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.
Claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 term “near” in Claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate attention is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
7. Step 1
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are directed to a system/apparatus meeting the requirements for
Step 1.
Claims 8-14 are directed to a method meeting the requirements for Step 1.
8. Step 2A Prong 1
In independent Claim 1 (and similarly for Claims 8 and 15), the following italicized steps recite abstract ideas of a) mental processes of identifying a player tracking account and initiating tracking of a play session – these steps can be performed in the mind and observed, and b) of certain methods of organizing human activity, i.e., wagering where “detect[ing] an initial wager provided by the player at the position. As to the former, Examiner notes that the claim recites the identification of the player and initiating tracking of a play session are performed by a processor. However, Examiner deems the recitation of the processor as at a highly generic level lacking any details of how the processing is actually accomplished to put the step beyond what is humanly possible. As to the latter wagering, the wager provided by a player and subsequent game play is de facto wagering – a species of fundamental economic practice under the category of certain manners of organizing human activity.
Claim 1
A system comprising:
a multiplayer gaming device comprising a plurality of player positions, the multiplayer gaming device comprising:
a table management computing device;
at least one radio-frequency identification (RFID) sensor configured to detect wireless-enabled wagering tokens, the at least one RFID sensor positioned near a wager area of the multiplayer gaming device; and
at least one processor executing instructions which cause the at least one processor to:
receive, from a mobile device of a player, a connection request, the connection request including a player position of the plurality of player positions at the multiplayer gaming device;
identify a player tracking {loyalty} account identifier associated with the player associated with the mobile device based in part on information included in the connection request;
cause to be displayed, on the table management computing device, a profile image associated with the player tracking account identifier and the player position included in the connection request;
receive, from the table management computing device, confirmation of at least one of the identity of the player or the position of the player;
detect an initial wager provided by the player at the position based at least in part on sensor data received by the RFID sensor, the sensor data identifying presence of at least one wireless-enabled wagering token near the wager area; and
initiate tracking of a play session associated with the player.
As explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 Update, in situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single abstract idea for purposes of further eligibility. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, for purposes of further discussion, the abstract ideas are collectively viewed as a single abstract idea of wagering.
9. Step 2A Prong II
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to 2019 PEG, a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)); or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, a table management computing device, a processor, medium, and instructions are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere tools with instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Applicant’s Specification does not disclose that the processor, medium, or instructions are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem that “overcome some sort of technical difficulty” (citing ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 768 (Fed. Cir. 2019). According to Applicant:
[0245] A computer, controller, or server, such as those described herein, includes at least one processor or processing unit and a system memory. The computer, controller, or server typically has at least some form of computer readable non-transitory media. As used herein, the terms “processor” and “computer” and related terms, e.g., “processing device”, “computing device”, and “controller” are not limited to just those integrated circuits referred to in the art as a computer, but broadly refers to a microcontroller, a microcomputer, a programmable logic controller (PLC), an application specific integrated circuit, and other programmable circuits “configured to” carry out programmable instructions, and these terms are used interchangeably herein. In the embodiments described herein, memory may include, but is not limited to, a computer-readable medium or computer storage media, volatile and nonvolatile media, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Such memory includes a random access memory (RAM), computer storage media, communication media, and a computer-readable non-volatile medium, such as flash memory. Alternatively, a floppy disk, a compact disc — read only memory (CD-ROM), a magneto-optical disk (MOD), and/or a digital versatile disc (DVD) may also be used. Also, in the embodiments described herein, additional input channels may be, but are not limited to, computer peripherals associated with an operator interface such as a mouse and a keyboard. Alternatively, other computer peripherals may also be used that may include, for example, but not be limited to, a scanner. Furthermore, in the exemplary embodiment, additional output channels may include, but not be limited to, an operator interface monitor.
[0246] As indicated above, the process may be embodied in computer software. The computer software could be supplied in a number of ways, for example on a tangible, nontransitory, computer readable storage medium, such as on any nonvolatile memory device (e.g. an EEPROM). Further, different parts of the computer software can be executed by different devices, such as, for example, in a client-server relationship. Persons skilled in the art will appreciate that computer software provides a series of instructions executable by the processor.
Consequently, the table management computing device, processor, medium, and instructions are viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer or as a means to automate the steps. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Also claimed are a wagering token, an RFID sensor, a mobile device, a player tracking account, a profile image, and a confirmation – all deemed to be extra-solution activity. These instrumentalities do not improve the functioning of a computer or any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application. More likely than not they merely serve as part of the panoply of instrumentalities, viewed individually and in combination, that do no more than automate the steps needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality).
Accordingly, each claim, as a whole, does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claim 1, and similarly Claims 8 and 15, lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
10. Step 2B
According to the 2019 PEG, in addition to the considerations discussed in Step 2A, an additional consideration indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) is the addition of a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Conversely, an additional consideration not indicative of an inventive concept is simply appending well-understood, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Here, the claimed wagering token, RFID sensor, mobile device, player tracking account, profile image, and confirmation are routine, well-known, and conventional instrumentalities used in their customary ways. Specifically,
Wagering token and RFID sensors:
According to U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0093428 “Intelligent wagering token and wagering token tracking techniques” to Mattice, there are several conventional types of wireless technologies which may be applied to wireless identification devices … RFID [0162], see also RFID wagering tokens [0240, 0842], and RFID sensors [0179].
Mobile device:
According to Applicant’s Specification [0074], “EUDs 264a and 264b are mobile devices. For example, the EUD 264a may be a tablet device and the EUD 264b may be a smart phone. The EUD 264c is a laptop computer that is located within a residence 266 at the time depicted in FIG. 2C. Accordingly, in this example the hardware of EUDs 264 is not specifically configured for online gaming, although each EUD 264 is configured with software for online gaming.”
Player tracking account:
According to Applicant’s Specification [0076], “[a]ccording to this example, the financial institution data center 270 is configured to maintain financial accounts, such as checking accounts, savings accounts, loan accounts, payment card accounts, rewards accounts, loyalty accounts, player accounts, digital wallet accounts, or such. In some implementations one or more of the authorized users 274a—274c may maintain at least one financial account with the financial institution that is serviced via the financial institution data center 270.”
Profile Image:
According to Applicant’s Specification [0115], “[f]or example, the table management device 320 may identify when a particular player begins and ends table game play based on the player 302 providing their player loyalty card during ticket-in or ticket-out/cash-out actions. In some embodiments, the position of the player 302 may be established. For example, the dealer 304 may enter the player 302’s identification into a particular table position within the UL.”
Confirmation:
According to Applicant’s Specification [0139], “[i]n some embodiments, the dealer 304 may be shown a photo image of the player 302 to visually confirm the identity of the player 302.”
Claim 1, and similarly Claims 8 and 15, do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, Claims 1, 8 and 15 are ineligible.
11. Dependent Claims
Claims 2-7 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
Claims 9-14 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 8.
Claims 16-20 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 15.
In Reference to Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20
Claims 2, 9, and 16 extra-solution displaying of well-known virtual maps and data gathering. Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17 extra-solution GPS data gathering and abstract determining of a player position and well-known geofencing. Claims 5, 12, and 18 are extra-solution and well-known QR codes. Claims 6, 13, and 19 are extra-solution data gathering. Claims 7, 14, and 20 are extra-solution information storing. Accordingly, a conclusion that the steps or elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Additionally, the combination of steps/additional elements adds nothing that is not already present when considered individually where the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 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.
13. 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.
14. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
15. Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0087241 to Nguyen in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0113161 to Walker.
In Reference to Claims 1, 8, and 15
Nguyen discloses a system (Fig. 1A, 8, 9), comprising:
a multiplayer gaming device (Fig. 8) comprising a plurality of player positions (Fig. 8 player stations 812a-812e), the multiplayer gaming device comprising:
a table management computing device (Fig. 8 MTC 801);
at least one radio-frequency identification (RFID) sensor configured to detect wireless-enabled wagering tokens ([0100] wager token detection component 260), the sensor positioned near a wager area of the multiplayer gaming device (within the wager zone ([0078, 0100, 0101]); and
at least one processor (Fig. 8 MTC processor or CPU 802) executing instructions to:
receive, from a mobile device of a player, a player position of the plurality of player positions at the multiplayer gaming device (handheld user input device (Table Control Console 220 includes sensors to verify UID data [0088], authenticate player UID [0090], activate a UID [0091] provided to each player at gaming table [0105], UID is associated with a different player (and/or player station) at the gaming table [0105] employed via automatic activation {response} to a connection request when presented at gaming table] [0112]);
identify a player tracking account {loyalty account} identifier associated with the player associated with the mobile device based in part on information included in the connection (UID functionality includes acquiring user ID data [0109]);
cause to be displayed, on the table management computing device (Fig. 8 MTD display 808), a profile image associated with the player tracking account identifier and the player position included in the connection (functionality for retrieving and/or displaying player tracking data [0118], the profile image is non-functional descriptive material as whether the data retrieved as tracking data is a profile image or not has no effect on the operation of the claimed steps);
receive, confirmation of at least one of the identity of the player or the position of the player (Console 220 authenticates player UID [0090] and where UID device detects user and position information [0108, 0109, 0110]);
detect an initial wager provided by the player at the position based at least in part on sensor data received by the RFID sensor ([0107, 0117] wagering input and activities), the sensor data identifying presence of at least one wireless-enabled wagering token near the wager area ([0100]); and
initiate tracking of a play session associated with the player (tracking player wagering input data [0107]).
Nguyen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a connection request. One of skill in the art would be aware of the handheld gaming device and interactive maps of Walker.
Walker teaches of a casino environment employing handheld devices 106 ([0016, [0058]) allowing a gaming device to search and find a free table game. For example, the handheld device can periodically query a controller 200 to find an available table ([0121]). Alternatively, to register the user’s request {connection request} ([0121]) which pushes an availability message to the handheld device once a table becomes available ([0121]) and eventually allow a player to reserve a spot at the gaming table ([0122]). See also the system produces a map of a casino floor plan ([0073]). Walker invents this system and method in order to aid an overwhelmed casino patron by providing access to an interactive mapping system operable on handheld devices ([0016]).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the handheld UID device data exchange with the gaming table of Nguyen to also include the connection request of Walker to achieve the predictable result of aiding the casino patron to locate and secure a position at a gaming table. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 2, 9, and 16
Walker discloses the processor displays a virtual map on the handheld device and receives from the mobile device of the player a selection of the multiplayer gaming device and a position at the multiplayer gaming device from the virtual map, wherein the selection is included in the connection request (the handheld device can display a floor plan [0073] where to find an available table ([0121] and to register the user’s request {connection request} ([0121]) and eventually allow a player to reserve a spot at the gaming table ([0122]). In combination with the UID of Nguyen, the player is able to communicate the UID device information to the table console using a floorplan of the casino and registering to reserve a table communicating the UID and table position information).
In Reference to Claims 3, 10, and 17
Nguyen discloses receiving, from the mobile device of the player, GPS position information; and determine, using the GPS position information, a location of player relative to the multiplayer gaming device (“Geolocation module 446 which, for example, may be configured or designed to acquire geolocation information from remote sources and use the acquired geolocation information to determine information relating to a relative and/or absolute position of the UID. For example, in one implementation, the geolocation module 446 may be adapted to receive GPS signal information for use in determining the position or location of the UID.” and of the location relative to remote gaming machines and servers [0225]).
In addition, this is modified by Nguyen who teaches “[i]n another exemplary embodiment, the controller 200 may determine additional location information comprising routing information based upon an estimated time to get to a destination. As a result, destination options may be determined and/or sorted based on distance between requesting handheld device 106 and one or more determined destinations. Similarly, destination options may be determined and/or sorted based on an estimated time for a requester to get from a handheld device's 106 current location to a determined destination (e.g. based on actual travel paths rather than sheer distance; based on the requester's average pace as determined through GPS or RFID tracking of the handheld device 106 as it moves throughout a casino's property.
The combination of the teachings would read on providing handheld GPS information to locate a player relative to the gaming table.
In Reference to Claims 6, 13, and 19
Walker teaches remitting a confirmation from the handheld device where “[i]n such an instance, the user of the handheld device 106 may subsequently communicate with the controller 200 to confirm a reservation of an available gaming activity such as, for example, for a predefined period of time.” ([0121]).
In Reference to Claims 7, 14, and 20
Nguyen discloses the processor stores an association between the player and the multiplayer gaming device in a player positioning database as part of the UID information exchanged [0106-0123, see 14], “functionality for temporarily storing data and/or other information such as, for example, user input data, timestamp data, table touch location data, UID location data, wager denomination data, etc.” [0114]).
16. Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen, Walker further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0225282 to Williams.
Nguyen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of player positions is associated with a geofence. One of skill in the art would be aware of the gaming of Williams.
Williams discloses mobile gaming, location determination, and authentication (Abstr.) where in a casino environment [0033] and uses of GPS [0043] to maintain a geofence [0098] such that “[a] method comprising: responsive to a user using a device to access a gaming service to engage in at least one gaming activity, determining by a computing device whether the user's device is located within a pre-defined location, wherein the pre-defined location is defined by a non-circular geofence, and wherein determining whether the user's device is located within the pre-defined location includes making the determination through the use of geofencing; and allowing by the computing device the user to engage in the at least one gaming activity from the user's device based upon the determination that the user's device is located in the pre-defined location [0011, 0113].
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the gps position information of Nguyen with the geofence of Williams to achieve the predictable result of making any of the gaming activities available to a user if they are located within a geofencing area.
17. Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen, Walker further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0302915 to Lyons.
Nguyen discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the connection request includes a QR code scanned by the mobile device of the player, the QR code associated with at least one player position of the plurality of player positions at the multiplayer gaming device.
Lyons discloses allowing a player to register at an available betting spot at a table game using a mobile device (Abstr.) where there are “blackjack table 10510 in FIG. 105 are eight QR codes 10530. In some embodiments, these QR codes 10530 are printed on a material that can be affixed securely to the table and could resist drink spillage or tearing. Each QR codes 10530 is associated with a betting spot and an encoding of a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), which uniquely identifies the spot, table, and casino in question. While there are seven betting spots on a blackjack table 10510, in the embodiment shown in FIG. 105 there are eight QR codes 10530, each in their own location.” ([0396]). Further, “[t]he player points the smartphone camera at the QR code and waits for the application to recognize the code. This operation is now familiar to many players as it is used throughout the world on advertising and product literature. The QR code contains a URL which identifies the table, and optionally the betting spot in question. From this information the application downloads or otherwise enables an interface for betting at the table.” ([0399]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the table of Nguyen to display a QR code to facilitate player securing a spot at a gaming table. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
20. 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.
21. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715