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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the authorization message" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is 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. The claims recites the limitation of “generate the winning result of the lottery game by a first random number generator different from the first random number generator; and”. It is not clear what the applicant is attempting to claim. The metes and bounds of the claims cannot be accurately determine due to the inconsistent claim language.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 - 20 are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 7 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. A lottery gaming system, comprising:
a processor; and
a computer-readable storage memory coupled with the processor and comprising instructions that are executable by the processor, wherein the instructions comprise instructions to:
determine, from a unique identifier of a lottery game entry in a lottery game and a unique identifier of a first user, that the first user is associated with the lottery game entry;
in response to receipt of an input of the first user from a secondary game, the input being an outcome of the secondary game; determine an outcome modifier that adjusts an expected value of the lottery game entry, wherein the outcome modifier adjusts a winning lottery amount to be paid to the first user when the lottery game entry corresponds to a winning result; and
update, in the computer-readable storage memory, a value of the outcome modifier stored in an electronic record associated with the unique identifier of the lottery game entry.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards a wagering lottery game wherein a player plays a second game that modifies the award of the lottery game. This represents a fundamental economic practice, namely, exchanging consideration based on odds and outcomes The latter also falls under the grouping of managing interactions between people, i.e., enabling a player to follow wagering game rules to achieve an award
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): processors, memory, server
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer, processors, memory and servers. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[00209] In various embodiments in which the gaming system includes a plurality of gaming machines (or gaming devices), one or more of the gaming machines (or gaming devices) are thin client gaming machines (or gaming devices) and one or more of the gaming machines (or gaming devices) are thick client gaming machines (or gaming devices). In other embodiments in which the gaming system includes one or more gaming machines (or gaming devices), certain functions of one or more of the gaming machines (or gaming devices) are implemented in a thin client environment, and certain other functions of one or more of the gaming machines (or gaming devices) are implemented in a thick client environment. In one such embodiment in which the gaming system includes an gaming machine (or gaming device) and a central server, central controller, or remote host, computerized instructions for controlling any primary or base games displayed by the gaming machine (or gaming device) are communicated from the central server, central controller, or remote host to the gaming machine (or gaming device) in a thick client configuration, and computerized instructions for controlling any secondary or bonus games or other functions displayed by the gaming machine (or gaming device) are executed by the central server, central controller, or remote host in a thin client configuration.
[00210] In certain embodiments in which the gaming system includes: (a) a gaming machine (or gaming device) configured to communicate with a central server, central controller, or remote host through a data network; and/or (b) a plurality of gaming machines (or gaming devices) configured to communicate with one another through a communication network, the communication network may include a local area network (LAN) in which the gaming machines (or gaming devices) are located substantially proximate to one another and/or the central server, central controller, or remote host. In one example, the gaming machines (or gaming devices) and the central server, central controller, or remote host are located in a gaming establishment or a portion of a gaming establishment.
[00211] In other embodiments in which the gaming system includes: (a) a gaming machine (or gaming device) configured to communicate with a central server, central controller, or remote host through a data network; and/or (b) a plurality of gaming machines (or gaming devices) configured to communicate with one another through a communication network, the communication network may include a wide area network (WAN) in which one or more of the gaming machines (or gaming devices) are not necessarily located substantially proximate to another one of the gaming machines (or gaming devices) and/or the central server, central controller, or remote host. For example, one or more of the gaming machines (or gaming devices) are located: (a) in an area of a gaming establishment different from an area of the gaming establishment in which the central server, central controller, or remote host is located; or (b) in a gaming establishment different from the gaming establishment in which the central server, central controller, or remote host is located. In another example, the central server, central controller, or remote host is not located within a gaming establishment in which the gaming machines (or gaming devices) are located. In certain embodiments in which the communication network includes a WAN, the gaming system includes a central server, central controller, or remote host and a gaming machine (or gaming device) each located in a different gaming establishment in a same geographic area, such as a same city or a same state. Gaming systems in which the communication network includes a WAN are substantially identical to gaming systems in which the communication network includes a LAN, though the quantity of gaming machines (or gaming devices) in such gaming systems may vary relative to one another.
[00212] In further embodiments in which the gaming system includes: (a) a gaming machine (or gaming device) configured to communicate with a central server, central controller, or remote host through a data network; and/or (b) a plurality of gaming machines (or gaming devices) configured to communicate with one another through a communication network, the communication network may include an internet (such as the Internet) or an intranet. In certain such embodiments, an Internet browser of the gaming machine (or gaming device) is usable to access an Internet game page from any location where an Internet connection is available. In one such embodiment, after the gaming machine (or gaming device) accesses the Internet game page, the central server, central controller, or remote host identifies a user before enabling that user to place any wagers on any plays of any wagering games. In one example, the central server, central controller, or remote host identifies the user by requiring a user account of the user to be logged into via an input of a unique user name and password combination assigned to the user. The central server, central controller, or remote host may, however, identify the user in any other suitable manner, such as by validating a user tracking identification number associated with the user; by reading a user tracking card or other smart card inserted into a card reader; by validating a unique user identification number associated with the user by the central server, central controller, or remote host; or by identifying the gaming machine (or gaming device), such as by identifying the MAC address or the IP address of the Internet facilitator. In various embodiments, once the central server, central controller, or remote host identifies the user, the central server, central controller, or remote host enables placement of one or more wagers on one or more plays of one or more primary or base games and/or one or more secondary or bonus games, and displays those plays via the Internet browser of the gaming machine (or gaming device). Examples of implementations of Internet-based gaming are further described in U.S. Patent No. 8,764,566, entitled "Internet Remote Game Server," and U.S. Patent No. 8,147,334, entitled "Universal Game Server".
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 8, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jubinville (US 2006/0205476).
As per claim 1, Jubinville discloses:
a processor; and (Jubinville discloses a lottery terminal and server that comprises a processor) (Jubinville 0030)
a computer-readable storage memory coupled with the processor and comprising instructions that are executable by the processor, wherein the instructions comprise instructions to: (Jubinville 0030)
determine, from a unique identifier of a lottery game entry in a lottery game and a unique identifier of a first user, that the first user is associated with the lottery game entry; (Jubinville discloses the lottery ticket having a unique identifier (Jubinville Fig 7 “upper ticket codes”) and associating of the ticket with a unique entrant out of a plurality of entrants or players) (Jubinville 0028)
in response to receipt of an input of the first user from a secondary game, the input being an outcome of the secondary game; determine an outcome modifier that adjusts an expected value of the lottery game entry, wherein the outcome modifier adjusts a winning lottery amount to be paid to the first user when the lottery game entry corresponds to a winning result; and (Jubinville discloses a secondary game that modifies the expected value of the lottery entry and the determination of a result of the first lottery game and modifying the amount won in the first lottery game by a multiplier or a specific amount) (Jubinville 0028 – 0032)
update, in the computer-readable storage memory, a value of the outcome modifier stored in an electronic record associated with the unique identifier of the lottery game entry. (Jubinville discloses the server making a determination of a players of wins and associated amounts for the lottery game and secondary game and thus inherently stores at least for some period of time an electronic record of the modified award to be paid out the particular entrant associated with the lottery ticket) (Jubinville 0030).
As per claim 5,
receive, at the communications interface, a second input for a second user, the first user and second user being associated with different lottery game entries; (Jubinville discloses accepting different entries for the lottery game from different users) (Jubinville 0028, 0029)
compare, in response to receiving the second input, the input of the first user with the second input of the second user to determine outcome modifiers of each of the first user and the second user; and (Jubinville discloses accepting different entries for the lottery game from different users, thus each user will have a mega box modifier that is determined) (Jubinville 0028, 0029)
update an electronic record associated with an identifier of the lottery game entry of the first user and a second identifier of a lottery game entry of the second user to reflect the determined outcome modifiers of each of the first user and the second user, wherein the determined outcome modifiers of the first and second users are different from each other. (Jubinville discloses accepting different entries for the lottery game from different users, thus each user will have a mega box modifier that is determined) (Jubinville 0028, 0029) (Jubinville discloses the server making a determination of a players of wins and associated amounts for the lottery game and secondary game and thus inherently stores at least for some period of time an electronic record of the modified award to be paid out the particular entrant associated with the lottery ticket) (Jubinville 0030).
Independent claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are anticipated by Jubinville based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 12 is/are anticipated by Jubinville based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 5, which are similar in claim scope.
As per claim 19,
provides a request to the lottery server for permission to render a further secondary game to the first user; and (Jubinville discloses the user making a purchase of a lottery entry (i.e. request to play) by means of a wager) (Jubinville 0028 – 0030)
receives, from the lottery server, permission to render the further secondary game to the first user. (Jubinville discloses the in response to the user making a purchase of a lottery entry (i.e. request to play) by means of a wager, the game is entry generated for the user) (Jubinville 0028 – 0030).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jubinville (US 2006/0205476) in view of Edgar et al (US 2019/0355204)
As per claim 2,
wherein the input comprises one or more of a secondary game outcome and a proficiency level measure of the first user, wherein the outcome modifier for the first user is different from an outcome modifier for a second user having a second lottery game entry in the lottery game and wherein the instructions further comprise instructions to: (Jubinville discloses a secondary game wherein the player attempts to select an outcome modifier and attempts to get lucky (i.e. a proficiency of user) and select the highest award modifier) (Jubinville 0032)
determine that the first user is eligible to play an instance of a secondary game different from the lottery game prior to sending the authorization message; (Jubinville discloses a player must first make a wager first to play the secondary game and the lottery game) (Jubinville 0009, 0025, 0028)
accept the lottery game entry from the first user; (Jubinville discloses the accepting of the lottery game entry upon wagering) (Jubinville 0009, 0025, 0028)
determine the winning result for the lottery game; (Jubinville 0028)
compare the accepted lottery game entry against the winning result to determine that the accepted lottery game entry corresponds to the winning result; (Jubinville 0028)
apply, in response to determining that the accepted lottery game entry corresponds to the winning result, the outcome modifier to the winning lottery amount to determine an adjusted winning lottery amount to make to the first user, wherein the winning result is determined after determination of the outcome modifier; and (Jubinville 0029, 0030)
update an electronic record associated with the unique identifier of the lottery game entry to reflect payout of the adjusted winning lottery amount. (Jubinville discloses the server making a determination of a players of wins and associated amounts for the lottery game and secondary game and thus inherently stores at least for some period of time an electronic record of the modified award to be paid out the particular entrant associated with the lottery ticket) (Jubinville 0030).
Jubinville fails to disclose:
wherein the unique identifier comprises a Quick Response (QR) code,
However, Edgar teaches the use of a Lottery ticket that comprises a scannable QR code (Edgar 0044, Fig 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Jubinville in view of Edgar to provide a code for the lottery ticket that is a QR code. This would enable the ticket to be easily scanned by a scanner to validate the ticket (Edgar 0044, Fig 1)
Dependent claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are made obvious by the combination of Jubinville and Edgar based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 11, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jubinville (US 2006/0205476) in view of Edgar et al (US 2019/0355204) in view of Penacho et al (US 20180293846)
As per claim 3,
receive, at the communications interface, a scanned digital image of a lottery ticket corresponding to the lottery game entry; (Combination of Jubinville and Edgar as applied to claim 2, Edgar discloses the scanning of QR code) (Edgar 0044, Fig 1)
receive a second input of the first user; (Jubinville discloses the user making a second input selection of a plurality of lottery outcome modifiers) (Jubinville 0030, 0031, 0032)
determine, in response to receipt of the second input, a second outcome modifier that adjusts the winning lottery amount when the lottery game entry is the winning result; ) (Jubinville 0030, 0031, 0032)
Jubinville fails to disclose:
compare the outcome modifier against the second outcome modifier;
adjust the winning lottery amount by a larger of the outcome modifier and second outcome modifier; and
update an electronic record associated with the lottery ticket to reflect payout of the adjusted winning lottery amount.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Penacho discloses the calculating of multiple game awards, comparing the calculated awards to one another to determine which position yields the greatest calculated award and offering the user that larger award.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Jubinville in view of Penacho to provide a user with an awards that is the greatest in comparison to other calculated awards. This would be beneficial as it would ensure that the user always gains the most beneficial award amount upon achieving a winning combination.
As per claim 11,
receive, at the communications interface of the lottery server, a digital representation of a lottery ticket corresponding to the lottery game entry; (Combination of Jubinville and Edgar as applied to claim 2, Edgar discloses the scanning of QR code) (Edgar 0044, Fig 1)
receiving, at the lottery server, a second input for a second user, the first user and second user being members of a user group, each member of the user group being associated with different lottery game entries; (Jubinville discloses multiple users being able to purchase lottery entries and this be associated with different lottery game entries) (Jubinville 0028 – 0030)
in response to receiving the second input, determining, at the lottery server, a second outcome modifier that adjusts a winning lottery amount when the lottery game entry is a winning result; (Jubinville discloses the user making a second input selection of a plurality of lottery outcome modifiers) (Jubinville 0030, 0031, 0032)
Jubin fails to disclose:
comparing, at the lottery server, the outcome modifier against the second outcome modifier; and adjusting, at the lottery server, the winning lottery amount for each member of the user group by a larger of the outcome modifier and second outcome modifier.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Penacho discloses the calculating of multiple game awards, comparing the calculated awards to one another to determine which position yields the greatest calculated award and offering the user that larger award.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Jubinville in view of Penacho to provide a user with an awards that is the greatest in comparison to other calculated awards. This would be beneficial as it would ensure that the user always gains the most beneficial award amount upon achieving a winning combination.
As per claim 18,
receives, from the lottery server, a digital representation of a lottery ticket corresponding to the lottery game entry; (Jubinville discloses the receiving of a digital lottery ticket from a server) (Jubinville 0027-0030)
receives, via the communications interface, a second outcome modifier from the lottery server, the second outcome modifier being related to a second input received from a different (Jubinville discloses a user may select multiple mega box modifiers to modify the lottery entry) (Jubinville 0032, Fig 7)
second user being associated with a second different lottery game entry, wherein the outcome modifier is less than the second outcome modifier; and (Jubinville discloses at least a second user that is able to also enter the lottery and select a modifier that are different values, that are used to modify the lottery entry) (Jubinville 0028, 0032, Fig 7)
renders the second outcome modifier on the display (Combination of Jubinville and Edgar, wherein Jubinville discloses the displaying of the modifier upon the display such as a ticket (Jubinville Fig 7) and Edgar teaches the displaying of a lottery ticket in a digital format (Edgar 0044))
Dependent claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are made obvious by the combination of Jubinville and Penacho based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 3, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jubinville (US 2006/0205476) in view of Fong (WO 2015168749 A)
As per claim 6,
determine a winning result for the lottery game; (Jubinville 0028)
compare the lottery game entry against the winning result to determine when the lottery game entry corresponds to the winning result; (Jubinville 0028)
apply, when the lottery game entry corresponds to the winning result, the outcome modifier to the winning lottery amount to determine a payout for the first user; (Jubinville 0028 – 0030)
Jubinville fails to disclose:
compare the payout for the first user against a Return to Player (RTP) amount for the lottery game;
determine a difference between the payout for the first user and the RTP amount;
and update, when the payout for the first user is less than the RTP amount, an electronic record associated with a separate secondary award pool to reflect the difference, wherein the separate secondary award pool is further distributed among one or more users associated with different lottery game entries in the lottery game.
However, Fong discloses the monitoring of payouts to players with respect to the RTP that is paid out to players. Fong discloses “In order to increase this Global RTP to 90%, then extra credits need to be rewarded to players outside of the scope of the normal game. A simple calculation can determine the amount of credits needed to be rewarded. This may be paid to all currently logged in players, or to all who were logged in within a certain time period.” (Fong 0081).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Jubinville in view of Fong to monitor the difference between the actual amount of payouts awarded to the player with respect RTP and distribute the difference to players of the game. This would ensure that the game system is operating withing regulations mandated within various jurisdictions.
Dependent claim(s) 13 is/are anticipated by Jubinville and Fong based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 6, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jubinville (US 2006/0205476) in view of Caputo (US 2017/0294079)
As per claim 7, Jubinville fails to disclose:
adjust a lottery modifier counter;
compare the adjusted lottery modifier counter with a maximum counter value to determine whether the first user is eligible to receive a second outcome modifier;
determine, when the first user is eligible to receive the second outcome modifier, a user level of the first user;
select, based on the determined user level, the second outcome modifier from among the plurality of outcome modifiers; and
store the second outcome modifier in association with the unique identifier of the lottery game entry;
receive, at the communications interface, a request from the first user to transfer the second outcome modifier to a second lottery game entry of the first user in the lottery game; and
update an electronic record associated with respective unique identifiers of the lottery game entry and second lottery game entries of the first user to reflect the transfer of the second outcome modifier from the lottery game entry to the second lottery game entry.
However, Caputo teaches a system that determines a players eligibility to receive a free game modifier based upon any type of comparison or suitable criteria (Caputo 0151), wherein the players eligibility is further based upon a player level (Caputo 0151) and based upon the player level the player is able to be eligible for one or more events such as free game modifiers (Caputo 0151). Caputo teaches the use of a free game modifier which may be a multiplier to be used in a current game or requested by a player to be used (i.e. transferred) to a subsequent game (Caputo 0032, 0033).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Jubinville in view of Caputo to utilize a known technique to modify similar games in the same way to provide an outcome modifier, based upon an eligibility requirement, to be player requested to be used in a second game or a subsequent game. This would ensure that the player does not lose any potential awards they may achieve in first game in case they are no longer able to play in a current session, thus providing them with more flexibility in when they redeem their accumulated awards.
Dependent claim(s) 14 is/are anticipated by Jubinville and Caputo based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 7, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jubinville (US 2006/0205476) in view of Kawai (US 2017/0046907)
As per claim 20, Jubinville fails to disclose:
wherein the outcome modifier adjusts the winning lottery amount, wherein the input of the first user comprises a skill-based input, wherein the rendered secondary game comprises a game of skill, wherein the skill-based input is generated from an outcome of the game of skill, wherein the outcome modifier comprises a plurality of outcome modifiers corresponding to a plurality of user levels, wherein the processor further provides a skill level of the first user to the lottery server, and wherein the outcome modifier is based on the skill level of the first user.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kawai discloses a game system wherein the player gains entry to a lottery game such as roulette) (Kawai 0041) Kawai discloses the use of a secondary game wherein the game allows a player to shoot roulette images of the lottery game, thereby utilizing player skill and that based upon the user input to the secondary game, the inputs determine a modifier that adjusts the expected value of the lottery game. The number of modifiers that the user achieved is based upon the users varying skill level at hitting the various roulette images (Kawai 0043).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Jubinville in view of Kawai to use a known technique to improve similar games by means of providing lottery outcome modifiers based upon the skill level of a user when playing skill game. This would promote longer play of the game as users would be encouraged and incentivized to play as much as possible to become more skilled at playing the game and thus increasing their chances of gaining award modifiers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. 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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 4/17/2026
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights