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 7/8/26. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended, and claim 10 has been cancelled. Claims 1 – 9 and 11 – 20 are now pending in the current application.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 7 are directed towards a method, (process), and claims 8 – 20 are directed towards a system and a device, (machine), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
1. A method for providing personal progress indicators in a gaming environment, the method comprising: receiving, by a gaming venue host system, game interaction information related to an electronic game executed on a gaming system and indicating an action of a player of or occurrence of an event in the electronic game; determining, by the gaming venue host system, whether the game interaction information is indicative of a change in personal progress for the player in the electronic game; in response to determining the game interaction information is indicative of a change in personal progress for the player in the electronic game, updating, by the gaming venue host system, an electronic record associated with the player of the electronic game to indicate the change in the personal progress for the player of the electronic game, wherein the personal progress for the player is persisted over time and across gaming systems, and providing, by the gaming venue host system, an indication of the change in the personal progress for the player of the electronic game to the gaming system and a mobile device of the player of the electronic game, wherein the indication of the personal progress for the player of the electronic game is stored on the mobile device of the player of the electronic game, and wherein the indication of the personal progress for the player of the electronic game stored on the mobile device of the player of the electronic game is provided to the gaming system by the mobile device of the player of the electronic game upon initiation of a subsequent electronic game.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 8 and 15. Dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, and 16 - 20 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following groupings below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of managing personal behavior which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that hosts and provides a game to a player, wherein the claims further discloses monitoring the progress of the player in the game, wherein the player’s progress updated, stored, and provided to the gaming system upon initiation of a subsequent game after the progress has been stored. Controlling a game that manages the progress of a player’s gameplay represents managing personal behavior. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a game system that monitors and manages the progress of a player during plays of a game, wherein the claims further discloses determining a change in the player’s progress, updating the progress based on said change, providing an indication of the change, and providing the player’s progress to the game system upon initiation of a subsequent game. The claims recite instructions disclosing these features. Here, a human can observe the game play of a player, observe an outcome of the game, and then determine a change in the player’s progress based on the game play. For example, in the event that a player is playing a game comprising a progression meter, a human can observe a user’s current progress on the progression meter, observe a user’s game play, and based on the state of the game, a human can make the determination whether a user’s progression on the progression meter has increased or decreased. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor, memory, and display, (claim 8), along with instructions that monitors and manages a player’s progression for plays of a game, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a display, a wireless communications interface, a processor, a memory, a mobile device, and an electronic record associated with a player, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Tucket et al. 2016/0256782 par. 0015 and par. 0044 regarding gaming systems and mobile devices managing player progression while playing a game). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberberger et al. (U.S. 2020/0111292) in view of Cuddy et al. (U.S. 2009/0124364) and in further view of Gagner et al. (U.S. 2013/0130779).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Oberberger discloses a method, system, and device for providing personal progress indicators in a gaming environment, (“the progress indicator may gradually fill based upon the player's actions in the game being played”, par. 0133), receiving, by a gaming venue host system, (“A game play host device 903 may include a host server connected to a plurality of remote clients that generates games of chance that are displayed on a plurality of remote game play interfaces ), game interaction information related to an electronic game executed on a gaming system and indicating an action of a player or occurrence of an event in the electronic game, (“For example, the game play host device 903 may include a server that provides central determination of wager outcomes on a plurality of connected game play interfaces”, par. 0093, wherein the Examiner views the host device including a server that determines wager outcomes as being equivalent a gaming venue host receiving game interaction information related to an electronic game executed on a gaming system and indicating an occurrence of an event in the electronic game), determining, by the gaming venue host, whether the game interaction information is indicative of a change in personal progress for the player in the electronic game, (“According to one embodiment, the progress indicator may gradually fill based upon the player's actions in the game being played, external factors, externally-sensed events, time played, game resources acquired or expended or based upon any other predetermined condition coded into the game”, par. 0133 and fig. 10, parts 1002), in response to determining the game interaction information is indicative of a change in personal process for the player in the electronic game, updating, by the gaming venue host system, an electronic record associated with the player of the electronic game to indicate the change in the personal progress for the player of the electronic game, and providing, by the gaming venue host system, an indication of the change in the personal progress for the player of the electronic game to the gaming system, (“the progress indicator may become updated and progressively more fully visible on screen as the game unfolds and the player's interactions are received and evaluated by the regulated gaming machine”, par. 0137 and fig. 10, parts 1002, wherein the Examiner views the test tube shown in fig. 10 progressing from 25% to 100% as being equivalent to updating an electronic record associated with the player that indicates said player’s personal progress).
