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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant argues (Remarks 8-9) Nguyen and Hartmann do not disclose a connection request of a device identifier and a player position and the mobile device determining the player position in response to input to the mobile device. Examiner disagrees. Upon reconsideration, Examiner believes Nguyen discloses a user input device (UID) and communication information uniquely identifying the player, the UID device, and the player position as part of a connection request as described in the rejection below. If Applicant disagrees, then Applicant is directed to the teachings of Nguyen in view of Hartman. Hartmann is relied upon to demonstrate identifying a player position as part of a connection request.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 14-15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1, a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0087241 to Nguyen in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0022308 to Hartmann and U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0264574 to Dong.
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 within a threshold distance of a wager area of the multiplayer gaming device (within the wager zone ([0078, 0100, 0101] where token sensors are “immediately below or otherwise adjacent to a respective player wagering zone” [0100]. Examiner understands the sensors adjacent to a wagering zone to be within a threshold distance); and
at least one processor (Fig. 8 MTC processor or CPU 802) executing instructions to:
receive, from a mobile device of a player, a connection request, the connection request including (i) a device identifier associated with the mobile device and (ii) a player position of the plurality of player positions at the multiplayer gaming device, the UID determining the player position based on the actions of the user to be connected at the table where he is present (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], each 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 at gaming table [0112] occurring when “when the UID makes contact with a location on the gaming table surface, the system can automatically identify the precise location and the ID of each UID.” [0125], see also ([0052, 0053, 0105, 0286, 0294]);
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] and “each UID may include different types of features to include functionality reading a player tracking card [0111] and retrieving and/or displaying player tracking data [0118] where “a player may possess his or her own UID which has been registered for that player's exclusive use. For example, the UID may be registered and linked to the player's player tracking account and/or the player's financial account(s).” [0145]. This is accomplished by identification of the respective account identifiers where Nguyen discloses that the mobile device establishes a connection with the table where the table’s detection system has “a user-identifier functionality for detecting or determining the identity of a particular user who has provided input to a common area of the gaming table which is accessible to multiple users” [0052] and functionality “automatically associating each detected input with an identifier representing the player (or other person) who provided that input.” [0053] (emphasis added). This identifier would be associated with the player tracking account {identifier} as part of the data stored in the table data structure of Fig, 5B abd 5C. “FIG. 5A shows a first example of a data structure portion 502 in accordance with a specific embodiment. In at least one embodiment, data structure portion 502 may correspond to a given item or record of a given data structure of the UID memory. In at least one embodiment, each item or record of a data structure may include one or more fields for storing different types of information. Examples of different types of information which may be stored at (and/or used to populate) a given item or record of a data structure may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following (or combinations thereof): [0287] UID identifier information (e.g., which may be used for uniquely identifying that particular UID); [0288] timestamp information; [0289] data record length information; [0290] user ID information (e.g., which may be used for uniquely identifying the current user of the UID; [0291]);
provide to the table management computing device 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 within the threshold distance of 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, if Applicant disagrees, one of skill in the art would be aware of the screen displays demonstrating a connection request for a seat at a game table position of Hartmann.
According to Hartmann, a mobile phone user, using a downloaded game client application can manually request to be seated at a particular table position (Abstr., [0017]). A user is able to view the display of their mobile phone and make a connection request (see log in to app [0041]). As shown in Fig. 17, a user is able to see player positions of a plurality of player positions (at a table, seat positions 1-6 [0153]), the mobile device determining the player position in response to input to the mobile device by the player requesting to be connected to the player position at which the player is currently present (Fig. 17 the table showing an empty seat and receiving manual inputs to actions to Open Table 151 to request to be seated at a position at the table ([0017, 0153]). If the user is “already sitting at” the table the Open feature will be active to enter the table [0153-0154]). Hartmann invents this process to “alleviate some of the problems users face when trying to connect to a specific game of a networked gaming system or mobile networked gaming system.” ([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 exchanged with the gaming table of Nguyen to also include the connection request, player position, manual input to request to be connected to a player table position of Hartmann to achieve the predictable result alleviating some of the problems users face when trying to connect to a specific game of a networked gaming system or mobile networked gaming system.
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 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. These teachings provide handheld GPS information to locate a player relative to the table.
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]).
8. Claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen, Hartmann, further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0113161 to Walker.
In Reference to Claims 2, 9, and 16
Nguyen discloses the invention substantially. However, the reference does not disclose display of a virtual map on the handheld device and receive a selection from the virtual map. One of skill in the art would be aware of the map functionality of Walker. According to Walker, a 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 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]).
9. Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen, Hartmann, 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.
10. Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen, 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
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
12. 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.
13. Examiner interviews may be available depending on the stage of prosecution and provided 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.
14. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. 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
Prosecution Insights