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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-7 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1-7 recites: A gaming device, comprising:
a memory; and
at least one computing device in communication with the memory, the at least one computing device being configured to:
generate an outcome of a wagering game comprising a plurality of indicia;
determine that a particular combination of indicia of the plurality of indicia are positioned along a pay line;
in response to a particular combination of indicia positioned along the pay line, determine whether a property associated with a current patron has been verified as meeting or exceeding a threshold; and
in response to the property being verified as meeting or exceeding the threshold, provide a lottery ticket to the current patron.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)” and/or “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) and/or “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: generating an outcome and providing a lottery ticket to a patron upon determining whether a property associated with a current patron has been verified as meeting or exceeding a threshold.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claim 1 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: memory and computing device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Fujimaki et al., US 20140114890 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a computer includes an input device, a central processing unit (CPU), a storage device (for example, a RAM) for storing data, a program memory (for example, a ROM) for storing a program, and an output device (paragraph 50);
Wilson, US 20070099695 discloses that slot machines are popular in casinos and other gaming establishments and that a typical slot machine has a number of (physical or animated) reels which spin during play and stop to display a pattern of symbols on one or more payout lines. Certain symbol patterns are "winners" resulting in a payout to the player (paragraph 2);
Nguyen et al., US 20040172508 discloses that it is well known, a computer stores data in memory (paragraph 1);
Cockrell, Jr., US 20070057464, discloses that computer systems for implementing games can be suitable general-purpose computers having a processor and memory and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 69);
Geisner, US 20080242421, discloses processors can be general purpose processor for implementing online games and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 24, 34, 52);
Wilson, US 20050277457, discloses that it is readily understood that the video games are normally computer controlled, and that the game-logic electronic circuitry for implementing the method for playing such a video game in a machine is well known and available to one skilled in the art (paragraph 28)
Roemer, US 20100004045 discloses that it a database preferably comprises information regarding the identity of one or more players or patrons wherein such information may be stored in a variety of manners, including in a memory of an electronic player tracking system or database, as is well known in the art (paragraph 163);
Thomas, US 20160358424, discloses that reel-based games utilize symbols for display on an array for generating outcomes are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 4);
Falciglia, SR., US 20100203948 discloses that, as is well known, the combinations of reel positions and their odds of hitting are associated with the controller, and the controller is arranged to stop the reels in a position displaying a combination of indicia as determined by the controller based on the combinations and odds (paragraph 142);
Walker et al., US 20040038733, discloses that credit balances are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 64);
Vancura, US 20120064961, discloses that, in general, the operating hardware and software necessary to implement a casino-based game is well known and is based on one or more communicatively interconnected controllers, processors, or microprocessors found within such a casino game (paragraph 26);
Luciano, Jr., US 20030232638, discloses that, should the player decide that they want to quit the game, it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a player can activate a cash-out button in which credits or money can be transferred to the player using well-known techniques that include depositing coins in a coin hopper or transferring credits or money to a coupon that is redeemable at other machines or kiosks (paragraph 50);
Kaminkow, US 20030054874 discloses when a player wants to “cash out” the player can be presented with forms of payment such a token in a coin payout tray or printed on a ticket or credits to a credit, debit or smart card and that card reader and ticket printer machines are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 33);
Ang, US 20180130285, discloses that it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the function or functions of applications can be implemented in varying ways for gaming using well-known components such as a processor and memory (paragraph 69);
Nelson, US 20170092059, discloses that credit balances being established from receiving cash, ticket vouchers or promotional ticket is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as well as it being well-known that gaming machines utilize ticket vouchers when a player wishes to leave the gaming machine and has credits remaining on the gaming machine (paragraph 6);
Walker et al., US 20060025206, discloses that a player cashing out a credit balance from a gaming device may be provided with a cashless gaming ticket, as is known in the art (paragraph 296);
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al., US 20200020196 (Petersen) in view of Small, US 20130130785 (Small).
Regarding Claim 1.
Petersen discloses a gaming device, comprising:
a memory (para 84); and
at least one computing device in communication with the memory (par 82, 84), the at least one computing device being configured to:
generate an outcome of a wagering game comprising a plurality of indicia (para 26, 35, 145. An outcome is generated.);
determine that a particular combination of indicia of the plurality of indicia are positioned along a pay line (para 26, 35, 145. A determination is made based on an outcome on a designated payline);
in response to a particular combination of indicia positioned along the pay line, determine whether a property associated with a current patron has been verified as meeting or exceeding a threshold; and
in response to the property being verified as meeting or exceeding the threshold, provide lottery ticket to the current patron.
However, Petersen discloses that a reward could be provided to a patron based on the outcome of the wager game which in the form of a ticket/voucher (Fig 3D; para 56, 108-109) wherein the game outcome and/or award based on the results of a lottery game (para 139).
Furthermore, Small discloses that when it comes gaming on a personal device, for rewards being provided to a patron for a wagering game, age and location verifications must first be determined so that players can be provided with such wager rewards (para 58).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Small’s teachings with Peterson because it would allow for Petersen’s invention to determine that the patron is of the right age to be cashing out reward after playing a wagering game since there are government restrictions against patrons gambling underage.
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation, the combination of Petersen and Small is interpreted as disclosing in response to a particular combination of indicia positioned along the pay line, determine whether a property associated with a current patron has been verified as meeting or exceeding a threshold (ie: the property of the current patron is interpreted as his/her age, in which said property is verified on whether it meets or exceeds a threshold, such as the minimum age requirement for receiving rewards based from playing wagering games.); and in response to the property being verified as meeting or exceeding the threshold, provide a lottery ticket to the current patron (ie: Petersen discloses wherein the game outcome and/or award based on the results of a lottery game which interpreted as the ticket that would be provided to the patron as a reward would be that of a lottery ticket.)
Regarding Claim 7.
Petersen and Small disclose the gaming device of claim 1, Petersen further discloses wherein the particular combination of indicia corresponds to a progressive jackpot and the lottery ticket is provided in response to the particular combination causing an award of the progressive jackpot (Fig 3B; para 31-33, 35, 55, 163)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al., US 20200020196 (Petersen) and Small, US 20130130785 as applied to Claim 1, and in further view of Khal, US 20140213339 (Khal)
Regarding Claim 2.
Petersen and Small disclose the gaming device of claim 1, Petersen further disclosing comprising a scanner device configured to read an identification (para 26, 61, 74, 120), wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to:
receive information for the identification for the current patron (para 23, 26, 43, 60, 63, 70, 120, 153);
verify the identification (para 60, 63, 70, 120, 153).
Petersen and Small failed to disclose: determine the property associated with the current patron from the information for the particular identification.
However, Khal that when it comes to individual being identified for wagering systems, one property associated with the individual would be of the individual’s age because verification of the individual’s age would be necessary for determining of the individual is age-appropriate for playing a wagering game (para 64-65, 78).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Khal’s teachings with Petersen and Small because verification of the individual’s age would be necessary for determining of the individual is age-appropriate for playing a wagering game as taught by Khal.
Claim 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al., US 20200020196 (Petersen) and Small, US 20130130785 and in further view of Kelly et al., US 20080176625 (Kelly)
Regarding Claim 3.
Petersen and Small disclose the gaming device of claim 1, but failed to disclose wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to provide a prize in response to the property not being verified as meeting or exceeding the threshold.
However, Kelly discloses of a gaming system in which age-appropriate rewards can be provided (para 70-71, 227, 286. In this case, when an individual is interpreted as failing to meet or exceed the threshold, and therefore considered a child, the individual would be provided with an age-appropriate reward such as toys, candy, or stuffed animals, whereas individual that do meet or exceed the threshold, would be considered an adult and therefore be provided with an age-appropriate reward such as a deck of cards, cash, an alcoholic drink, or other related prizes.)
Regarding Claim 4.
Petersen and Small and Kelly disclose the gaming device of claim 3, Kelly further disclosing wherein the prize comprises a toy and the at least one computing device is further configured to dispense the toy to the current patron via a dispensing device (Abstract, para 70-71, 145, 227).
Regarding Claim 5.
Petersen and Small and Kelly disclose the gaming device of claim 3, Kelly further disclosing wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to:
determine that the current patron is not authorized to play the wagering game; and in response to the current patron not being authorized to play the wagering game, restrict access to the wagering game (para 13, 291. Age-appropriate games are provided to players. In this case, if the age of the individual is below a minimum threshold game to play a wagering game, then the individual will be restricted from playing such a game.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al., US 20200020196 (Petersen) and Small, US 20130130785 as applied to the Claim 1, and in further view of Patel, US 20230322487 (Patel) and Nath Padya et al., US 20060173788 (Nath Padya)
Regarding Claim 6.
Petersen and Small disclose the gaming device of claim 1, but failed to disclose wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to: generate a request for identity data associated with a mobile device; transmit the request to the mobile device; receive a payload associated with the request.
However, Patel discloses that when it comes to age/identity of a user, one technique for using technology to supplement the identity and/or age validation process involves the use of a mobile ID (e.g., a digital driver’s license) stored in a digital wallet application of a user’s mobile device (para 95, 223, 259) as well as disclosing generating a request for identity data associated with a mobile device (Abstract); transmitting the request to the mobile device (Abstract, para 95, 111, 121, 214, 224, 231, 259, 313-314); receive a payload associated with the request (Abstract, para 95, 111, 121, 214, 224, 231, 259, 313-314) because it would allow the individual to be provided with an age-appropriate product as it would allow for the distribution of a product (Abstract, para 8, 212, 229).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Patel’s teachings with Petersen and Small because it would allow the individual playing the combined invention of Petersen and Small to verify his/her age in order to receive the product (ie: the lottery ticket of Petersen and Small) because the individual would have been able to verify via the mobile device that the individual is age-appropriate for receiving the lottery ticket as taught by Patel.
The combination of Petersen, Small, and Patel failed to disclose decrypting the payload to extract identity data comprising the property.
However, Nath Pandya discloses that when it comes to digital licenses, information associated with an individual on the digital license is encrypted in which it would need to be decrypted for implementation (Abstract, para 9, 14, 16, 49-50, 69-71).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Nath Pandya’s teachings with Petersen, Small, and Patel because it would protect the personal information data pertaining to the individua that is associated with the digital wallet and the information being encrypted would be useful for preventing theft of personal information of the digital wallet as taught by Nath Pandya.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, 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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715