Oberberger, however, is silent on disclosing the personal progress for the player is persistent across gaming systems. In a related art, Cuddy discloses a method for providing personal progress indicators in a gaming environment, (“the player tracking system keeps track of each player's individual progress”, par. 0020), wherein Cuddy further disclose wherein the personal progress for the player is persistent over time and across gaming systems, (“ the gaming system enables each of the players to move from gaming machine to gaming machine to play primary games of the player's choice. Tracking each player's individual progress toward each one of the progressive awards and any bonus games also enables the gaming device to enable players to stop and resume play at a later time or during a different gaming session”, par. 0020), however, although Oberberger discloses that the gaming system comprises a mobile device, (“the mobile gaming device may be configured or designed to include or provide functionality which is similar to that of an electronic gaming device”, par. 0074), both Oberberger and Cuddy are silent on explicitly disclosing the indication of a change of the personal progress being stored on a mobile device. In a related art, Gagner discloses a gaming venue host system comprising gaming and mobile devices, (“the secondary content server 280 can control and present an online website that hosts wagering games”, par. 0033), wherein Gagner further discloses storing the personal progress for a player on a mobile device of the player of an electronic game, wherein an indication of the personal progress for the player of the electronic game stored on the mobile device of the player of the electronic game is provided to the gaming system by the mobile device of the player of the electronic game upon initiation of a subsequent electronic game, (“coded identifiers are provided in response to non-wagering activity performed on the Internet (e.g., during play of persistent-state games and casual games) as well as in response to wagering game play on a wagering game machine. The coded identifiers can indicate characteristics related to the activity and can be used to transmit information about the activity or results of the activity (e.g., information about progress made in a persistent-state game, information about marketing activity performed online, etc.)”, par. 0018 and “ the wagering game machine can generate additional coded identifiers that the player can receive via a mobile client (e.g., via direct scan of the additional coded identifiers using a cell phone). The mobile client can store the additional coded identifiers for later use and/or transmit information about the additional coded identifiers, via a wireless network (e.g., via a mobile telephone network)”, par. 0018, wherein the Examiner views the coded identifiers indicating gaming activity comprising a player’s progress being sent to a mobile client and then stored on the mobile client for later user and to transmit said gaming activity as meeting the claim limitation of storing an indication of a player’s personal progress of a game on a mobile device, wherein the mobile device provides the player’s progress upon initiation of a subsequent game).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the player progress being persistent across multiple gaming machine teachings of Cuddy in order to boost engagement and player retention by triggering a player’s desire for completion and seamless resuming by allowing players to instantly pick up exactly where they left off and the mobile device storage teachings of Gagner in order to reduce data usage and provide players with instant, offline access to their gaming accomplishments.
Regarding claims 2, Oberberger discloses wherein the indication of the change in the personal progress for the player of the electronic game is based on a selection of an initial progress indicator received from the player of the electronic game and wherein the indication of the change provided to the gaming system comprises a visible change to the initial progress indicator, (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Oberberger discloses wherein the indication of the change in the personal progress for the player of the electronic game is based on a selection of an initial progress indicator received from the gaming system and wherein the indication of the change provided to the gaming system comprises a change to the initial progress indicator, (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 4, Oberberger discloses wherein determining whether the game interaction information is indicative of a change in personal progress for a player of the electronic game is further based on one or more pre-defined criteria for activity occurring in the electronic game, (“According to one embodiment, the progress indicator may gradually fill based upon the player's actions in the game being played, external factors, externally-sensed events, time played, game resources acquired or expended or based upon any other predetermined condition coded into the game”, par. 0133).
Regarding claims 5 - 7, Oberberger discloses wherein updating the electronic record associated with the player of the electronic game to indicate the change in the personal progress for the player of the electronic game comprises updating the electronic record to indicate an improvement in the personal progress for the player of the electronic game when the game interaction information meets or exceeds one or more of the pre-defined criteria for activity occurring in the electronic game, (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Oberberger discloses wherein providing, through the display device, the representation of the indicator of personal progress for the player of the electronic game comprises displaying an animation of the indicator of personal progress for the player of the electronic game, (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, Oberberger discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor to receive the indicator of personal progress for the player of the electronic game from a host system of a gaming venue, (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 11, Oberberger discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor to select the indicator of personal progress for the player of the electronic game from a plurality of available indicators of personal progress, (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, Oberberger discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: conduct the electronic game with the player of the electronic game; monitor game interaction information indicating an action of a player of or occurrence of an event in the electronic game while conducting the electronic game; determine whether to update personal progress for the player of the electronic game based on the game interaction information and one or more pre-defined criteria; and in response to determining to update the personal progress for the player of the electronic game, updating the stored indicator of personal progress for a player of an electronic game and the representation of the indicator of personal progress for a player of an electronic game provided through the display device based on the game interaction information, (“According to one embodiment, the progress indicator may gradually fill based upon the player's actions in the game being played, external factors, externally-sensed events, time played, game resources acquired or expended or based upon any other predetermined condition coded into the game”, par. 0133).
Regarding claim 13, Oberberger discloses comprising a wireless communications interface and wherein detecting the player of the electronic game comprises detecting a mobile device of the player of the electronic game in proximity to the gaming system through the wireless communications interface, (“one or more players may participate in a game session using mobile gaming devices”, par. 0074 and fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Oberberger discloses detecting the player of the electronic game comprises identifying the player of the electronic game during initiation of the electronic game, (“The authentication server 230 may determine the validity of vouchers, players' identity”, par. 0036).
Regarding claims 16 – 18 and 20, Oberberger discloses A mobile device comprising: a wireless communications interface; a display device; a processor coupled with the wireless communications interface and the display device; and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, (“one or more players may participate in a game session using mobile gaming devices”, par. 0074 and fig. 6), when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: receive, via the wireless communications interface, an indicator of personal progress in an electronic game for a user of the mobile device; store, in the memory, the indicator of the personal progress in the electronic game for the user of the mobile device; and present, through the display device, the indicator of the personal progress in the electronic game for the user of the mobile device, (“According to one embodiment, the progress indicator may gradually fill based upon the player's actions in the game being played, external factors, externally-sensed events, time played, game resources acquired or expended or based upon any other predetermined condition coded into the game”, par. 0133).
Regarding claim 19, Oberberger discloses wherein the indicator of the personal progress in the electronic game for the user of the mobile device comprises an animated graphic, (fig. 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1 20 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 – 20, with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant’s argue that “the pending claims are not directed to contracts, legal obligations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which are defined as certain methods of organizing human activity. Rather, the claims recite very specific device operations that include, inter alia, storing an indicator on a mobile device and providing the indicator to a gaming system upon initiation of an electronic game on that gaming system”. In response to this, while the Examiner agrees that the current claims are not directed towards contracts, legal obligations, or relationships or interactions between people, however, the Examiner maintains that the current claims are directed towards managing personal behavior. As stated above, the current claims are directed towards a gaming system that hosts and provides a game to a player, wherein the claims further discloses monitoring the progress of the player in the game. The claims are clearly directed towards managing personal behavior. Controlling a video game manages the progression of a player also represents rules for conducting a game as discussed in Alice and Bilski v. Kappos. The controlling of a player’s progression in a video game are merely instructions or steps which are viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
Applicants further argue that “even if independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are considered to be directed toward an abstract idea, they are integrated into a practical application”. More specifically, it is argued that “ the pending claims properly integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The pending claims address a technical problem associated with electronic games and gaming systems. Specifically, the persistence of indicators of progress across electronic game and gaming systems”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the current claims does not recite steps that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, nor do the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of operating a gaming machine, because the additional elements, the display, wireless interface, processor, and memory, are recited generically. For example, the claims do not recite how the “display”, “processor”, “wireless communication interface”, and “memory” solves a technical problem. Steps like receiving, determining, and providing, for example, are generic instructions to apply an abstract idea using conventional components. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Applicants further argue that “even if the Examiner were correct that some of the individually-viewed elements do not add significantly more or integrate the exception, those additional elements when viewed in combination may render the claim eligible”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicants stating that the combination of elements performing the steps presented in the current claims as significantly, is viewed by the Examiner as game rules rather than technical improvements. Merely disclosing that an electronic device and computing hardware and software performing game rules does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. With respect to the Berkheimer decision, reference is made for example, (Tucker U.S. 2016/0256782), which shows a gaming system that manages and monitors player progress while playing a game (see par. 0015 and par. 0044 of Tucker). For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
