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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “display, by the display device. a machine-readable code” (line 16) should read “display, by the display device, a machine-readable code”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of claims 1-2 and 4-21 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1-2 and 4-15 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 16-18 are directed to a gaming device (i.e., a machine), and claims 19-21 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). The claims are, therefore directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) 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:
determine player information associated with a first player of a wagering game at a gaming device, wherein the player information comprises game play information associated with play of the wagering game at the gaming device by the first player;
determine a game event for the wagering game;
in response to the determined game event in the wagering game, embed the player information in a cryptographic token, wherein a rarity of the cryptographic token is determined based on the game event;
transfer the cryptographic token to a player wallet associated with the first player; and
in response to the transfer, provide the embedded player information to a player tracking server.
Claim 16 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a gaming device comprising:
a display device;
an input device;
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:
determine player information associated with a first player of a wagering game at the gaming device, wherein the player information comprises game play information associated with play of the wagering game at the gaming device by the first player;
determine a game event for the wagering game;
in response to the determined game event in the wagering game, embed the player information in a cryptographic token, wherein a rarity of the cryptographic token is determined based on the game event;
display, by the display device. a machine-readable code comprising an instruction that, when scanned by a player device associated with a player wallet, causes the player device to transfer the cryptographic token to the player wallet; and
in response to the transfer, provide the embedded player information to a player tracking server.
Claim 19 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a method comprising:
determining, by a processor circuit, player information associated with a first player of a wagering game at a gaming device, wherein the player information comprises game play information associated with play of the wagering game at the gaming device by the first player;
determining, by the processor circuit, a game event for the wagering game;
in response to the determined game event in the wagering game, embedding, by the processor circuit, the player information in a cryptographic token, wherein a rarity of the cryptographic token is determined based on the game event;
transferring, by the processor circuit, the cryptographic token to a player wallet associated with the first player; and
in response to the transfer, providing, by the processor circuit, the embedded player information to a player tracking server.
The present claims are directed to game play features with wagering games, and in particular to a cryptographic token enabled player information tracking for wagering games in a gaming environment, such as in a casino environment (Specification [0001]). The steps recited in the claims fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, they are directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic practices or principles because they describe rules for conducting a wagering game involving embedding player information in a cryptographic token associated with a rarity and transferring the cryptographic token to a player wallet. They also fall into the sub-category of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because they recite the rules for a game. Additionally, the claims recite collecting and recording player game information which falls into the category of mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element 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 in the present claims are a processor circuit, a memory, a gaming device, a player tracking server, a display device, a player device, a ticket printer device, a ticket redemption device, and an input device. The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, as shown:
a processor circuit, a memory, a display device, an input device (Walker et al., US 2004/0082384 A1, components well known in the art, specifically a processor, Ram and ROM, a data storage device, a random number generator, a communication port, a hopper controller, a hopper, a video controller, a touch screen, a coin acceptor controller, a coin acceptor, a bill acceptor controller, a bill acceptor, a reel controller, reels, an input device, an output device and a sensor [0058]);
a gaming device, a player device (Parham, US 2006/0089196 A1, the design and operation of gaming devices is well known and conventional gaming machines are available such as from International Gaming Technology.TM. and Bally.TM. [0022]);
a player tracking server (Cole et al., US 2011/0275443 A1, the gaming machine 100 may be configured to obtain game code or game outcome information from a remote server; the gaming machine 100 may also communicate with a remote accounting server and/or player tracking server, as is well known in the art [0037]); and
a ticket printer device, a ticket redemption device (Rader et al., US 2018/0025580 A1, it is common for EGM 100 to include ticket-in, ticket-out (" TITO") functionality that requires bill validator 155 to perform ticket reading and ticket printing as well as for communication with a central system such as server based system 204 for ticket tracking [0025])
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-2 and 4-21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-21 have been considered. There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-2 and 4-21 as currently recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/WERNER G GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights