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 .
Claim Status
After the amendments filed 12/31/2025 claims 1-20 remain pending, of which 1-20 were amended.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 15 and 20, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A game controller for an Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
determine a player status of a player in a wagering game play session at a gaming device in a casino (Mental Processes);
based on the player status of the player, control a graphical User Interface (GUI) of the EGM to cause a display device of the gaming device to display, in the GUI, an offer to the player to purchase a physical item, wherein the physical item to be purchased is displayed as an element within a wagering game conducted during the wagering game session (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
in response to acceptance of the offer by the player (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), transmit an instruction to physically prepare the physical item for delivery to the player (Mental Processes); and
after completion of the wagering game play session, cause the physical item to be physically delivered to the player (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 15 and 20) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a processor circuit, a memory, a display device, an input device, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “determine a player status of a player in a wagering game play session at a gaming device in a casino”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the concepts in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
B. Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; (e.g., “display, in the GUI, an offer to the player to purchase a physical item, wherein the physical item to be purchased is displayed as an element within a wagering game conducted during the wagering game session”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Mental Processes and/or Fundamental Economic Principles and/or Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Mental Processes and/or Fundamental Economic Principles and/or Commercial or Legal Interactions to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a processor circuit, a memory, a display device, an input device”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general purpose structure and general purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a processor circuit, a memory, a display device, an input device are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0204228, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a processor circuit, a memory, a display device, an input device to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶58). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al (U.S. 2015/0087405) in view of Nguyen et al (U.S. 2006/0063580).
Regarding claims 1, 14-15, 18 and 20, George discloses:
a processor circuit (¶32, processor 52); and
a memory (¶32, memory 54) comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (¶32-33, processor 52 executes gaming programs stored on memory 54), cause the processor circuit to:
determine a player status of a player in a wagering game play session at a gaming device in a casino (¶92-93, the casino web server 56 uses the player ID to identify the player and information contained withing the player’s account including, for example, wager history and card level);
based on the player status of the player, control a graphical user interface (GUI) of the EGM to cause a display device of the gaming device to display an offer to the player to purchase a physical item (¶93-96, based on the player’s determined status a casino website 184 is displayed with available gaming property service offers which are based on the player’s status level);
in response to acceptance of the offer by the player, transmit an instruction to physically prepare the physical item for delivery to the player (¶9, ¶93-97, purchases made by the player are transmitted to the web server 56 and casino employees uses the player’s location data to deliver the player’s purchased good); and
after completion of the wagering game play session, cause the physical item to be physically delivered to the player (¶9, ¶93-97, casino employees use the player’s location data to deliver the player’s purchased good).
However, George does not specifically disclose that:
the physical item to be purchased is displayed as an element within a wagering game conducted during the wagering game session.
Nguyen teaches:
a casino gaming system (¶32), including a plurality of electronic gaming machines (¶32, Fig. 1, casino gaming units 54), wherein the gaming machines are configured to display a gaming section (¶117, Fig. 6B, slot game reels 402’) and a non-gaming section (¶117, ¶119, Fig. 6B, advertising area 422’), wherein a player may interact with the non-gaming section to navigate to a website where the player is provided an offer (¶119, ¶126, Fig. 6B, Fig. 8, the player may touch the screen in the area 422’ and pull up a webpage which provides offers to the player), wherein the offers are for physical items (¶125-126, the prize is a good or service related to a brand), wherein brands provide materials, including images, which are displayed during gameplay (¶117, ¶181-182, Fig. 6B, the reel game symbols are replaced with material submitted by brands associated with the selected brand, for example an image 424 which is associated with the brand of the prize which the player may win), and wherein the images provided by the brands may be representative of the prizes which the players may win (¶112, the materials may include images which are representative of the prizes such as a photograph of the prize).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to on of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the prize symbols, as taught by Nguyen, into the system as taught by George, in order to appeal to and enhance the players’ interest in order to entice patrons to make purchases and increase profitability (See George, ¶4).
Regarding claim 2, George discloses that which is discussed above, George further discloses that:
delivery of the physical item to the player comprises delivery of the physical item to the player at the gaming device (¶9, ¶94, a casino employee is dispatched to the player’s EGM to deliver the purchased item).
Regarding claim 3, George discloses that which is discussed above, however does not specifically disclose that:
delivery of the physical item to the player comprises delivery of the physical item to the player at a customer service area of the casino.
Nguyen teaches:
a casino gaming system (¶32), including a plurality of electronic gaming machines (¶32, Fig. 1, casino gaming units 54), wherein player’s retrieve their prizes at a customer service area of the casino (¶127, ticket printer 256 prints a ticket for fulfillment of the prize which the player takes to a specified location within the casino where the player may redeem the ticket for the prize)
a casino gaming system (5:64-6:9, a gamine unit 10 which is located in a gaming environment such as a casino), wherein a player a may select a physical prize from prize selection menu (19:20-34, Fig. 6b), and wherein delivery of the physical item comprises the player receiving the item a customer service area of the casino (25:41-65, prize tickets are redeemed at an exchange center of the gaming environment where a game operator keeps an inventory of prizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of filing to integrate the prize redemption system as taught by Nguyen into the system taught by George in order to appeal to a patron's interest and enhance patron's access to services offered by the casinos in order to entice patrons to purchase these services and increase profitability (See George, ¶4).
Regarding claim 9, George discloses that which is discussed above, George further discloses that:
based on the player status of the player being a first status, cause a display device of the gaming device to display a first plurality of purchase offers to the player (¶93-94, for example based on the player not being a VIP status player the player may not be provided access to additional services); and
based on the player status of the player being a second status, cause a display device of the gaming device to display a second plurality of purchase offers to the player, wherein a subset of the second plurality of purchase offers is not included in the first plurality of purchase offers (¶93-94, for example based on the player being a VIP status player the player may be provided access to the additional services).
Regarding claim 12, George discloses that which is discussed above, George further discloses that:
the physical item is exclusively available at the casino (¶9, for example a drink which is provided by the casino wherein a player is playing).
Claim(s) 5, 7-8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al (U.S. 2015/0087405) in view of Nguyen et al (U.S. 2006/0063580) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Kelly et al (U.S. 5,816,918).
Regarding claim 5, George and Nguyen disclose that which is discussed above, however, neither specifically disclose that:
the instructions that cause delivery the physical item to the player further cause the processor circuit to:
identify the player at a vending kiosk in the casino separate from the gaming device; or
in response to the identification of the player, dispense the physical item at the vending kiosk.
Kelly teaches:
a casino gaming system (5:64-6:9, a gamine unit 10 which is located in a gaming environment such as a casino), wherein a player a may select a physical prize from prize selection menu (19:20-34, Fig. 6b), and wherein delivery of the physical item comprises identifying the player at a vending kiosk in the casino separate from the gaming device and dispensing the item at the vending kiosk (25:41-65, 30:7-20, players are provided with a ticket for a specific prize with an ID identifier printed thereon, wherein the player may redeem the ticket at a separate vending machine by scanning the ticket).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of filing to integrate the prize redemption system as taught by Kelly into the system taught by George and Nguyen in order to appeal to a patron's interest and enhance patron's access to services offered by the casinos in order to entice patrons to purchase these services and increase profitability (See George, ¶4).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, George and Nguyen disclose that which is discussed above, however, neither specifically disclose that:
delivery of the physical item to the player comprises shipment of the physical item to a physical address associated with the player.
Kelly teaches:
a casino gaming system (5:64-6:9, a gamine unit 10 which is located in a gaming environment such as a casino), wherein a player a may select a physical prize from prize selection menu (19:20-34, Fig. 6b), and wherein delivery of the physical item comprises shipment of the physical item to a physical address associated with the player (18:22-37, players are remotely awarded their prizes, for example via delivery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of filing to integrate the prize redemption system as taught by Kelly into the system taught by George in order to appeal to a patron's interest and enhance patron's access to services offered by the casinos in order to entice patrons to purchase these services and increase profitability (See George, ¶4).
Regarding claim 8, George and Nguyen disclose that which is discussed above, however, neither specifically disclose that:
the instructions that cause delivery the physical item to the player further cause the processor circuit to:
receive an indication at the gaming device from the player of the physical address associated with the player after completion of the wagering game session.
Kelly teaches:
a casino gaming system (5:64-6:9, a gamine unit 10 which is located in a gaming environment such as a casino), wherein a player a may select a physical prize from prize selection menu (19:20-34, Fig. 6b), and wherein an indication is received at the gaming machine from the player of the physical address associated with the player after completion of the wagering game session (40:66-41:30, upon winning a prize the player may be prompted to manually input a mailing address where the prize may be delivered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of filing to integrate the prize redemption system as taught by Kelly into the system taught by George and Nguyen in order to appeal to a patron's interest and enhance patron's access to services offered by the casinos in order to entice patrons to purchase these services and increase profitability (See George, ¶4).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al (U.S. 2015/0087405) in view of Nguyen et al (U.S. 2006/0063580) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Walker et al (U.S. 2010/0113161).
Regarding claim 4, George and Nguyen disclose that which is discussed above, however neither specifically disclose that:
the instructions that cause delivery the physical item to the player further cause the processor circuit to: display location information for the customer service area at the gaming device after completion of the wagering game session.
Walker teaches:
A gaming device (¶56, handheld device 106), wherein the gaming device is configured to display a map to a desired location within a casino to the handheld gaming device (¶29-31, ¶148, directions may be provided to the user to a requested location such as to a specific product or service found in the casino).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of filing to integrate the mapping feature as taught by Walker into the system taught by George and Nguyen in order to appeal to a patron's interest and enhance patron's access to services offered by the casinos in order to entice patrons to purchase these services and increase profitability (See George, ¶4).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al (U.S. 2015/0087405) in view of Nguyen et al (U.S. 2006/0063580) and Kelly et al (U.S. 5,816,918) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Walker et al (U.S. 2010/0113161).
Regarding claim 6, George, Nguyen and Kelly disclose that which is discussed above, however, George, Nguyen nor Kelly specifically disclose that:
the instructions that cause delivery the physical item to the player further cause the processor circuit to:
display location information for the vending kiosk at the gaming device after completion of the wagering game session.
Walker teaches:
A gaming device (¶56, ¶114, handheld device 106), wherein the gaming device is configured to display a map to a desired location within a casino to the handheld gaming device (¶29-31, ¶148, directions may be provided to the user to a requested location such as to a kiosk).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of filing to integrate the mapping feature as taught by Walker into the system taught by George, Nguyen and Kelly in order to appeal to a patron's interest and enhance patron's access to services offered by the casinos in order to entice patrons to purchase these services and increase profitability (See George, ¶4).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al (U.S. 2015/0087405) in view of Nguyen et al (U.S. 2006/0063580) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Guinn et al (U.S. 2014/0274308).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, George and Nguyen disclose that which is discussed above, however neither specifically disclose that:
the first status is based on the player playing a first predetermined number of wagering games during the wagering game play session, and wherein the second status is based on the player playing a second predetermined number of wagering games during the wagering game play session higher than the first predetermined number of wagering games.
Guinn teaches:
a gaming system (¶20), wherein prizes offered to players are based on a player having a qualifying status (¶78, prizes offered to each player are based on each player’s level of play), wherein the status is based on the number of games played by the player (¶37, which prizes are offered are adjusted based on a number of games played).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of filing to integrate the loyalty system as taught by Guinn into the system taught by George and Nguyen in order to appeal to a patron's interest and enhance patron's access to services offered by the casinos in order to entice patrons to purchase these services and increase profitability (See George, ¶4).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, George and Nguyen disclose that which is discussed above, however neither specifically disclose that:
the first status is based on the player playing a first predetermined number of wagering games in the casino during a predetermined time period, and wherein the second status is based on the player playing a second predetermined number of wagering games in the casino during the predetermined time period higher than the first predetermined number of wagering games.
Guinn teaches:
a gaming system (¶20), wherein the first status is based on the player playing a first predetermined number of wagering games in the casino during a predetermined time period, and wherein the second status is based on the player playing a second predetermined number of wagering games in the casino during the predetermined time period higher than the first predetermined number of wagering games (¶37, prizes are adjusted based on a number of games previously played).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of filing to integrate the loyalty system as taught by Guinn into the system taught by George and Nguyen in order to appeal to a patron's interest and enhance patron's access to services offered by the casinos in order to entice patrons to purchase these services and increase profitability (See George, ¶4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, but rather are directed to a specialized game controller of an EGM that controls a Graphical User Interface (See Remarks, pgs. 10-11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The instant claims recite the abstract ideas of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes. Specifically, the claim limitations recite steps related to sales activities or behaviors (e.g., “display, in the GUI, an offer to the player to purchase a physical item…”) and steps which include concepts which can be performed in the human mind (e.g., “determine a player status of a player in a wagering game play session at a gaming device in a casino”). The game controller and graphical user interface are directed to a generic computer or generic computer components used to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements generally link the abstract idea to an electronic embodiment.
Applicant argues that the instant claims are analogous to the example provided in the MPEP, wherein icons are organized on a GUI (i.e., Example 37) (See Remarks, pg. 11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Example 37 provides a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to a user based on usage, which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Applicant’s claimed invention provides no such improvement. Specifically, applicant’s claimed invention is drawn to functions related to advertising and marketing, wherein a player engaging in a game play session is able to purchase an item. Therefore, unlike Example 37, applicant’s invention does not provide any improvement to the GUI, but rather uses generic computing components to display graphics in a generic manner, without any additional elements which amount to “significantly more”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, applicant argues against each reference individually for failing to teach the limitation wherein “the physical item to be purchased is displayed as an element within a wagering game conducted during the wagering game session” (See Remarks, pg. 12). The combination of George and Nguyen discloses displaying an offer to the player to purchase a physical item (See George, ¶93-96) and that physical items to be purchased are displayed as elements within a wagering game conducted during the wagering game session (See Nguyen, ¶117, ¶181-182, Fig. 6B).
Applicant argues that George does not disclose that “the physical item is delivered after completion of the wagering game play session” (See Remarks, pg. 12). The examiner must respectfully disagree. George discloses that based on a player’s status the casino website may show access to certain services (¶93, casino webpage 184 uses the player ID to player’s status and displays access to services such as hotel reservations, show reservations, restaurant reservations, drink purchase requests, etc.). Further, George discloses that items purchased via the website are delivered to the player by a casino employee using the EGM ID to identify the location of the player on the casino floor to deliver the purchased goods (¶9, ¶93-94, information about the player and their location is used to assist casinos to dispatch employees to the player to fulfill requests such as drink requests) and that the delivery of said goods are performed after completion of a game round (Fig. 7, reference character 208, wherein a game round must be completed prior to transmitting the purchase request 218 (i.e., which is inherently prior to delivery of the purchased goods)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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.
/Jason Pinheiro/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715