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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative asserts arguments to address the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 (see Remarks, pg. 6-7), claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) (see Remarks, pg. 8-9), and claims 3, 6, 10-11, 14, and 17 under 35 USC 103 (see Remarks, pg. 9-11). The arguments are addressed in the sections below.
Response to the arguments of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101
The Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims recite techniques and methods for operating the systems, even if directed to the alleged abstract idea, integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 6-7). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative assert that the system of independent Claim 10 provides a solution to the recognized problem with prior systems that fail to address “the burdens with handling low-value cashless ticket vouchers of amounts insufficient to play games at gaming devices of a gaming establishment.” (see Remarks, pg. 6-7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a series of steps and/or instructions to manage insufficient amounts to play a wagering game at a wagering device of a wagering game establishment. Whether the claims are directed to sufficient or insufficient amounts to play a wagering game does not change or alter the claims from reciting steps to manage a wagering game which the courts have indicated is a fundamental economic activity that is a certain method of organizing human activity. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection and analysis has been maintained below.
Response to arguments under 35 USC 102
The Applicant’s representative argues that the prior art of Stronach discloses indicating to a user that an insufficient account balance to a wager but does not suggest independent of the play of the game, cause a sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 102 has been withdraw. However, after further search and/or consideration of the submitted amendments a new combination has been asserted below.
Response to arguments under 35 USC 103
In response to the Applicant’s representatives arguments based on the interpretation of Stronach, the arguments are persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn. However, after further search and/or consideration of the submitted amendments a new combination based upon Singer et al. (US 2017/0024952 A1) has been asserted below.
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 grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites limitations such as: “responsive to an amount of a credit meter being less than a designated wager amount for a play of a game”; “an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event:”; and “independent of the play of the game, cause a sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event” – certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations indicated above are found to recite a series of steps and/or instructions to manage a sports wager which is analogous to certain method of organizing human activity under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements such as: “a processor” and “a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:”, “a credit meter of a gaming device”, “displayed by the gaming device” and “communicate data that causes the gaming device to reduce the amount of the credit meter,” recite instructions that amount to mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the additional elements are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: “a processor” and “ a memory” and “a gaming device” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity of the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea similar to the courts findings in Alice v. CLS (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprises a processor and a memory and a gaming device to implement a wagering game (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more under Step 2B.
Independent Claims 10 recites substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 10 but is directed to a multiple leg sporting event wager which does not change the nature of the claim from managing a sporting event wager. For substantially the same reasons, independent Claim 10 is found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20, the limitations have been reviewed and were found to recite additional limitations that are directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer et al. (US 2017/0024952 A1) and Stronach et al. (US 2004/0235542 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Singer discloses a system (see Singer, gaming system 10a of Fig. 1A, 0050-0052) comprising:
a processor (see Singer, 0054); and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (see Singer, Fig. 2A, 0054), cause the processor to:
responsive to an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device being less than a designated wager amount for a play of a game displayed by the gaming device and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event (see Singer, Fig. 3F-I, 0169-0172, wherein responsive to player’s credit meter is less than a designated wager amount and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event (e.g., a plurality of alternative wager proposition are presented which is analogous to a credit meter contribution event)):
communicate data that causes the gaming device to reduce the amount of the credit meter (see Singer, Fig. 3H-K, 0170-0174, wherein upon the player selection of the wager opportunity, the amount of credits is reduced from the credit meter), and independent of the play of the game, cause an alternative wager opportunity to be placed on an outcome of the selected wagering opportunity (see Singer, Fig. 3H-4, 0170-0178). However, although Singer contemplates various changes and modifications to the various embodiments (see Singer, 0180), it is silent with respect to the wagering opportunity causes a sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event.
Stronach teaches a system that causes a pari-mutuel sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a pari-mutuel sporting event (see Stronach, 0049, 0053, 0069, wherein the race providing system enables a user to place a wager on an elected race event of selected race events displayed). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the wagering opportunity of Singer with known techniques such as pari-mutuel sporting event wagering to yield the predictable result to increase player excitement and attract interest. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application to cause a sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Singer and Stronach teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination further teach wherein the designated wager amount comprises a minimum wager amount for the play of the game displayed by the gaming device (see Singer, Figs. 3A-4, wherein the minimum wager amount for the play of the selected game is 100 credits).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Singer and Stronach teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination further teach wherein the occurrence of the credit meter contribution event is at least partially based on an identity of a user of the gaming device (see Singer, Fig. 3A-4, 0170-0178, wherein the occurrence of the alternative wagering opportunities (e.g., the credit meter contribution event) is at least based on the particular player’s credit balance being less than a designated wager amount for the game).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Singer and Stronach teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination further teach wherein the reduced amount of the credit meter is contributed to a pool maintained independent of the gaming device (see Singer, 070-0178; Stronach, 0015,the player places a wager which is added to the wagering pool; 0157, wherein the parimutuel sporting event comprises a pool maintained by a server using the placed wager (e.g., the reduced amount of the credit meter)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Singer and Stronach teaches the system of Claim1. The combination further teach, wherein a payout of the sporting event wager is based on the reduced amount of the credit meter (see Singer, Fig. 3H-K, 0170-178, wherein the wager opportunities indicate the amount of the bet and the increase in credit meter; Stronach, 0049, 0053, 0069).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Singer and Stronach teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the placed sporting event wager being a winning sporting event wager, cause the processor to cause a payout of the sporting event wager to be transferred to the credit meter of the gaming machine (see Singer, 0170-0178; Stronach, Fig. 6, 0090, 0135, 0151, 0179, 0183, 0235-0240).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Singer and Stronach teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the placed sporting event wager being a winning sporting event wager, cause the processor to cause a payout of the sporting event wager to be transferred to a gaming establishment account associated with a user of the gaming device (see Singer, 0018, 0060, 0105, 0120, wherein the credit balance is added to the player’s balance after a win of the wager; Stronach, Fig. 21, 0069, 0090, 0099, 0135, 0151, 0179-0180, 0257).
Regarding claim 12, Singer discloses a system (see Singer, gaming system 10a of Fig. 1A, 0050-0052) comprising:
a processor (see Singer, 0054); and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (see Singer, Fig. 2A, 0054), cause the processor to:
responsive to an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device being less than a designated wager amount for a play of a game displayed by the gaming device and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event (see Singer, Fig. 3F-I, 0169-0172, wherein responsive to player’s credit meter is less than a designated wager amount and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event (e.g., a plurality of alternative wager proposition are presented which is analogous to a credit meter contribution event)):
communicate data that causes the gaming device to reduce the amount of the credit meter (see Singer, Fig. 3H-K, 0170-0174, wherein upon the player selection of the wager opportunity, the amount of credits is reduced from the credit meter), and independent of the play of the game, cause an alternative wager opportunity to be placed on an outcome of the selected wagering opportunity (see Singer, Fig. 3H-4, 0170-0178). However, although Singer contemplates various changes and modifications to the various embodiments (see Singer, 0180), it is silent with respect to the wagering opportunity causes a sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event.
Stronach teaches a system that causes a pari-mutuel sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a pari-mutuel sporting event (see Stronach, 0049, 0053, 0069, wherein the race providing system enables a user to place a wager on an elected race event of selected race events displayed). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the wagering opportunity of Singer with known techniques such as pari-mutuel sporting event wagering to yield the predictable result to increase player excitement and attract interest. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application to cause a sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Singer and Stronach teaches the method of Claim 12. The combination further teach wherein the designated wager amount comprises a minimum wager amount for the play of the game displayed by the gaming device (see Singer, Figs. 3A-4, wherein the minimum wager amount for the play of the selected game is 100 credits).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Singer and Stronach teaches the method of Claim 12. The combination further teach wherein the occurrence of the credit meter contribution event is at least partially based on an identity of a user of the gaming device (see Singer, Fig. 3A-4, 0170-0178, wherein the occurrence of the alternative wagering opportunities (e.g., the credit meter contribution event) is at least based on the particular player’s credit balance being less than a designated wager amount for the game).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Singer and Stronach teaches the method of Claim 12. The combination further teach wherein the reduced amount of the credit meter is contributed to a pool maintained independent of the gaming device (see Singer, 070-0178; Stronach, 0015,the player places a wager which is added to the wagering pool; 0157, wherein the parimutuel sporting event comprises a pool maintained by a server using the placed wager (e.g., the reduced amount of the credit meter)).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Singer and Stronach teaches the method of Claim 12. The combination further teach, wherein a payout of the sporting event wager is based on the reduced amount of the credit meter (see Singer, Fig. 3H-K, 0170-178, wherein the wager opportunities indicate the amount of the bet and the increase in credit meter; Stronach, 0049, 0053, 0069).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Singer and Stronach teaches the method of Claim 12. The combination further teaches wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the placed sporting event wager being a winning sporting event wager, cause the processor to cause a payout of the sporting event wager to be transferred to the credit meter of the gaming machine (see Singer, 0170-0178; Stronach, Fig. 6, 0090, 0135, 0151, 0179, 0183, 0235-0240).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Singer and Stronach teaches the method of Claim 12. The combination further teaches wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the placed sporting event wager being a winning sporting event wager, cause the processor to cause a payout of the sporting event wager to be transferred to a gaming establishment account associated with a user of the gaming device (see Singer, 0018, 0060, 0105, 0120, wherein the credit balance is added to the player’s balance after a win of the wager; Stronach, Fig. 21, 0069, 0090, 0099, 0135, 0151, 0179-0180, 0257).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Singer and Stronach as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Young et al. (US 9,401,070 B1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the combination of Singer and Stronach teach the system of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 12. The combination of Singer and Stronach further teach a special bonus event occurs in association with an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter of the gaming device (see Stronach, 0235-0241, wherein a Bonus mode occurs when the Cash Out button has been pressed), but it is silent as to wherein the credit meter contribution event occurs upon input to cash out.
Young teaches a gaming system comprising identifying and handling fractional credit portions by a credit meter contribution event. Specifically, Young teaches wherein the credit meter contribution event occurs in association with an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter of the gaming device (see Young, steps 445, 450, 460 of Fig. 4, 5D, col. 7: ln 20-57). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Young to use known techniques with similar devices to yield the predictable result to guarantee a specified theoretical return to the player associated with fractional credit portions while providing an exciting secondary game experience upon cashout (see Young, col. 1: ln 59-col 2: ln 10). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application wherein the credit meter contribution event occurs in association with an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter of the gaming device.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer and Stronach as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, in further view of Mindes (US 5,573,244).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the combination of Singer and Stronach discloses the system of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 12. Although the combination of Singer and Stronach teaches wherein the sporting event wager comprises a variety of parimutuel wager types (see Stronach, 0055), it is silent with respect to a multiple leg parlay.
Mindes teaches a sport wagering system that provides a range of known types of bets that are available including a multiple legged parlay (see Mindes, col. 29-39). One would have been motivated to integrate these types of wagers to yield the predictable result to increase profit margins (see Mindes, col. 3: 40-49). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application wherein the sporting event wager comprises a multiple leg parlay.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer et al. (US 2017/0024952 A1) in view of Young (US 9,401,070 B1) and Mindes (US 5,573,244).
Regarding claim 10, Singer discloses a system (see Singer, gaming system 10a of Fig. 1A, 0050-0052) comprising: a processor (see Singer, 0054); and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (see Singer, Fig. 2A, 0054), cause the processor to:
responsive to an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device being less than a designated wager amount for a play of a game displayed by the gaming device (see Singer, Fig. 3F-I, 0169-0172), and an input being received at the gaming device (see Singer, Fig. 3F-I, 0169-0172):
communicate data that causes the gaming device to reduce the amount of the credit meter without issuing any cashless ticket vouchers in association with the cashout input being received (see Singer, Fig. 3H-K, 0170-0174, and independent of the play of the game, cause an independent wager to be placed on a plurality of outcomes of a plurality of alternative wagering events (see Singer, Fig. 3H-4, 0170-0178). However, Singer is silent with respect to the input being i) a cashout input being received at the gaming device and ii) a multiple leg sporting event wager to be placed on a plurality of outcomes of a plurality of sporting events.
Young teaches a gaming system comprising identifying and handling fractional credit portions by a credit meter contribution event. Specifically, Young teaches wherein the credit meter contribution event occurs in association with an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter of the gaming device (see Young, steps 445, 450, 460 of Fig. 4, 5D, col. 7: ln 20-57). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Young to use known techniques with similar devices to yield the predictable result to guarantee a specified theoretical return to the player associated with fractional credit portions while providing an exciting secondary game experience upon cashout (see Young, col. 1: ln 59-col 2: ln 10). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application wherein the credit meter contribution event occurs in association with an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter of the gaming device.
Moreover, Mindes teaches a sport wagering system that provides a range of known types of bets that are available including a multiple legged parlay (see Mindes, col. 29-39). One would have been motivated to integrate these types of wagers to yield the predictable result to increase profit margins (see Mindes, col. 3: 40-49). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application wherein the alternative wagering opportunity being a multiple leg sporting event wager to be placed on a plurality of outcomes of a plurality of sporting events.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Singer, Young, and Mindes teaches the system of Claim 10. The combination further teach wherein the designated wager amount comprises a minimum wager amount for the player of the game displayed by the gaming device (see Singer, Figs. 3A-4, wherein the minimum wager amount for the play of the selected game is 100 credits).
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 RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights