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 .
The Applicant’s argument received on 10/06/2025 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Washington et al (US 2018/0005483).
Regarding claim 1: Washington et al discloses a smart arcade kiosk system comprising: a) an arcade machine configured to accept payment from players and provide gaming experiences (see figures 4, 14; paragraphs [0051]-[0058], showing arcade style gaming machine including payment option and displays for providing gaming experiences); b) a mobile device application (app) configured to allow players to interact with the arcade machine and participate in sponsored tournaments (see paragraphs [0139], [0412], [0442]); c) a web portal configured to enable sponsors to create and manage game tournaments and promotions across multiple arcade machines (see paragraphs [0458]-[0465], [0540], [0691]); d) a cloud network connecting the arcade machines, mobile app, and web portal (see paragraphs [0412], [0429]); e) stakeholders including consumers, sponsors, operators, and a system manager, wherein consumers can select pay-to-play or free-to-play sponsored tournaments and compete for prizes, sponsors can create and deploy game tournaments and promotions, operators and merchants can earn a percentage of the revenue, and the system manager manages the overall operation of the system (see paragraphs [0251], [0305], [0347], showing sponsors, consumers, etc).
Regarding claim 2: Washington et al discloses wherein the arcade machine accepts various forms of payment including cash, coin, and credit card (see paragraphs [0031], [0149]-[0152], showing gaming device accepting cash or credit).
Regarding claim 3: Washington et al discloses wherein the web portal allows sponsors to create various types of game promotions, including fun-to-play games, esports tournaments, collect-to-win promotions, sweepstake game promotions, scavenger hunts, trivia games, fantasy sports promotions, simulation games, or other types of games (see paragraphs [0029], [0073]).
Regarding claim 4: Washington et al discloses wherein players can earn loyalty points redeemable for real prizes or digital goods on any arcade machine in the network (see paragraphs [0280], [0419], [0499], showing receiving gaming points and redeemable vouchers that could physical or digital).
Regarding claim 5: Washington et al discloses wherein the system administrator, sponsor, or retailer can issue free game play credits or loyalty points to reward customers for specific marketing activities (see paragraphs [0264], [0418], showing receiving free rewards for promotional offer).
Regarding claim 6: Washington et al discloses wherein the arcade machine can deploy additional applications such as online stores, maps, coupon offers, video customer service, flight schedules, weather and time information, sponsor information, and other relevant applications (see paragraphs [0217] , [0313], showing the arcade game providing real time weather, maps, etc).
Regarding claim 7: Washington et al discloses wherein the mobile app, email, or text notifications are used to notify customers of new promotions at retail establishments and drive customer traffic to those locations (see paragraphs [0254], [0261]).
Regarding claim 8: Washington et al discloses wherein advertisers or sponsors are charged an engagement fee when consumers play for their products, and the revenue share is distributed among multiple stakeholders including the kiosk operator, retailer, game developer, and system manager (see paragraph [0438]).
Regarding claim 9: Washington et al discloses wherein advertisers can create and deploy digital advertisements on the arcade machines to generate brand awareness and attract players (see abstract, showing in-game advertising and in-game product placement, digital in the game).
Regarding claim 10: Washington et al discloses wherein the web portal or app allows for remote monitoring of multiple arcade kiosks, including revenue, promotion results, and maintenance (see paragraphs [0341], [0470]).
Regarding claim 11: Washington et al discloses wherein players are rewarded with loyalty points, coupons, or offers for participating in promotions, and the rewards can be stored in a mobile wallet and redeemed at retail locations or online (see paragraphs [0280], [0419], [0499], showing receiving gaming points and redeemable vouchers that could physical or digital).
Regarding claim 12: Washington et al discloses wherein player data is collected and analyzed using artificial intelligence to inform future promotions and target specific demographics (see paragraph [0245], showing collection of different advertising content based on patron profile data).
Regarding claim 13: Washington et al discloses wherein players receive promotional messages after participating in tournaments to inform them of tournament results and upcoming events (see paragraphs [0254], [0261]).
Regarding claim 14: Washington et al discloses wherein sponsors can track the return on investment of their advertising activities by monitoring player transactions and purchases related to their promotions (see paragraph [0415], showing account server providing and generating profit/loss reports).
Regarding claim 15: Washington et al discloses wherein the system establishes a revenue-sharing ecosystem among stakeholders, including advertisers, retailers, operators, and the system manager (see paragraphs [0415], [0520]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues various rejections and argues that the Prior Art Washington does not teach these limitations, the Examiner Disagrees.
In response to claim 1, the Applicant argues that Washington does not teach the limitation of pay-to-play or free-to-play, the examiner disagrees and points out that paragraph [0073], for instance teaches: “
[0073] In some embodiments, the format of the hybrid arcade-style, wager-based game may facilitate a gameplay environment in which multiplayer functionality takes place. The multiplayer gameplay may have multiple “enrollment” aspects in which one, for example, particular player could be on location at a casino playing a hybrid arcade/wager-based game, while another (e.g., different) player could be at a different location (e.g., at a different location in the casino, at a different casino, at a different establishment such as a home or office, etc.), concurrently participating in the same hybrid arcade/wager-based game, but without participating in any wagering aspect/portions of hybrid arcade/wager-based game. A non-wagering game such as this is commonly known as a “free to play” game, in which the player is allowed to download and install said game on their own devices, which then allows the player progress through the game (e.g., which is no different than the wager based counter-part) without taking place in wager based events. Examples of some popular “free to play” games are, “TERA”, “Marvel Puzzle Quest”, “Planetside 2”, etc. Gaming situations such as these may promote a “clicks to bricks” outcome where a casino property could promote at home users to “login over the weekend to play Super Zombie Bash! Free! Come down to the casino and play Super Zombie Bash for a chance to win big!” Such property advertisement may entice more patrons to visit the casino in order to “win big” on their favorite hybrid arcade/wager-based game. “, which explicitly teaches the limitation of free-to-play.
In response to the argument of claim 2, the applicant’s argument that Washington does not disclose coin acceptance no modern mobile wallet, the examiner points out that paragraphs [0031] and [0618] of Washington, showing options for making payment to the system by the user, which would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as teaching a method of receiving a wager.
In response to the argument of claim 3, the Examiner disagrees and points out that as shown in the office action, paragraph [0029], shows the in-game advertisement corresponds to an in-game promotional advertisement, which the examiner construes to teach and at least suggest the applicant’s limitation.
In response to the argument of claim 3, the Examiner disagrees and points out that as shown in the office action, paragraph [0029], shows the in-game advertisement corresponds to an in-game promotional advertisement, which the examiner construes to teach and at least suggest the applicant’s limitation.
In response to the argument of claim 4, the Examiner disagrees and points out that as shown in the office action, paragraph [0419], shows:
“[0419] Voucher server 240 may generate a voucher, which may include data relating to gaming options. For example, data relating to the structure may be generated. If there is a time deadline, that information may be generated by voucher server 240. Vouchers may be physical (e.g., paper) or digital.
” showing that any type of voucher can be implemented.
In response to applicant's individual arguments of claims 1-15 and that Washington is non analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case the applicant’s individual limitation rejections, the examiner disagrees and points out that the applicant argues limitation that are suggested by the prior art. For example the applicant arguing that although Washington teaches vouchers, but argues that gambling voucher is not disclosed, which is incorrect since Washington teaches vouchers where the vouchers can be physical or digital. as long there is a suggestion and teaching of the limitation that would clear to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADETOKUNBO OLUSEGUN TORIMIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1345. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8am - 4pm).
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571)270-7625. 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.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715