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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “performed on a provider server.” It is unclear whether this provider server refers to the same provider server initially claimed in line 2 of the claim, or whether a separate, additional provider server is being claimed. The Examiner will assume that the two provider servers are one and the same until further clarification and correction is provided by Applicant.
Claims 2-13, 17, and 19 are dependent on claim 1 and inherit these deficiencies.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Nguyen et al (US 2005/0043089).
Re claim 1, Nguyen discloses a method including configuring an interface for receiving from a plurality of users and operating a provider server (fig. 1, users operating gaming units 20 and tournament server 46), the method comprising: providing an interface for communicating with a plurality of user-interfaces ([0062] and [0063], server 46 is communicatively linked with gaming units);
receiving instructions from the user-interfaces that determine a set of actions and to be performed on a provider server and a condition ([0176] to [0177] and [0183], the user selecting various conditions for the software agent to take actions under, such as risk level, speed, style, etc.);
determining whether the set of actions and the condition are accepted by the plurality of users, including a first user and a second user ([0084]-[0087], [0168], a plurality of users indicate a wish to enter a tournament, therefore the users accept the conditions of the actions to be taken); and
configuring an emulator in response to the condition being met, said emulator configured to:
establish communication with a provider server upon determining that the set of actions and the condition are accepted ([0088], [0171], [0174], [0176], the tournament server establishes communication with the software agent and enables play in the tournament on behalf of the player);
emulating the set of actions for each of the plurality of users by initiating automatic execution of the set of actions upon the provider server ([0167], [0174] to [0176], the software agent plays for the player, therefore executing sets of actions decided by the player without requiring the presence of the player);
updating the plurality of user-interfaces with an outcome of the actions ([0093], [0096]).
Re claim 2, Nguyen discloses emulation for the plurality of players occurs in parallel ([0260] and [0261], multiple groups of players may enter at approximately the same time and multiple instances of the tournament can occur).
Re claim 3, Nguyen discloses in response to said condition being met the set of actions is locked and inhibited from reconfiguration by any of the plurality of users ([0091], [0178]).
Re claim 4, Nguyen discloses the server communicates, at least in part, progress on the outcome of the emulation to the interface (fig. 12, 566).
Re claim 5, Nguyen discloses the progress is streamed to the plurality of users (see the rejection to claims 2 and 4, wherein Nguyen discloses multiple groups of players entering the tournament and multiple instances of the tournament, therefore every entering player will be notified of their results per fig. 12).
Re claim 7, since the system has been disclosed to report the progress of the emulation to the interface (see fig. 12, 566), all users viewing those results (see claims 2 and 4-5 disclosing multiple users) will see the same results, therefore the progress on the outcome of the emulation is repeated for each viewer.
Re claim 8, as Nguyen discloses each user being notified of their results (fig. 12, 566) and each player directing a software agent to play in the tournament on behalf of the player ([0167] and [0168]), Nguyen discloses a separate emulation process for each user (i.e. every player entering the tournament via the software agent goes through the process illustrated in fig. 12).
Re claim 9, Nguyen discloses the outcome of the set of actions emulated for the first user is compared to the outcome of the set of actions emulated for the second user (see fig. 15 where the results of emulation for each player on a team are compared in order to provide a team score).
Re claim 10, Nguyen discloses the outcome of a set of actions determines a score (fig. 15, 670).
Re claim 11, Nguyen discloses the users allocate a resource to their respective set of actions, and the outcome of the emulation modifies the respective resource, which determines the respective score, wherein the scores of the first and second user are compared (fig. 12, 546, 550, and 554, players pay to enter, 564, a score is calculated, and [0093], [0095], [0121], [0179], [0184], and [0226] discussing scores of players and teams).
Re claim 12, Nguyen discloses the resource accumulated when all emulations are complete are allocated to the user with the greatest score (see at least [0093], [0095], [0121], [0179], [0184], and [0226]).
Re claim 13, Nguyen discloses the plurality of users operate the interface via a user-interface via which the users engage with a host server to define the set of actions and/or meet the conditions (fig. 2, 114).
Re claims 17-18, see the rejection to the above claims, mutatis mutandis.
Re claim 19, Nguyen discloses the provider server is one of a plurality of provider servers selectably accessed via an aggregator, said aggregator functioning for at least part of the method, as an intermediary gateway between at least one of the user, a host server and a provider server ([0057], the network includes a plurality of server computers that are operatively interconnected).
Re claim 20, Nguyen discloses a host server comprising an interface configured to: communicate with a plurality of user interfaces (fig. 1, 46 communicates with gaming units via connections 47 and 48);
receive instructions that determine a set of actions and a condition ([0176] to [0177] and [0183], the user selecting various conditions for the software agent to take actions under, such as risk level, speed, style, etc.);
determine whether the set of actions and the condition are accepted by the plurality of users, including a first user and a second user ([0084]-[0087], [0168], a plurality of users indicate a wish to enter a tournament, therefore the users accept the conditions of the actions to be taken); and
an emulator configured to:
establish communications with a provider server upon determining that the set of actions and the condition are accepted ([0088], [0171], [0174], [0176], the tournament server establishes communication with the software agent and enables play in the tournament on behalf of the player); and
initiate automatic execution of the set of actions upon the remote server ([0167], [0174] to [0176], the software agent plays for the player, therefore executing sets of actions decided by the player without requiring the presence of the player), and update the plurality of user-interfaces with an outcome of the actions ([0093], [0096]).
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Shteyn et al (US 2003/0220143).
Re claim 6, Nguyen does not disclose a passive user requesting to observe the progress on the outcome of the emulation without participating in the emulation of actions, the server communicating progress on the outcome of the emulation to the interface.
Shteyn teaches an on-line gaming spectator which enables both active players and spectators to participate in an on-line game ([0015]). Spectators are participants are optional, therefore do not necessarily affect the state of the game ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to implement the spectator mode of Shteyn with the game of Nguyen in order to provide an avenue for players to spectate games without requiring them to enter the games, increasing the reach and providing alternative ways for players to enjoy the games provided by the casino.
Conclusion
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