman’s art (Alice, pages 14 & 16).
Cloud Satchel quoting Bancorp: “To salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process, a computer must be integral to the claimed invention, facilitating the process in a way that a person making calculations or computations could not.” In Bancorp, the independent claims did not require a computer (at 1431). In Bancorp, the system and method claims were equivalent for patentability under 101 (at 1432). Bancorp’s method claims did not require a computer and were not 101-compliant (at 1433). A computer must be integral to the claimed invention (Bancorp at 1433). A computer used in the claim only for its most basic functions does not make the claim 101-eligible (Bancorp at 1433). Bancorp’s use of computers to track, reconcile, and administer insurance policies only used a computer’s most basic functions, adding nothing to 101 compliance (1434). Limiting the claims to a particular field of use, such as the insurance market, does not fail to preempt the abstract idea (Bancorp at 1434 & 1435). In Amdocs (113 USPQ2d 1565) at 1571, the fact that the claims cannot be carried out by a human being alone does not mean that they are not an abstract idea under 101 (citing Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359-60 and Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351).
The examiner points the applicants to Claim 33 of U.S. patent 5,970,479 A which was the representative claim in the Alice decision. These claim limitations are carried out on presumably a general purpose computer although such is not explicitly cited. The claims are certainly not carried out by specific hardware.
A method of exchanging obligations as between parties, each party holding a credit record and a debit record with an exchange institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of predetermined obligations, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder party to be held independently by a supervisory institution from the exchange institutions;
(b) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record;
(c) for every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, the supervisory institution adjusting each respective party’s shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only these transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order, and
(d) at the end-of-day, the supervisory institution instructing on[e] of the exchange institutions to exchange credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective parties in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions.
The examiner points the applicants to representative Claim 19 of U.S. patent 7,818,399 B1 which was at issue in the DDR Holdings case. This claim in the DDR Holdings case was 101-compliant because it improved the functioning of the computer itself, namely rendering web pages in a web browser. The claims in DDR Holdings cited what was done, and specific steps for how it was done, thus not invoking a judicial exception by preempting all possible ways of what the claim is trying to do. The claims met the second step of the Alice analysis by improving on how web page rendering transactions were carried out over a network such as the Internet, versus how such transactions had been done before.
A system useful in an outsource provider serving web pages offering commercial opportunities, the system comprising:
(a) a computer store containing data, for each of a plurality of first web pages, defining a plurality of visually perceptible elements, which visually perceptible elements correspond to the plurality of first web pages;
(i) wherein each of the first web pages belongs to one of a plurality of web page owners;
(ii) wherein each of the first web pages displays at least one active link associated with a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity of a selected one of a plurality of merchants; and
(iii) wherein the selected merchant, the outsource provider, and the owner of the first web page displaying the associated link are each third parties with respect to one other;
(b) a computer server at the outsource provider, which computer server is coupled to the computer store and programmed to:
(i) receive from the web browser of a computer user a signal indicating activation of one of the links displayed by one of the first web pages;
(ii) automatically identify as the source page the one of the first web pages on which the link has been activated;
(iii) in response to identification of the source page, automatically retrieve the stored data corresponding to the source page; and
(iv) using the data retrieved, automatically generate and transmit to the web browser a second web page that displays: (A) information associated with the commerce object associated with the link that has been activated, and (B) the plurality of visually perceptible elements visually corresponding to the source page.
The examiner finds that wagering games are all rather similar: accepting a wager, playing the game according to the rules comprising generating random outcomes according to rules, determining winning outcomes, determining how much is to be paid for a winning outcome, and paying out the winnings. This breakdown of the wagering claim language is similar to that in precedential case in re Smith (in re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), appeal 2015-1664, U.S. patent application 12/912,410).
Claim 1 at hand in in re Smith is as follows:
1. A method of conducting a wagering game comprising:
[a]) a dealer providing at least one deck of physical playing cards and shuffling the physical playing cards to form a random set of physical playing cards;
[b]) the dealer accepting at least one first wager from each participating player on a player game hand against a banker’s/dealer’s hand;
[c]) the dealer dealing only two cards from the random set of physical playing cards to each designated player and two cards to the banker/dealer such that the designated player and the banker/ dealer receive the same number of exactly two random physical playing cards;
[d]) the dealer examining respective hands to determine in any hand has a Natural 0 count from totaling count from cards, defined as the first two random physical playing cards in a hand being a pair of 5’s, 10’s, jacks, queens or kings;
[e]) the dealer resolving any player versus dealer wagers between each individual player hand that has a Natural 0 count and between the dealer hand and all player hands where a Natural 0 is present in the dealer hand, while the dealer exposes only a single card to the players;
[f]) as between each player and the dealer where neither hand has a Natural 0, the dealer allowing each player to elect to take a maximum of one additional card or standing pat on the initial two card player hand, while still having seen only one dealer card;
[g]) the dealer/banker remaining pat within a first certain predetermined total counts and being required to take a single hit within a second predetermined total counts, where the first total counts range does not overlap the second total counts range;
[h]) after all possible additional random physical playing cards have been dealt, the dealer comparing a value of each designated player’s hand to a final value of the banker’s/dealer’s hand wherein said value of the designated player’s hand and the banker’s/dealer’s hand is in a range of zero to nine points based on a pre-established scoring system wherein aces count as one point, tens and face cards count as zero points and all other cards count as their face value and wherein a two-digit hand total is deemed to have a value corresponding to the one’s digit of the two-digit total;
[i]) the dealer resolving the wagers based on whether the designated player’s hand or the banker’s/dealer’s hand is nearest to a value of 0.
Similarly to the present claims, the claim at hand in in re Smith accepted wagers from players (steps a & b), played the game according to the rules of the game comprising generating random outcomes (steps c to g), determining what the winning conditions are and how much to pay out (step h), and making the winning payouts (step i). The card game of in re Smith would be identical played in a card and table format or in an electronic format.
The examiner points the applicants to the representative claim at hand in non-precedential Planet Bingo. The hardware limitations of the CPU, memory, I/O terminal, and printer are only cited in clause (a). The rest of the claim is functional claim language describing a bingo game that would occur identically in paper ticket format or computerized format with the play of the game and the game results being identical in either format. The court held that the claims in Planet Bingo were ineligible under 101.
A method for playing a game of Bingo which comprises the steps of:
(a) providing a system for managing a game of Bingo which comprises: a computer with a central processing unit (CPU) and with a memory and with a printer connected to the CPU; an input and output terminal connected to the CPU and memory of the computer; and a program in the computer enabling:
(i) input of at least two sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by a player for repetitive play in games of Bingo over a period of time;
(ii) storage of the sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by the player as a group in the memory of the computer;
(iii) assignment of a player identifier unique to the player for the group having the sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by the player wherein the player identifier is assigned to the group for multiple sessions of Bingo;
(iv) retrieval of the group using the player identifier;
(v) selection from the group by the player of at least one of the sets of Bingo numbers preselected by the player and stored in the memory of the computer as the group for play in a selected game of Bingo in a specific session of Bingo wherein a number of sets of Bingo numbers selected for play in the selected game of Bingo is less than a total number of sets of Bingo numbers in the group;
(vi) addition by the computer of a control number for the set of Bingo numbers which is selected by the player for play in the selected game of Bingo;
(vii) output of a receipt with the control number, the set of Bingo numbers which is selected for play in the selected game of Bingo, a price for the set of Bingo numbers which is selected for play in the selected game of Bingo, a date of the selected game of Bingo and optionally a computer identification number; and
(viii) output for verification of a winning set of Bingo numbers by means of the control number which is input into the computer by a manager of the game of Bingo;
(b) playing the game of Bingo using the set of Bingo numbers wherein the player signals a Bingo to indicate the set of Bingo numbers which is selected for play in the selected game of Bingo is the winning set of Bingo numbers; and
(c) verifying the winning set of Bingo numbers with the control number with the program.
The Bascom decision is relevant to the present claims (U.S. CAFC, 2015-1763, decided June 27th, 2016). The Bascom decision required that the ordered limitations of the claims taken together add something "significantly more" to the abstract idea even though the individual limitations were known in the prior art. The claim at hand in Bascom was found to comply with 101 in light of Alice. Page 15 of Bascom:
“However, we disagree with the district court’s analysis of the ordered combination of limitations. In light of Mayo and Alice, it is of course now standard for a § 101 inquiry to consider whether various claim elements simply recite “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies].” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. The district court’s analysis in this case, however, looks similar to an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, except lacking an explanation of a reason to combine the limitations as claimed. The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. As is the case here, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.” Page 20 of Bascom: “While the claims of the ’606 patent are directed to the abstract idea of filtering content, BASCOM has adequately alleged that the claims pass step two of Alice’s two-part framework. BASCOM has alleged that an inventive concept can be found in the ordered combination of claim limitations that transform the abstract idea of filtering content into a particular, practical application of that abstract idea. We find nothing on this record that refutes those allegations as a matter of law or justifies dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). We therefore vacate the district court’s order granting AT&T’s motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) and remand so that the case may proceed.”
The McRO decision (U.S. CAFC, 2015-1080 to 2015-1101, decided Sept. 13th, 2016) is relevant to the present claims. The McRO decision stated that an ordered combination of claim limitations can meet the requirements of 101 in light of the Alice decision by improving over what has been already done in the prior art without preempting an abstract idea. Pages 25 and 26 of McRO: “The limitations in claim 1 prevent preemption of all processes for achieving automated lip-synchronization of 3-D characters. McRO has demonstrated that motion capture animation provides an alternative process for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expressions. Even so, we have recognized that “the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The narrower concern here is whether the claimed genus of rules preempts all techniques for automating 3-D animation that rely on rules. Claim 1 requires that the rules be rendered in a specific way: as a relationship between subsequences of phonemes, timing, and the weight to which each phoneme is expressed visually at a particular timing (as represented by the morph weight set). The specific structure of the claimed rules would prevent broad preemption of all rules-based means of automating lip synchronization, unless the limits of the rules themselves are broad enough to cover all possible approaches. There has been no showing that any rules-based lip synchronization process must use rules with the specifically claimed characteristics.” Page 27 of McRO: “Here, the structure of the limited rules reflects a specific implementation not demonstrated as that which “any [animator] engaged in the search for [an automation process] would likely have utilized.” Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2119–20 (quotation marks omitted). By incorporating the specific features of the rules as claim limitations, claim 1 is limited to a specific process for automatically animating characters using particular information and techniques and does not preempt approaches that use rules of a different structure or different techniques. See Morse, 56 U.S. at 113. When looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques. The claim uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 177). Claim 1 of the ’576 patent, therefore, is not directed to an abstract idea.” The claim limitations individually or taken together add nothing significantly more in an ordered combination to the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1 to 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harkham (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2002/0094869 A1).
As to Claims 1 and 13: Harkham teaches an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") player has made a wager amount or based on whether a player has exceeded wagering limits, Para. 67; there can be at least first and second local or remote players, Figs. 4 and 5, Paras. 37, 43, and 57); and subsequent to determining whether to perform the action associated with the virtual element, controlling a graphical user interface ("GUI") to present, by a display device, the virtual element (the dealer deals a card remotely to the local player, Para. 82; the dealer deals cards to players, Para. 40; player input for card game accepted at Fig. 7, steps 708, 716, 722, Paras. 68 to 70).
As to Claim 2: Harkham teaches wherein receiving the request from the first device comprises receiving the request from an extended reality ("XR") device (Harkham discloses an extended reality card game, Fig. 4, Para. 82) associated with the first entity (the dealer deals a card remotely to the local player, Para. 82, see also Paras. 37 to 44 generally discussing Fig. 4), wherein controlling the GUI comprises transmitting an indication to the XR device of whether the action has been performed (Harkham discloses an extended reality card game, Fig. 4, Para. 82; the dealer deals a card remotely to the local player, Para. 82; the dealer deals cards to players, Para. 40; player input for card game accepted at Fig. 7, steps 708, 716, 722, Paras. 68 to 70).
As to Claim 3: Harkham teaches wherein determining whether to perform the action associated with the virtual element comprises determining whether to perform the action associated with the virtual element based on at least one of: an age of the first entity; an amount wagered by the first entity; and presence of the identity of the first entity on a no-play list (Harkham allows plays based on whether a player has made a wager amount or based on whether a player has exceeded wagering limits, Para. 67).
As to Claims 4 and 14: Harkham teaches wherein determining the information comprises determining that the virtual element is assigned to a second entity, and wherein determining whether to perform the action associated with the virtual element comprises determining whether to perform the action associated with the virtual element based on an identity of the second entity (Harkham deals cards to a second card player, local or remote, and accepts inputs from that second player, accepting inputs from players, Paras. 68 to 70; local and remote players, Fig. 4, Paras. 37 to 44, especially Paras. 41 to 43; input accepted from respective players at Para. 37).
As to Claim 5: Harkham teaches wherein determining the information comprises determining a list of actions that are permitted to be performed in association with the virtual element, and wherein determining whether to perform the action associated with the virtual element comprises determining whether to perform the action associated with the virtual element based on the list of actions that are permitted to be performed in association with the virtual element (Fig. 4, Para. 37, the game has a finite number of options to accept from a respective player: hit, stay, double, split, buy insurance, etc.).
As to Claims 6 and 15: Harkham teaches wherein the virtual element comprises a virtual deck of cards associated with a virtual game in the virtual gaming environment, wherein the first entity is a dealer of the virtual game, wherein the action comprises at least one of: shuffling the virtual deck of cards; and dealing at least one virtual card of the virtual deck of cards (Harkham discusses an embodiment of a virtual casino at Para. 26; this would be populated by avatars of players, Paras. 38 and 43), wherein determining information associated with the virtual element comprises determining that the virtual element is assigned to the dealer and that the action is included in a list of permitted actions, wherein determining whether to perform the action comprises determining to perform the action based on the action being requested by an entity to which the virtual element is assigned and based on the action being included in the list of permitted actions (Fig. 4, Para. 37, the game has a finite number of options to accept from a respective player: hit, stay, double, split, buy insurance, etc.).
As to Claim 7: Harkham teaches wherein determining information associated with the virtual element comprises determining that the virtual element is assigned to a second entity that is separate from the first entity, wherein determining whether to perform the action comprises determining not to perform the action based on the action being requested by an entity to which the virtual element is not assigned (Harkham deals cards to a respective first or second card player, local or remote, and accepts inputs from that first or second player, accepting inputs from players, Paras. 68 to 70; local and remote players, Fig. 4, Paras. 37 to 44, especially Paras. 41 to 43; input accepted from respective players at Para. 37; Harkham allows or disallows plays based on whether a player has made a wager amount or based on whether a player has exceeded wagering limits, Para. 67).
As to Claims 8 and 17: Harkham teaches wherein the information comprises an indication of a restriction on the virtual element, and wherein determining whether to perform the action associated with the virtual element comprises determining whether performing the action would violate the restriction (Harkham allows or disallows plays based on whether a player has made a wager amount or based on whether a player has exceeded wagering limits, Para. 67).
As to Claims 9 and 18: Harkham teaches wherein the virtual element comprises a virtual deck of cards associated with a virtual game in the virtual gaming environment, wherein receiving the request comprises receiving the request from a dealer associated with the virtual game, wherein the action comprises dealing at least one virtual card of the virtual deck of cards to a second entity, wherein the restriction comprises that the second entity has made a qualified wager, wherein determining whether to perform the action comprises determining to perform the action based determining that the second entity has made the qualified wager (Harkham allows or disallows plays based on whether a player has made a wager amount or based on whether a player has exceeded wagering limits, Para. 67; Harkham discusses an embodiment of a virtual casino at Para. 26; this would be populated by avatars of players, Paras. 38 and 43; Harkham deals cards to a second card player, local or remote, and accepts inputs from that second player, accepting inputs from players, Paras. 68 to 70; local and remote players, Fig. 4, Paras. 37 to 44, especially Paras. 41 to 43; input accepted from respective players at Para. 37; shuffling and dealing decks of cards, Para. 80).
As to Claim 10: Harkham teahces wherein the virtual element comprises a virtual deck of cards associated with a virtual game in the virtual gaming environment, wherein receiving the request comprises receiving the request from a dealer associated with the virtual game, wherein the action comprises dealing a virtual card of the virtual deck of cards, wherein the restriction comprises that the virtual card be dealt from the top of the virtual deck of cards, wherein determining whether to perform the action comprises determining to perform the action based determining that the virtual card is on the top of the virtual deck of cards (Harkham allows or disallows plays based on whether a player has made a wager amount or based on whether a player has exceeded wagering limits, Para. 67; Harkham discusses an embodiment of a virtual casino at Para. 26; this would be populated by avatars of players, Paras. 38 and 43; shuffling and dealing decks of cards, Para. 80, cards are customarily dealt from the top of the deck).
As to Claims 11 and 16: Harkham teaches wherein receiving the request comprises receiving the request from an extended reality ("XR") device, wherein determining the information comprises determining that the virtual element is assigned to a second entity, and wherein the first entity comprises at least one of: a dealer of a virtual game in the virtual gaming environment; an opponent of the second entity; a friend of the second entity; and an operator of the virtual gaming environment (extended reality devices, second players or entities, and virtual decks in virtual casinos have been addressed with respect to the claims above; the first player or entity would necessarily be an opponent of a second player or entity in the sense of playing against each other in the wagering game).
As to Claim 12: Harkham teaches wherein the virtual element comprises at least one of: a virtual deck of cards; a virtual card; a virtual die; a virtual chip; a virtual table; a virtual electronic gaming machine ("EGM"); and a virtual avatar (virtual decks of cards are disclosed at Paras. 26 and 80; virtual cards disclosed at Paras. 5 and 6; virtual avatars disclosed at Paras. 38, 43, and 55 (holographic avatars)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11-28-2005 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims taken together or individually do not represent an improvement to the abstract idea in an ordered combination. It is unclear what type of game is being played—sports, action, combat, role-playing, cards, slots, wagering, etc. It is unclear what type of game object the virtual element is—a player-controlled character, a non-player-controlled character, a sprite, a virtual card, a virtual wagering token, a virtual sports implement, etc. It is unclear how the virtual element is manipulated according to the rules of the game, whether by input from a player or by the gaming device according to rules in software. It is unclear that the result of the game play is tangibly displayed to the player via an output device of some sort (the last clause of Claim 1 merely displays an indication without being clear as to what type of indicia is displayed, how it pertains to the overall game being played, or what type of output device is used to output the indicia to the player) The extended reality limitations are not included in the claims until dependent claims 2 and 11. It is unclear whether the game is virtual reality (completely in virtual space in the memory of the gaming device, wherein game characters and game objects are manipulated according to the rules of a game), or augmented reality/extended reality in which properties of a real person or object are read via an input device (camera, microphone, etc.) with the properties of the real person or object being substituted into the game to act as the properties of a virtual person or object. These relationships are unclear from the claim language. Dependent Claim 2 mentions augmented reality in passing, but does not patentably clarify the extended reality properties. The claims do not cite specific processor or memory structures for processing data in memory according to the rules of a game. The claims do not cite specific input structures such as touchscreens, touchpads, directional pads, joysticks, trackballs, keyboards, mice, cameras, or microphones. The claims do not cite specific output structures such as screens, displays, or speakers. The claims do not represent an improvement in the functioning of a computing device or gaming device since they do not represent an improvement in processor speed, memory management, random number generation, thermal management, ergonomics, network speed and management (such as load balancing or rerouting of packets), bus speed and management, authentication, encryption, graphics rendering, or reduced instruction sets for carrying out complex operations (such as RISC processors). The dependent claims 2 and 11 cite an extended reality device (XR device), but do not specify any structural limitations, such as input transducers, a memory, a processor, or output transducers. The dependent claims do not specify how the extended reality is superimposed over the virtual reality of the virtual gaming environment to create an extended reality, or how the structural limitations of the extended reality device interact with the steps of the game being played. None of the other dependent claims have any structural limitations. The dependent claims thus do not add anything to the independent claims for purposes of 101 compliance. “The Silicon Valley Odyssey Slot Machine,” by Leventhal, et al. (published Feb. 23rd, 1997) is cited and attached by the examiner as an example of a generic, reconfigurable gaming machine that can be made to play nearly any type of wagering game by changing software (reel or card games, page 301, second paragraph). Leventhal discloses a generic computing device with wagering-specific features (page 297, second paragraph), but not specific to any particular game. The examiner has reviewed the specification and does not have any suggestions at this time as to how to amend the claims for 101 or prior art issues. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants as to the claims’ present condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HOEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 A.M.-4:30 P.M..
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.
/M.D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715