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 amendment and argument received on 08/26/2026 has been considered. It is noted that claims 1, 2, 16, and 21 have been amended. Claims 7 and 20 have been cancelled. New claim 22 has been added.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colvin et al (US 8,647,196) in view of Lawson et al (US 7,563,162) and Malek (US 9,652,939).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 16, and 21: Colvin et al discloses a method comprising: providing an entry corresponding to a chance game that comprises an outcome that is based on an external event (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 16, line 63, showing the player may enter the wager and/or may initiate play of the game on a first gaming device 114 and may complete the gameplay on a second gaming device 114. Alternatively, the player plays the game on first gaming device 114 and receives the results of the gameplay (e.g., whether the player won and how much the winnings are) on second gaming device 114. For example, the player may begin playing the game on a kiosk or electronic gaming machine, and may complete the game or view the results of the game on a cell phone. The game completion may be for a game currently being played, or may be for one or more future games (i.e., one or more games that have not yet started. For example, the player may enter sufficient credits or other consideration into gaming device 114 to purchase gameplay for a plurality of future games that use the same player card or that use other preselected or random player cards. The player may then complete one or more of the future games on another gaming device 114 (or any other suitable device) and/or may receive the result of one or more of the future games on another gaming device 114 (or any other suitable gaming device)); determining, based on an outcome of the external event, a chance game characteristic to be applied to the entry for the chance game (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 16, line 63, showing for example, the player may begin playing the game on a kiosk or electronic gaming machine, and may complete the game or view the results of the game on a cell phone. The game completion may be for a game currently being played, or may be for one or more future games (i.e., one or more games that have not yet started); using the chance game characteristic to determine whether to provide a chance game award to a user (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57); and awarding the chance game award based on determining whether to provide the chance game award to the user (see column 17, lines 29-34; claim 21 of Colvin).
However, Colvin et al does not explicitly disclose a chance game that comprises an outcome that is based on an external sporting event that is exclusive of the chance game.
In an analogous invention, Lawson et al teaches a chance game that comprises an outcome that is based on an external sporting event that is exclusive of the chance game (see figure 2; column 1, lines 6-55; column 5, lines 9-26; column 7, lines 22- column 8, line 11, showing a game of chance by a game of chance administrator wherein an entrant pays an entry fee and obtains a chance to win a predetermined, specified currency amount, said method comprising the steps of: selecting a subject of said game of chance, said game of chance having a plurality of game playing identifiers over a predetermined regular season time frame; wherein said subject of said game of chance is a combined outcome of one of a plurality of randomly selected individuals playing in a specified individual sporting event during said predetermined regular season time frame or a plurality of randomly selected team sports games occurring on a specified day of said predetermined regular season time frame, each of the plurality of game playing identifiers over a predetermined regular season time frame being one of a plurality of randomly selected individuals playing in a specified individual sporting event or a plurality of randomly selected team sports games occurring on a specified day).
In an analogous invention, Malek teaches wherein possible outcomes for the external sporting event comprise a team winning by a certain number of points, the team winning by less than the certain number of points and the team losing (see claim 1 of Malek, showing processor producing a second outcome for said first player betting said second value of currency on said game of chance on said sport team, winning, outcome, final ranking, relative ranking, remaining teams, monthly groupings, weekly groupings, playoffs, or point spreads. The examiner construes the sport team winning and point spread as taught by Malek to be equivalent to the external sporting event and number of points effect); wherein the possible outcomes of the external sporting event are associated with different prize pools for the chance game, wherein each prize pool comprises one grand prize and a plurality of other prizes (see claim 1 of Malek, showing processor producing a first outcome for said expert player betting said first value of currency on said game of chance; said electronic gaming device communicating with a remote device; said expert player guiding said first player on said game of chance; specifying a second value of currency from a portion of a gross value submitted by said first player; wherein said second value of currency is stated as an absolute value or as a percentage portion of said gross value; specifying a third value of currency for betting on another expertise player; wherein said third value of currency is less than or equal to difference of said gross value and said second value of currency; said first player betting said second value of currency on said game of chance on said remote device, based on said guidance from said expert player; said processor producing a second outcome for said first player betting said second value of currency on said game of chance).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to modify Colvin’s chance game as taught by Lawson’s chance game with sporting event outcome and Malek’s system and method of conducting games of chance for the purpose of providing the users and players with more options and events to wager on. This yields the expected result of increasing the user’s satisfaction in the system by providing more opportunities to wager.
Regarding claims 2 and 22: Colvin et al discloses wherein the outcome that is based on the external event comprises a first event outcome or a second event outcome that is different from the first event outcome, and wherein, responsive to an occurrence of the first event outcome, the entry corresponding to the chance game is determined to be a winner based on being randomly selected by being drawn from a first plurality of players in the chance game (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 3: Colvin et al discloses wherein, responsive to an occurrence of the second event outcome, the entry corresponding to the chance game is determined to be a winner based on being randomly selected by being drawn from a second plurality of players in the chance game that is different from the first plurality of players (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 4: Colvin et al discloses wherein the first plurality of players is assigned to a first pool of chance game entrants and the second plurality of players is assigned to a second pool of chance game entrants (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 5: Colvin et al discloses wherein a first quantity of the first plurality of players are determined to win the chance game comprising a first prize type, wherein a second quantity of the second plurality of players are determined to with the chance game comprising a second prize type that is different from the first prize type, and wherein the first quantity of the first plurality of players is different from the second quantity of the second plurality of players (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 6: Colvin et al discloses wherein, responsive to the occurrence of the second event outcome, the entry corresponding to the chance game is ineligible for participation in the chance game (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 8: Colvin et al discloses wherein the entry comprises an instant win lottery ticket that comprises a primary game (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 9: Colvin et al discloses wherein the chance game comprises a second chance game for the instant win lottery ticket, wherein the method further comprises receiving a registration of the instant win lottery ticket for participation in the chance game (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 11: Colvin et al discloses wherein the entry is provided to a user based on exchanging non-currency points corresponding to a loyalty program (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 12: Colvin et al discloses wherein the entry comprises a digital lottery ticket that comprises a primary game that is accessed on a mobile terminal (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 13: Colvin et al discloses wherein the chance game comprises a second chance game for the digital lottery ticket, wherein the method further comprises receiving a registration of the digital lottery ticket for participation in the chance game (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 14: Colvin et al discloses wherein the external event outcome is unrelated to whether a user wins (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 15: Colvin et al discloses wherein the external event corresponds to a local interest event, and wherein the entry comprises data and graphics that correspond to the local interest event (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 17: Colvin et al discloses wherein the outcome that is based on the external event comprises a first event outcome or a second event outcome that is different from the first event outcome, and wherein, responsive to an occurrence of the first event outcome, the lottery game ticket is determined to be a winner in the chance game based on being randomly selected by being drawn from a first plurality of players in the chance game (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 18: Colvin et al discloses wherein, responsive to an occurrence of the second event outcome, the lottery game ticket is determined to be a winner of the chance game based on being randomly selected by being drawn from a second plurality of players in the chance game, wherein the second plurality of players is different from the first plurality of players (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Regarding claim 19: Colvin et al discloses wherein the primary game and the chance game comprise unrelated outcomes, and wherein the winner of the chance game is based on a random drawing that corresponds to the chance game characteristic (see abstract; figure 14; column 5, lines 10-60; column 8, lines 4 – column 15, line 57).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-19 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the previous combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
9. 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 on 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights