DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,893,854. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,893,854 discloses the limitations of pending claim 1 as indicated below
Pending claim 1. A computer implemented method for detection of possible problem gaming behaviour of a subject engaged in one or more games involving monetary transactions, the method comprising the steps of:
obtaining a reference dataset that includes objective markers of gameplay by a plurality of reference subjects over a first time period,
1 of US 11,893,854. A computer implemented method for detection of possible problem gaming behaviour of a subject engaged in one or more games involving monetary transactions, the method comprising the steps of:
obtaining a reference dataset that includes objective markers of gameplay by a plurality of reference subjects over a first time period;
labelling the reference dataset with results of an expert behaviour assessment of the reference dataset to generate labels for the reference dataset,
dividing the reference dataset into a first subset and a second subset, the first subset corresponding to an early portion of the first time period and the second subset corresponding to a later portion of the first time period; labeling the second subset with results of an expert behaviour assessment of the second subset to generate labels for the second subset;
calculating a set of predefined risk behaviour markers based on said reference dataset, each risk behaviour marker associated with temporal characteristics of the gaming transactions and/or monetary activity of the gaming transactions,
training a classification model using the calculated set of risk behaviour marks and the labels for the reference dataset,
training a classification model using the first subset and the labels for the second subset;
obtaining a subject dataset comprising the subject's gaming transactions over a time period,
obtaining a subject dataset comprising the subject's gaming transactions over a second time period,
calculating a set of subject risk behaviour markers based on said subject dataset, each risk behaviour marker associated with temporal characteristics of the gaming transactions and/or monetary activity of the gaming transactions applying the subject risk behaviour markers against the classification model, and
applying the subject risk behaviour markers against the classification model, and
applying the subject dataset against the classification model; and
detecting Possible Problem Gambling Behavior (PPGB) of said subject based on an analysis of gaming behaviour output by the classification model.
detecting Possible Problem Gambling Behaviour (PPGB) of said subject based on an analysis of gaming behaviour output by the classification model.
Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,893,854 fails to teach calculating a set of predefined risk behaviour markers based on said reference dataset, each risk behaviour marker associated with temporal characteristics of the gaming transactions and/or monetary activity of the gaming transactions, and calculating a set of subject risk behaviour markers based on said subject dataset, each risk behaviour marker associated with temporal characteristics of the gaming transactions and/or monetary activity of the gaming transactions applying the subject risk behaviour markers against the classification model.
However, claim 3 of US Patent No. 11,893,854, teaches, the method according to claim 1, comprising the steps of calculating a set of predefined risk behaviour markers based on said dataset, each risk behaviour marker associated with temporal characteristics of the gaming transactions and/or monetary activity of the gaming transactions, and analysing the gaming behaviour of said subject by modelling the set of risk behaviour markers against the classification model.
Therefore claim 3 of US Patent No. 11,893,854 (which incorporates claim 1 by dependency) discloses the limitation of pending claim 1.
Claims 3-4 also of US Patent No. 11,893,854 the claim limitations of pending claims 3, 9.
Pending claim 17 would have been obvious over claims 1 and 3 of US Patent No. 11,893,854.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-8, 10-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Callaway (US 2015/0141123)
Chelian (US 8,762,305)
Pednault (US 2003/0176931)
Flanagan (US 2008/0199838)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 at 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 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715