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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/20/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 2/20/26. Claims 1 – 3, 8, 10, 12, and 13 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are 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 therefor, 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:
I. The claims are drawn to apparatus, process and CRM categories.
II. Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2a:
III. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
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 process 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.
ii. The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Fundamental economic principles or practices
Commercial or legal interactions
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims are directed towards incentivizing the behavior of users playing a game via group agreements or contract. This is viewed by the Examiner as a fundamental economic practice, an agreement in the form of contracts, and managing personal behavior or relationships between people, which are all considered to be abstract ideas according to the 2019 guidelines.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
iii. Although the claims recite additional limitations, such as one or more processors and at least one server, the said additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require
additional limitations such as a processor, server, interface, display, and networking components.
iv. 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:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claim language does recite additional elements such as a host system, however, this viewed as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. 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.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Oberberger discloses a method for providing personal progress indicators in a gaming environment, (fig. 10), the method comprising receiving, by a gaming venue host, game interaction information related to an electronic game executed on a gaming system, (“a hybrid arcade-style, wager-based game may be created by combining a new and different visual game representation with a new and different method of player interaction”, par. 0023), and indicating an action of a player or an occurrence of an event in the electronic game, (“For example, some games may utilize a gun controller for first person shooter games, or steering wheels, accelerator and brake pedals for driving games”, par. 0023), determining 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), 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, (“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).
Oberberger, however, is silent on disclosing the personal progress for the player is persisted 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 persisted 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Cuddy into the art disclosed by Oberberger in order to provide new and different gaming machines and gaming systems as well as new and different ways to provide awards to players, as disclosed by Cuddy, (par. 0008).
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 8, Oberberger discloses a gaming system comprising a display device, a processor coupled with the display device, and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions, (fig. 4), that causes the processor to store an indicator of personal progress for a player of an 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), detect a presence of the player of the electronic game proximate to the gaming system, (fig. 12), and in response to detecting the player of the electronic game, provide, through the display device, a representation of the indicator of personal progress for the player of the electronic game, (fig. 10).
As stated above, Oberberger is silent on disclosing the personal progress for the player is persisted 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 persisted 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Cuddy into the art disclosed by Oberberger in order to provide new and different gaming machines and gaming systems as well as new and different ways to provide awards to players, as disclosed by Cuddy, (par. 0008).
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 claim 15, 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, (fig. 6), 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).
As stated above, Oberberger is silent on disclosing the personal progress for the player is persisted 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 persisted 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Cuddy into the art disclosed by Oberberger in order to provide new and different gaming machines and gaming systems as well as new and different ways to provide awards to players, as disclosed by Cuddy, (par. 0008).
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 filed on 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 101 rejection of claims 1 – 20, the Applicants state that they respectfully disagree and request withdrawal of the rejection. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how. The Examiner maintains the 101 rejection of claims 1 – 20.
The Applicants further argue that “the combination of Oberberger and Cuddy fails to teach or suggest each claim recitation”. More specifically, it is argued that “Cuddy does not teach or suggest, alone or in combination with Oberberger, storing the indicator of personal progress of the player of the electronic game on a mobile device of the player of the electronic game as recited in the pending claims”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited above, Cuddy discloses, “ 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), wherein the Examiner views this as at least storing the personal progress of the player of the electronic game on a gaming machine. Cuddy further discloses that “the gaming machine may be a hand held device, a mobile device or any other suitable wireless device that enables a player to play any suitable game at a variety of different locations”, (par. 0043), wherein the Examiner views this as being equivalent to the claimed storing personal progress of the player of the electronic game on a mobile device. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the cited art references render the present invention obvious as claimed.
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
Prosecution Insights