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 Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “gaming system if located” should read “gaming system is located.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 6-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US 2012/0142429) in view of Nadler (US 2010/0122347), Nguyen et al (US 2005/0261058), and Cristofaro (US 2014/0089049).
Re claim 1, Muller discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a host system, gameplay information from an electronic gaming system related (fig. 1A) to an electronic game executed on the electronic gaming system (par. [0229], the player provides input that they are a quester); evaluating, by the host system, the gameplay information based on a player identification model (again [0229], the player identification model categorizing gamers into different categories such as power-gamer, quester, etc.); scoring, by the host system, a probability of identifying an anonymous player based on the evaluating of the gameplay information by the host system ([0182] and [0229], players are able to preserve anonymity in the system, and the system provides a confidence value to the characterization of the player, i.e. a probability of identifying the player); and assigning, by the host system, an identifier based on the scoring by the host system ([0229]).
However, while Muller discloses other players’ privacy ([0182]), there is no explicit disclosure that the player being identified by the system is able to maintain anonymity. Nadler teaches a system wherein users submitting their information for a system that is able to identify them are able to hide personal information to maintain anonymity and privacy ([0029]). Muller is further silent on the identifier uniquely identifying the player individually among a plurality of players while maintaining anonymity of the player. Nguyen teaches a system of identifying specific players in a player tracking system whilst maintaining anonymity for players who wish to do so ([0111], [0125], and [0135], players are provided an indicia of identification, while players who wish to play anonymously may still be provided the universal indicia of identification but not tracking the true identify of the player via alternative means of identification, e.g. a specific number, code, or other generic differentiator).
Muller does not disclose receiving presence information indicating presence of a player within a gaming venue in which the electronic gaming system is located and anonymizing the received presence information. Cristofaro teaches a system which receives presence information regarding users and anonymizes the information to conceal the identity of users ([0027], the system utilizes proxy servers such as Tor to conceal the identity of users by preventing the IP address of the user from reaching the system).
It would have been obvious to allow any user submitting personal information to remain anonymous as taught by Nadler in order to afford players the ability to remain anonymous and private in an online environment. It would have additionally been obvious to implement the identification system of Nguyen in order to allow for a plurality of players to utilize the gaming system, allowing them to be identified while still maintaining anonymity, therefore increasing the security and privacy of the gaming system without sacrificing functionality of key gaming features (such as messaging and tracking). It would have been obvious to anonymize the presence information of users as taught by Cristofaro in order to preserve the anonymity and privacy of users accessing the system.
Re claim 2, Muller discloses the gameplay information includes a selection of an electronic game by the anonymous player on the electronic gaming system ([0238]).
Re claim 3, Muller discloses sending, by the host system, the player identifier to the electronic gaming system ([0182], based on player input, the system provides identified players matching preferences to the player).
Re claim 4, Muller discloses a message displayed to the player ([0139], [0162], [0245]).
Re claim 6, Muller discloses credit for an electronic game ([0168], players can acquire virtual currency, points, or items in a game).
Re claim 7, Muller discloses sending an electronic game recommendation ([0058]).
Re claim 8, Muller discloses assigning, by the host system, player preferences based on the player identifier ([0173]); and sending, by the host system, the player preferences, wherein the result of sending comprises updated gameplay settings for the electronic game ([0173], among the preferences are information such as habits, play time, frequency, days, duration, etc., all of which will change and therefore be updated based on player behavior).
Re claim 9, Muller discloses player preferences including volume, brightness, and rumble intensity ([0097], as the client device can be a computer with a haptic output device providing vibration, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would be obvious for a computer to enable the adjustment of such parameters in order to provide a comfortable gaming experience).
Re claim 10, Muller discloses a second electronic gaming system and a game executed on the second gaming system based on the player identifier ([0059], [0095], and [0103]).
Re claim 11, Muller discloses receiving a list of connected devices from a network host and evaluating the list of connected devices based on the player identification model, wherein the scoring is based on the evaluating of gameplay information and the evaluating of the list of connected devices (fig. 14C).
Re claims 12 and 17, see the rejection to claim 1.
Re claim 18, Muller discloses uniquely identifying the player ([0138], [0139], [0170]).
Re claim 19, Muller discloses identifying the player within predetermined player categories ([0059], [0095]).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller in view of Nadler, Nguyen, and Cristofaro as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Nguyen et al (US 2003/0162591), hereinafter referred to as Nguyen 2.
Re claim 5, Muller does not explicitly disclose a voucher. Nguyen 2 teaches a system wherein after player identification, data is placed on a cashless gaming instrument such as a voucher for redemption later ([0019]). It would have been obvious to implement vouchers as taught by Nguyen 2 in order to enable players to redeem their prizes at a later time more convenient for them.
Claim(s) 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller in view of Nadler, Nguyen, and Cristofaro as applied to claims 12 and 17 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 2001/0031663).
Re claim 13, Muller does not disclose assigning a player volatility rating based on gameplay information and sending a volatility identifier to the system when the rating exceeds a predetermined threshold. Johnson teaches a safe gaming system wherein users susceptible to problem gambling are detected and send interactive alert messages based on users reaching a threshold ([0017] and [0026]).
It would have been obvious to implement the detection and alert systems of Johnson with Muller in order to prevent players with gambling addiction from engaging in risky and problematic gaming behavior.
Re claim 14, Johnson has disclosed the gameplay information comprising a wager ([0017] and [0026]).
Re claim 15, Johnson teaches the threshold being based on gameplay information and a player identifier ([0017] and [0026], the player’s information and gambling behavior is tracked and compared to history and thresholds).
Re claim 16, Johnson has taught sending an alert ([0026]).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller in view of Nadler, Nguyen, and Cristofaro as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Gadher et al (US 9,084,932).
Re claim 20, Muller fails to teach player categories based on wager amounts. Gadher teaches a system wherein players are categorized based on player preferences which include wagering amounts (col. 13:21-42). It would have been obvious to categorize players based on wagering preferences in order to cater advertisements and casino services towards players who spend more money at the casino.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights