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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 and 20 in the reply filed on 12/9/25 is acknowledged. Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “skill based” should read “skill-based.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 20 recite the limitation “a virtual environment in a metaverse.” However, the claim then discloses that the virtual environment comprises a virtual electronic gaming machine. It is unclear how a virtual EGM could represent a metaverse, as a metaverse is understood to represent a virtual environment where users can interact. If the virtual environment itself is a virtual EGM, then such interactions would not be possible. The Examiner will assume that the claim is insinuating that the virtual environment includes virtual EGMs inside of the environment itself and not that the environment is the EGM until further clarification/correction can be provided by Applicant. Claims 2-18 are dependent on claim 1 and inherit these deficiencies.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a first virtual EGM and a second EGM in the virtual environment” It is unclear whether the second EGM is also supposed to be a virtual EGM and that the claim is missing a limitation, or whether the EGM is somehow a non-virtual EGM. The Examiner assumes that because the EGMs exist in the virtual environment that the claim is supposed to read “a first virtual EGM and a second virtual EGM” until further clarification and correction can be provided by Applicant.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “skill-based game.” It is unclear what Applicant considers a skill-based game as this could be considered subjective as all games require some amount of skill, even if the amount of skill required is rudimentary. The claim fails to define skill-based game, and the specification further fails to define what Applicant considers a skill-based game.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Lyons et al (US 2017/0300116).
Re claim 1, Lyons discloses a system comprising: a processor and memory (fig. 1, virtual reality viewer 10 is connected to a game console or PC, par. [0030], therefore inherently the system utilizes a processor and memory as computers must include these elements to function) causing the processor circuit to: provide a virtual environment in a metaverse ([0009], the system provides a virtual reality game environment to users wearing a virtual reality headpiece, and [0032] where players are able to view neighboring gaming devices, other people, or other scenery, therefore the environment is considered a metaverse); wherein the virtual environment comprises a virtual electronic gaming machine (fig. 1, 20); receive, via the processing circuit and from a gaming device that is in a physical world and that corresponds to a user ([0015] and [0034], the virtual reality system includes methods of capturing a user’s inputs including video image data and buttons), an identification of a modification to the virtual environment that is not possible in the physical world ([0009], the player is able to spin a wheel or reel as part of the virtual reality game environment, a modification that is not possible in the physical world as the slot machine does not exist in the physical world and only exists in the virtual reality environment); and provide, responsive to receiving the identification of the modification and via the processing circuit, the modification to the virtual environment ([0009] and [0045]).
Re claim 18, Lyons discloses merging content of a plurality of virtual EGMs into a single EGM (figs. 3 and 8).
Re claim 20, see the rejection to claim 1. Lyons discloses both symbol matching EGMs and table games (fig. 1 illustrating a symbol matching EGM, and [0057] disclosing a table game).
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) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons in view of Nelson et al (US 2014/0364203).
Re claim 8, Lyons does not disclose a favorite list that includes a first virtual EGM and a second EGM in the virtual environment. Nelson teaches a gaming system wherein users are able to have a list of favorite and/or preferred EGMs ([0028]). It would have been obvious to implement a favorite list as taught by Nelson in order to conveniently present a user’s favorite games, allowing the user to quickly ascertain the availability of their favorite games.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons in view of Nelson as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Anderson et al (US 2009/0082088).
Re claim 9, Lyons does not disclose receiving a super wager input from the user to play all of the virtual EGMs in the virtual EGM favorite list at the same time. Anderson teaches a game system wherein the player is able to deploy their avatar across multiple wagering games ([0050]). By playing multiple wagering games at the same time, therefore the user is wagering on multiple games. Combined with the favorites list of Anderson and the metaverse of Lyons, it would have been obvious to implement the multiple avatars of Anderson in order to enable players to flexibly strategize and optimize their gameplay in the virtual gaming environment by selectively choosing to play at multiple available games.
Claim(s) 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons in view of Wells et al (US 2009/0143141).
Re claim 10, Lyons has been discussed above but does not disclose the modification comprising a modification to change a characteristic of the virtual EGM in the virtual environment. At best, Lyons discloses standard operation of an EGM without disclosing changes to the characteristics of the EGM itself. Wells teaches a gaming system wherein players are able to customize aspects of the game ([0111]). It would have been obvious to implement customizable gaming devices as taught by Wells in order to provide a personalized gaming experience for players, increasing player enjoyment and retention.
Re claim 11, Wells teaches the characteristic corresponding to a quantity of reels in the virtual slot machine and a selectable quantity of reels ([0816], the system permits the number of reels or symbols on each reel to be digitally changed and reconfigured).
Re claim 12, Lyons discloses a limit on wager content based on the quantity of reels ([0009], players may choose how many paylines to wager upon, therefore the number of reels would change the number of paylines).
Re claim 13, Lyons fails to disclose a characteristic corresponding to reel height, the characteristic comprising a selectable reel height. Wells teaches a game wherein the number of symbols on each reel can be digitally changed and reconfigured ([0816]). Changing the number of symbols on a reel is considered changing a reel height as a reel containing more symbols requires more reel height to fit the symbols compared to a reel with fewer symbols. It would have been obvious to implement customizable gaming devices as taught by Wells in order to provide a personalized gaming experience for players, increasing player enjoyment and retention.
Re claim 14, Lyons discloses a limit on wager content based on the reel height ([0009], players may choose how many paylines to wager upon, therefore differing reel heights would change the number of paylines).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons in view of Nicastro (US 2006/0205484).
Re claim 15, Lyons discloses the user comprises a user avatar in the metaverse that corresponds to the user ([0057], players are represented by avatars); wherein the virtual EGM comprises a skill-based game ([0057], the players are playing a table game with cards and chips), and the processor circuit is caused to receive a wager ([0051]).
However, Lyons does not explicitly disclose a spectator avatar corresponding to another user watching a performance of the user and receiving a wager from the spectator based on the performance of the user. Nicastro teaches a system wherein spectators may watch games being played and make bets based on the performance of users in the game ([0021], [0024], [0025], and [0031]).
It would have been obvious to implement spectators and spectator betting as taught by Nicastro in order to allow users to participate in wagering games without actually having to play the games themselves, reducing performance pressure and anxiety in players while also enabling a variety of other types of bets only possible for spectators of a game.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons in view of Walker et al (US 2003/0003988).
Re claim 16, Lyons fails to disclose in response to the user losing money in the metaverse, receiving a wager request to cause previous wagers to be replayed to gain a different outcome. Walker teaches a game which includes a button to redo a previous bet, game, or action ([0198]). It would have been obvious to include a redo option as taught by Walker in order to allow players to redo a previous action for the chance at a better outcome, increasing player retention and enjoyment.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons in view of Danala et al (US 2023/0055749).
Re claim 17, Lyons does not disclose in response to the user triggering a given bonus, transferring the user within the metaverse to the virtual environment that corresponds to the given bonus. Danala teaches a virtual environment system with avatars similar to Lyons wherein a bonus feature allows users to be teleported to different locations ([0050]). It would have been obvious to implement the avatar traveling features of Danala in the virtual environment of Lyons in order to allow users to visit locations and take virtual tours of environments they would normally not be able to experience, and to incentivize playing the game until obtaining the bonus feature necessary to travel to said locations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of a metaverse gaming system comprising a virtual electronic gaming machine, wherein the user is able to make a modification to the virtual environment by changing a quantity of virtual EGMs in the virtual environment.
Virtual reality and metaverse environments are known in the art as evidenced by the cited prior art. However, while various aspects of customization can be found being taught in the prior art, specifically allowing the user to modify the quantity of virtual EGMs in the virtual environment is a customization option that the Examiner is unable to find in the prior art. Such aspects of customization would typically be controlled by the administrators of the virtual environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715