DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 19 and 20, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A system comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
provide a primary wagering game at a gaming device to a first player (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
determine a cryptographic token associated with the first player, the cryptographic token comprising: a player identifier indicative of the player associated with the cryptographic token; and a benefit identifier associated with a game benefit being provided to the first player associated with the cryptographic token (Mental Processes); and
based on the cryptographic token, provide a secondary game at the gaming device, wherein play of the secondary game does not affect play of the primary wagering game, and wherein play of the secondary game appears to the first player to modify play of the primary wagering game (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s)19 and 20) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a processor circuit, a memory, a display device, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction 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.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Wagering (e.g., “provide a primary wagering game at a gaming device to a first player”), which is a form of hedging, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
B. Formation of a gambling contract (i.e., by a player placing a wager the player is entering into a contract with a game operator), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Commercial or Legal Interactions. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Commercial or Legal Interactions while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims; and/or
C. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
D. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “determine a cryptographic token associated with the first player”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the concepts in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-18:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a processor circuit, a memory, a display device”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general purpose structure and general purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a processor circuit, a memory and a display device are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0204228, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a processor circuit, a memory and a display device to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶58). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aponte et al (U.S. 2013/0178271) in view of Weiksner et al (U.S. 11,189,131).
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, Aponte discloses:
a system (¶62, wagering game system architecture 1330 including wagering game machine 1106) comprising:
a processor circuit (¶62, Fig. 11, wagering game machine 1106 includes a CPU 1126); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (¶62-63, Fig. 11, CPU 1126 is connected to main memory 1128, which stores instructions for presenting wagering games), cause the processor circuit to:
provide a primary wagering game at a gaming device to a first player (¶18-19, Figs. 1A-1B, the gaming machine provides primary content 110);
determine player account information associated with the first player (¶18, ¶24, ¶44, account server 270 hosts a player account which tracks wagering account information, player profile data, player history, etc., the gaming system uses state data, hardware data, playing element values, bet data, etc. from the primary game application to control the secondary game application), the player account information comprising:
a player identifier indicative of the player associated with the player account information (¶18, ¶26, player account information which is tracked includes player profile data, which includes data such as a player name or screen name); and
a benefit identifier associated with a game benefit being provided to the first player associated with the player account information (¶18, ¶41, player account tracks funds won during wagering game sessions by the player); and
based on the player account information, provide a secondary game at the gaming device (¶18, ¶42-44, a request may be made by a player to concurrently play the primary and secondary game, the gaming system stores in the player account information data from the primary game application which is used to control the secondary game application (i.e., the secondary game is based on the player account information (e.g., the primary game application data)), wherein play of the secondary game does not affect play of the primary wagering game (¶19, outcome for the secondary game 130 is independent and separate from the outcome of the primary game 110), and wherein play of the secondary game appears to the first player to modify play of the primary wagering game (¶16-21, ¶43-47, Fig. 1B, secondary wagering game content is overlaid on primary wagering game content).
However, Aponte does not specifically disclose that:
the player account information is embodied on a cryptographic token, wherein the secondary game is provided based on said cryptographic token.
Weiksner teaches:
a gaming system (abstract, 5:35-6:16), wherein a user is provided game functionality (20:46-67, gameplay occurs upon authorization through token verification), wherein a user wallet stores blockchain based tokens (1:41-49, 8:3-17, user wallet 116 stores a plurality of blockchain tokens), wherein a token engine determines a number of tokes a user has (6:57-64, token engine 134 determines the number of tokes a user has before gameplay starts), wherein user accounts receive tokes through smart contracts (17:7-17, acter the user account isa authorized it is connected the smart contract and the account receives tokes to the smart contract which is then connected to the wallet), wherein the tokens are written to and updated in the user’s wallet and blockchain node (13:46-14:3, rewards are written to the wallet and then changes are written to the blockchain node). Thus, Weiksner teaches determining and maintaining a cryptographic token associated with the user, including a player specific wallet identifier and token metadata representing game-related benefits, and using the token to authorize and control gameplay.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the player account information, as taught by Aponte, using the cryptographic token mechanism, as taught by Weiksner, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a more secure means of storing player specific game state information, which is usable to provide a secondary game, thereby, improving the integrity and portability of player specific game information (See Weiksner, 13, 46-54).
Regarding claim 2, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
provision of the secondary game is based on a parameter value of the primary wagering game (¶44, the system determines game data from the primary game and communicates said data to the secondary game and using that data to control the secondary game).
Regarding claim 3, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the parameter value comprises a primary game result of the primary wagering game (¶48-52, primary game results, including reel stop configurations and winning paylines, are determined and used to influence the secondary game behavior).
Regarding claim 4, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
provision of the primary game comprises display of a plurality primary game elements of the primary game on a display device of the gaming device (¶18-19, Fig. 1A, for example primary game includes a plurality of reels 107 having thereon symbols 133), and
wherein provision of the secondary game comprises display of a plurality of secondary
game elements of the secondary game on the display device of the gaming device, wherein a first secondary game element of the plurality of secondary game elements overlays a first
primary game element of the plurality of game elements on the display device (¶16-21, ¶43-47, Fig. 1B, secondary wagering game content is overlaid on primary wagering game content).
Regarding claim 5, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the secondary game comprises collection of secondary game elements displayed on the display device during play of the primary wagering game (¶16-21, ¶48-51, Fig. 1B, secondary wagering game is concurrently played with the primary wagering game, wherein secondary wagering game content is concurrently overlaid on primary wagering game content).
Regarding claim 6, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
provision of the primary game comprises display of a plurality primary slot reels of the primary game on a display device of the gaming device (¶18-19, Fig. 1A, for example primary game includes a plurality of reels 107 having thereon symbols 133), and
wherein provision of the secondary game comprises display of a secondary slot reel of
the secondary game on the display device of the gaming device adjacent the plurality of
primary slot reels, wherein the primary slot reels and the secondary slot reel appear to the first
player to be in a common reel array (¶60, Fig. 10, secondary wagering game is a slot-type wagering game, the system superimposes reels for the secondary game over or next to the reels of the primary game).
Regarding claim 7, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and does not specifically disclose that:
the cryptographic token comprises a cryptographic hash associated with a common blockchain.
Weiksner teaches:
a gaming system (abstract, 5:35-6:16), wherein a user is provided game functionality (20:46-67, gameplay occurs upon authorization through token verification), wherein a user wallet stores blockchain based tokens (1:41-49, 8:3-17, user wallet 116 stores a plurality of blockchain tokens), wherein the tokes comprise a cryptographic hash associated with a common blockchain (5:7-30, 7:56-8, security for the blockchain is provided through cryptography such as public/private key hash function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the player account information, as taught by Aponte, using the cryptographic token mechanism, as taught by Weiksner, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a more secure means of storing player specific game state information, which is usable to provide a secondary game, thereby, improving the integrity and portability of player specific game information (See Weiksner, 13, 46-54).
Regarding claim 8, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and does not specifically disclose that:
the cryptographic token comprises a unique transaction identifier associated with a unique transaction on the blockchain, 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.
Weiksner teaches:
a gaming system (abstract, 5:35-6:16), wherein a user is provided game functionality (20:46-67, gameplay occurs upon authorization through token verification), wherein a user wallet stores blockchain based tokens (1:41-49, 8:3-17, user wallet 116 stores a plurality of blockchain tokens), wherein the cryptographic token comprises a unique transaction identifier associated with a unique transaction on the blockchain, 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 (17:7-17, after the user account is authorized it is connected the smart contract and the account receives tokens to the smart contract which is then connected to the wallet, token transfers which occur between user accounts and smart contract which are written to blockchain nodes inherently require a sender address and a receiver address and a transaction ID, as this is an inherent feature of blockchains).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the player account information, as taught by Aponte, using the cryptographic token mechanism, as taught by Weiksner, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a more secure means of storing player specific game state information, which is usable to provide a secondary game, thereby, improving the integrity and portability of player specific game information (See Weiksner, 13, 46-54).
Regarding claim 9, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and does not specifically disclose that:
the instructions further cause the processor circuit to:
receive a transaction indication of a new transaction for the cryptographic token
comprising a sending address associated with the first player and a receiving address associated
with a second player; and
based on the transaction indication, modify the player identifier of the first
cryptographic token to be indicative of the second player.
Weiksner teaches:
a gaming system (abstract, 5:35-6:16), wherein a user is provided game functionality (20:46-67, gameplay occurs upon authorization through token verification), wherein a user wallet stores blockchain based tokens (1:41-49, 8:3-17, user wallet 116 stores a plurality of blockchain tokens), receiving a transaction indication of a new transaction for the cryptographic token comprising a sending address associated with the first player and a receiving address associated with a second player (15:4-24, 15:45-16:3, 17:7-17, game developers can supply tokens to influencers who can then transfer those tokens to other user accounts, token transfers which occur between user accounts and smart contract which are written to blockchain nodes inherently require a sender address and a receiver address and a transaction ID, as this is an inherent feature of blockchains), and based on the transaction indication, modify the player identifier of the first cryptographic token to be indicative of the second player (13:46-14:3, rewards are written to the wallet and then changes are written to the blockchain node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the player account information, as taught by Aponte, using the cryptographic token mechanism, as taught by Weiksner, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a more secure means of storing player specific game state information, which is usable to provide a secondary game, thereby, improving the integrity and portability of player specific game information (See Weiksner, 13, 46-54).
Regarding claim 10, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and does not specifically disclose that:
the cryptographic token further comprises a common identifier indicative of the cryptographic token being part of a plurality of cryptographic tokens.
Weiksner teaches:
a gaming system (abstract, 5:35-6:16), wherein a user is provided game functionality (20:46-67, gameplay occurs upon authorization through token verification), wherein a user wallet stores blockchain based tokens (1:41-49, 8:3-17, user wallet 116 stores a plurality of blockchain tokens), wherein the cryptographic token further comprises a common identifier indicative of the cryptographic token being part of a plurality of cryptographic tokens (¶14:43-15:3, for example tokens may be branded tokens which may be associated with certain restrictions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the player account information, as taught by Aponte, using the cryptographic token mechanism, as taught by Weiksner, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a more secure means of storing player specific game state information, which is usable to provide a secondary game, thereby, improving the integrity and portability of player specific game information (See Weiksner, 13, 46-54).
Regarding claim 11, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the game benefit comprises a first modified game element overlaid on a first primary game element of the primary wagering game (¶16-21, ¶43-47, Fig. 1B, secondary wagering game content is overlaid on primary wagering game content, wherein the system modifies the overlaid content by modifying the appearance of the content (e.g., changing color, size, effect, etc.)).
Regarding claim 12, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the primary wagering game comprises a primary pay-table comprising a plurality of primary game awards associated with primary wagering game results (¶41, a pay table for the primary wagering game indicating symbol combinations which result in winning outcomes), and
wherein the game benefit comprises a secondary game award corresponding to a difference between the primary game award of the primary pay-table corresponding to the primary game result and a modified primary game award of the primary pay-table corresponding to a modified primary game result wherein the first primary game element is replaced by the first modified game element (¶49-52, secondary game objects are displayed over or in pace of primary reel symbols, wherein the secondary objects may be modified and used to determine an adjusted or modified payout).
Regarding claim 13-14, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and does not specifically disclose that:
the instructions further cause the processor circuit to: provide the cryptographic token to the first player based on play of the primary wagering game by the first player meeting a predetermined threshold, which comprises play of the primary wagering game by the first player for a predetermined amount of time.
Weiksner teaches:
a gaming system (abstract, 5:35-6:16), wherein a user is provided game functionality (20:46-67, gameplay occurs upon authorization through token verification), wherein a user wallet stores blockchain based tokens (1:41-49, 8:3-17, user wallet 116 stores a plurality of blockchain tokens), wherein the cryptographic token is provided to the first player based on play of the primary wagering game by the first player meeting a predetermined threshold (8:27-59, 13:47-54, players are rewarded tokens for playing the game for a certain period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the player account information, as taught by Aponte, using the cryptographic token mechanism, as taught by Weiksner, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a more secure means of storing player specific game state information, which is usable to provide a secondary game, thereby, improving the integrity and portability of player specific game information (See Weiksner, 13, 46-54).
Regarding claim 15, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and does and further discloses:
tracking a total wager amount by the first player during play of the primary wagering game
the predetermined threshold comprises a predetermined total wager amount by the first player during play of the primary wagering game (¶18, the player account tracks wagering history during gameplay sessions).
However, Aponte does not specifically disclose:
the predetermined threshold comprises a predetermined total wager amount by the first player during play of the primary wagering game.
Weiksner teaches:
a gaming system (abstract, 5:35-6:16), wherein a user is provided game functionality (20:46-67, gameplay occurs upon authorization through token verification), wherein a user wallet stores blockchain based tokens (1:41-49, 8:3-17, user wallet 116 stores a plurality of blockchain tokens), wherein tokens are awarded based on the gameplay conditions or thresholds enforced by the smart contracts (8:27-59, 13:47-54, players are rewarded tokens for achieving in game goals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the tracked game play metrics, as taught by Aponte, as token award condition, as taught by Weiksner, to yield the predictable result of improving player retention and engagement, thereby, allowing game operators to increase the profitability of gaming devices.
Regarding claim 16, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and does and further discloses:
tracking a total wager amount by the first player during play of the primary wagering game
the predetermined threshold comprises a predetermined total wager amount by the first player during play of the primary wagering game (¶27, the player account tracks win amounts for gameplay sessions).
However, Aponte does not specifically disclose:
the predetermined threshold comprises a predetermined total win amount by the first player during play of the primary wagering game.
Weiksner teaches:
a gaming system (abstract, 5:35-6:16), wherein a user is provided game functionality (20:46-67, gameplay occurs upon authorization through token verification), wherein a user wallet stores blockchain based tokens (1:41-49, 8:3-17, user wallet 116 stores a plurality of blockchain tokens), wherein tokens are awarded based on the gameplay conditions or thresholds enforced by the smart contracts (8:27-59, 13:47-54, players are rewarded tokens for achieving in game goals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the tracked game play metrics, as taught by Aponte, as token award condition, as taught by Weiksner, to yield the predictable result of improving player retention and engagement, thereby, allowing game operators to increase the profitability of gaming devices.
Regarding claim 17, Aponte discloses that which is discussed above, and does and further discloses:
tracking a total wager amount by the first player during play of the primary wagering game
the predetermined threshold comprises a predetermined total wager amount by the first player during play of the primary wagering game (¶27, the player account tracks loss amounts for gameplay sessions).
However, Aponte does not specifically disclose:
the predetermined threshold comprises a predetermined total loss amount by the first player during play of the primary wagering game.
Weiksner teaches:
a gaming system (abstract, 5:35-6:16), wherein a user is provided game functionality (20:46-67, gameplay occurs upon authorization through token verification), wherein a user wallet stores blockchain based tokens (1:41-49, 8:3-17, user wallet 116 stores a plurality of blockchain tokens), wherein tokens are awarded based on the gameplay conditions or thresholds enforced by the smart contracts (8:27-59, 13:47-54, players are rewarded tokens for achieving in game goals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the tracked game play metrics, as taught by Aponte, as token award condition, as taught by Weiksner, to yield the predictable result of improving player retention and engagement, thereby, allowing game operators to increase the profitability of gaming devices.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aponte et al (U.S. 2013/0178271) in view of Weiksner et al (U.S. 11,189,131) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Saffari et al (U.S. 2006/0205468).
Regarding claim 18, Aponte and Weiksner disclose that which is discussed above, however, neither specifically disclose that:
a portion of each wager on the primary wagering game is allocated to a secondary game award pool, or awards for the secondary game are provided to the first player from the secondary game award pool.
Saffari teaches:
a gaming system (¶11), including a primary game and a secondary game (¶117), wherein a portion of each wager on the primary wagering game is allocated to a secondary game award pool, and awards for the secondary game are provided to the first player from the secondary game award pool (¶117, wagers from the primary game fund progressive jackpots for a secondary game).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the progressive secondary awards, as taught by Saffari, into the combined system taught by Aponte and Weiksner, in order to yield the predictable result of improving player retention and engagement, thereby, allowing game operators to increase the profitability of gaming devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715