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 2 filed 1/9/2026) and Examiner disagrees that Thacker fails to disclose being responsive to determining a first and second player. Examiner reasonably and broadly construes the claim as there being first and second players and both are in active game sessions and because there is a second active player a first player is provided a game benefit. Thacker has multiple players on user interface 125 configured to facilitate interactions between players (Col. 20, ll. 4-5) and there can be an exchange of virtual items between players (Col. 20, ll. 22-23). Applicant argues that a narrower reading of the claim requires Thacker to more narrowly disclose that “in response to” a determination that the first player is in the first active play session and that the second player is in the second active play session, provide a first game benefit to the first player in the first active play session. However, Examiner reasonably believes Thacker discloses this causality because Thacker has multiple players in an active game session. Because there are multiple players in the game session Thacker is then able to provide a benefit to a first game player (see in-game benefit Col. 3 ll. 6-18, Fig.2 214 to a first player or set of players, as an example, one or more players consisting of first and second players of a first fraction of players of Fig. 4 takes control of space station 405 and obtains access to distributions of the in-game benefits which are provided to at least a first player in the first fraction of players Col. 19, ll. 45-55). Additionally, Thacker discloses that if the second fraction of players eventually takes control of space station 405, the benefit to the first fraction of players ceases (Col. 19, ll. 62-65). Thus, Examiner reasonably interprets Thacker to disclose what the claim recites as the causality for the game to provide the benefit to the first game player.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 11,511,198 to Thacker.
In Reference to Claim 1
Thacker discloses a system (Fig. 1 100), comprising:
a processor circuit (Fig. 1 processor 132); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (Fig. 1 storage 130 and machine-readable instructions 106), cause the processor circuit to:
determine a plurality of cryptographic tokens (Fig. 1 token on one or more registries of a blockchain 117a Col. 4 ll. 1-7 having unique digital articles 15), each cryptographic token comprising:
a common identifier indicative of the cryptographic token being part of the plurality of cryptographic tokens (unique digital article 15 Col. 8, ll. 3-4 having a unique identifier Col. 4, ll. 8-11); and a player identifier indicative of a player associated with the cryptographic token (a correlated entity as in from one set of players to another Col. 4, ll. 21-40, see also ownership, NFT Col. 4, ll. 57-60 and ownership by individual players Col. 5, ll. 24-26, analyzes whether a particular player or set of players owns one or more particular unique digital articles (Col. 16, ll. 1-7);
determine whether a first {second} player (Fig. 1 players 123 and respective gaming device interfaces 125 Col. 20, ll. 6-23) associated with a first {second} cryptographic token of the plurality of cryptographic tokens is in a first {second} active play session of a first {second} wagering game at a first {second} gaming device (Fig. 2 202, 204, first {second} player on the gaming platform Col. 5 ll.1-4 and instances of games Col. 5, ll. 10-23); and
in response to a determination that the first player is in the first active play session and that the second player is in the second active play session, provide a first game benefit to the first player in the first active play session (in-game benefit Col. 3 ll. 6-18, Fig.2 214 provide the benefit to first player or set of players, as an example, one or more players consisting of first and second players of a first fraction of players of Fig. 4 takes control of space station 405 and obtains access to distributions of the in-game benefits which are provided to at least a fist player in the first fraction of players Col. 19, ll. 45-55).
In Reference to Claim 2
Thacker discloses providing a second game benefit to the second player in the second active play session (among the first fraction of players of Fig. 4 where all players in the fraction receive an in-game benefit, then a second game benefit is conveyed to a second player Col. 19, ll. 45-55)).
In Reference to Claims 11 and 12
Thacker discloses wherein the plurality of cryptographic tokens are fungible tokens that are fungible with each other (fungible meaning that the tokens are indistinguishable from one another Col. 3, ll. 48-50) and wherein each cryptographic token of the plurality of cryptographic tokens comprises a unique identifier such that the plurality of cryptographic tokens are non-fungible tokens that are not fungible with each other (see non-fungible as in unique or one of a kind and is uniquely identified Col. 3, ll. 50-65 and Col. 4, ll. 8-20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 3, 5-10, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thacker in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0366762 to Nelson.
In Reference to Claim 3
Thacker discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the first game benefit is further based on a first player status of the first player, and wherein the second game benefit is further based on a second player status of the second player. One of skill in the art would be aware of the non-fungible tokens in gaming of Nelson (Titl.)
According to Nelson, players can receive non-fungible tokens in addition to game awards (Abstr.) and wherein the system enables certain identified players such as a player with a status above a threshold to activate token features whereas players with a status below a threshold may not ([0031]). See also that based on status there can be different amounts of awards ([0071]), plays of a game [0072] or quantities of entries [0073]). Nelson invents this system in order to develop and maintain a loyal customer base as one component of operating a successful gaming establishment by inviting patrons to participate in a player loyalty program via which patrons are offered various promotions that encourage the patron to return to the gaming establishment ([0003]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify to the condition for determining first {second} game benefits based on a loyalty status of a first {second} player in order to develop and maintain customer loyalty ensuring patrons return to the gaming establishment. The Courts have held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claim 5
Nelson further teaches wherein each cryptographic token of the plurality of cryptographic tokens comprises a cryptographic hash associated with a common blockchain (where tokens associated with blockchains can employ ledger technologies relying on hashgraph among other technologies [0049] where the EGM is designed to decode data identified by said hash values [0192]).
In Reference to Claim 6
Thacker discloses a unique transaction identifier associated with a unique transaction on the blockchain (identifier A assigned to player n Col. 18, ll. 50-55), the unique transaction identifier comprising:
a sending address associated with a provider of the cryptographic token; and
a receiving address associated with the player identifier (the blocks in the block chain include an address of block 1 in block 0 or vice versa which is equivalent to a sending and receiving address Col. 19, ll. 1-4).
In Reference to Claim 7
Thacker discloses receiving a transaction indication of a new transaction for the first cryptographic token comprising a sending address associated with the first player and a receiving address associated with a third player (address of block 1 in block 0 and vice versa for a digital article and wherein player “n” includes any player to include a third player, as in player “n” to player “j” or to a player “k”, Col. 19, ll. 5-20); and
based on the transaction indication, modify the player identifier of the first cryptographic token to be indicative of the third player (the metadata 54 is modified to define which platers are included in the set of players as well as the particulars of the digital article Col. 19, ll. 5-20).
In Reference to Claim 8
Thacker discloses wherein each cryptographic token of the plurality of cryptographic tokens comprises a benefit identifier associated with the game benefit being provided to the player associated with the cryptographic token (see identifiers “Ax” Col. 19, 36-37).
In Reference to Claim 9
See rejections of Claim 7.
In Reference to Claim 10
Nelson further teaches the use of sensors to determine a substantial assessment of the proximity of players and game devices to perform a variety of functions ([0109, 0110, 0146]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to use proximity as a criterion in modifying the benefit identifiers of Thacker as in the game session of Fig. 4 with the proximity information of Nelson to achieve the predictable result of more accurately determining the relative locations of the players relative to their territories in the game session for more reliable tracking and modifying ownership and transfers in ownership of digital articles. The Courts have held that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 13 and 14
Examiner construes benefits of an unlockable game play feature of the first wagering game and modifying a paytable of the first wagering game from a standard paytable to an enhanced paytable different from the standard paytable as non-functional descriptive material as what is stored as a benefit or retrieved from memory does not affect the operation of the claim or affect the subsequent steps of the claim based on the type or kind of benefit. Separately, Nelson teaches of unlocking game play features [0081] and of modified paytables with non-fungible awards [0030] making it different than a standard paytable.
In Reference to Claim 16
Nelson teaches that where a first player has reached a threshold result in the first wagering game such as achieving a threshold coin-in or wager level amount, a game benefit of events or conditions such as triggering events for non-fungible tokens are created ([0086, 0087]).
In Reference to Claims 18 and 19
See rejection of Claims 1, 5, 8, and 9.
In Reference to Claim 20
See rejection of Claims 6 and 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 4, 15, and 17 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.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: According to Thacker a determination is made not to provide benefits if either a first set of players or a second set of players no longer are associated with a virtual territory (or virtual asset) but is silent wherein the second player is not in the second active play session and to provide a third game benefit to the first player in the second active play session, wherein the third game benefit is different from the first game benefit. The cited prior is also silent as to a display, at a display device associated with the player, a leaderboard comprising a subset of the determined token status value, wherein the subset comprises the determined token status value for the first cryptographic token, or 17. The system of claim 1, wherein based on the subscription payment, provide a subscription benefit to each player associated with a cryptographic token of the plurality of cryptographic tokens, wherein the subscription benefit comprises access to a bonus game, wherein an award for the bonus game is funded by the subscription award pool.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 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.
14. 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