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 with traverse of claims 30-32 in the reply filed on 4/20/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examining all the groups would not be a serious burden because the search and examination of Groups I to IV would overlap and similar search terms could be used to search the prior art without a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because although the groups may overlap in some search area, each individual group is distinct and the non-overlapping search of each individual group would be a burden. In addition, the non-overlapping portion of the examination and search terms used for each group would be a burden. See Restriction mailed 2/18/26 pages 5-6 for details.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 30-49 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. Claims 30-49 recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and 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
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 30-42 recite:
a computer-implemented system comprising:
a plurality of electronic gaming machines associated with a plurality of players;
a controller configured to:
validate one or more of the plurality of players to participate in an electronic game on respective ones of the plurality of electronic gaming machines;
enable validated players on respective ones of the plurality of electronic gaming machines to participate in game play for the electronic game; and
a data analyzer configured to:
receive, from the plurality of electronic gaming machines, game player data;
determine, from the received game player data, at least one of a place, score, or position of the validated players;
store, in a memory, data associated with determinations of the at least one of the place, score, or position of the validated plurality of players;
retrieve, from the memory, a distribution table including data identifying a distribution of a plurality of awards;
award, based on the distribution table, the distribution of each of the plurality of awards;
collect data associated with the awards distributions including whether each award distribution was successful or unsuccessful; and
store, in the memory, data associated with the awards distribution.
Claims 43-49 recite the following: a computer-implemented method comprising:
validating one or more players to participate in an electronic game on respective ones of a plurality of electronic gaming machines;
enabling validated players to participate in game play for the electronic game on the respective ones of the plurality of electronic gaming machines;
receiving, from the plurality of electronic gaming machines, game player data;
determining, from the game player data, at least one of a place, score, or position of the validated players;
storing, in a memory, data associated with determinations of the at least one of the place, score, or position of the validated players;
retrieving, from the memory, a distribution table including data identifying a distribution of a plurality of awards;
awarding, based on the distribution table, the distribution of each of the plurality of awards;
collecting data associated with the award distributions, including whether each award distribution was successful or unsuccessful; and
storing, in the memory, data associated with the award distributions.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claimed limitation recite steps of organizing a game. Steps of organizing a game is an organization of human activity.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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 30-49 not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 30-49 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. 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 additional elements of the controller, data analyzer and plurality of electronic gaming machines is a generic computer or generic gaming device and component of a generic computer used to performed the abstract idea. The controller and gaming machines generally link the use of the judicial exception to an electronic embodiment.
The additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 30-42 recite a controller, a data analyzer. Claims 30-49 recite a plurality of electronic gaming machines. Chen (US 2006/0116208) discloses electronic gaming machines are known in the art, and processors/controllers are known components of a gaming device/system (paragraphs 4-5).
Claims 30-49 also recite steps of receiving player data and storing and retrieving data in a memory.
The step of receiving player data is a step of communicating or transmitting data over a network. The steps of communicating, transmitting data over a network is well known, routine and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The steps of storing and retrieving data in a memory is well known routine and conventional as indicated by the courts. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 31-42, 44-49 further recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements 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 claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception 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 clams merely include limitations that further define the abstract idea and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a data analyzer configured to: receive, from the plurality of electronic gaming machines, game player data; determine, from the received game player data, at least one of a place, score, or position of the validated players; store, in a memory, data associated with determinations of the at least one of the place, score, or position of the validated plurality of players; retrieve, from the memory, a distribution table including data identifying a distribution of a plurality of awards; award, based on the distribution table, the distribution of each of the plurality of awards; collect data associated with the awards distributions including whether each award distribution was successful or unsuccessful; and store, in the memory, data associated with the awards distribution” in claim 30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 30-34, 37, 39-40, 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by Thomas (US 2021/0110666) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Thomas (US 2021/0110666) in view of Blatstein (US 2018/0240304).
Claim 30. Thomas discloses a computer-implemented system comprising:
a plurality of electronic gaming machines associated with a plurality of players (410a-b, 416a-b, 414);
a controller (tournament server 402 in Fig. 4) configured to:
validate one or more of the plurality of players to participate in an electronic game on respective ones of the plurality of electronic gaming machines (validate user login credentials or according to geographic location, paragraphs 94, 124, 159);
enable validated players on respective ones of the plurality of electronic gaming machines to participate in game play for the electronic game (paragraphs 94, 124, 151, 159); and
a data analyzer (combination of tracking server 404 award server 406 and tournament server 402 in Fig. 4) configured to:
receive, from the plurality of electronic gaming machines, game player data (gaming activity of players; paragraph 89);
determine, from the received game player data, at least one of a place, score, or position of the validated players (tournament score, tournament ranking; paragraphs 36, 78, 81-84, 88, 154, 161, 206, 211);
store, in a memory, data associated with determinations of the at least one of the place, score, or position of the validated plurality of players (system tracks and manages and adjust tournament scores/updates tournament including tournament dataset, points, ranking, winnings, etc. and therefore stores the tournament data; paragraphs 88, 125, 147, 161, 192, 202);
retrieve, from the memory, a distribution table including data identifying a distribution of a plurality of awards (paytable that identify awards for individual games, and prize control that list the prizes for the tournament according the ranking; paragraphs 49, 64, 76, 116, 164);
award, based on the distribution table, the distribution of each of the plurality of awards (paragraphs 49, 64, 76, 90, 122, 116, 147, 154, 164).
Thomas discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to explicitly state that the system collects data associated with the awards distributions including whether each award distribution was successful or unsuccessful; and stores, in the memory, data associated with the awards distribution. Thomas discloses various payments are provided to transfer money for the wager and provide award. Thomas discloses electronic credit such as a digital wallet can be used (paragraph 70). Electronic credit or digital wallet would require information whether money was transferred to be to transmitted to the server and stored for accounting purposes.
Furthermore, in analogous art to gaming systems, Blatsein discloses a system in which the processor can manage the prize claim process including viewing and/or update the status of outstanding prize claims (and therefore collects and stores data of the prize/award distribution was successful or unsuccessful). The system also collects any additional information from the player that might be necessary to fulfill the prize request and verifies the player eligibility for prizes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Thomas’ invention and collect data associated with the award distribution including whether each award distribution was successful or unsuccessful and store in memory data associated with the ward distribution in order to provide the predictable result of verifying if player received the prize and aid players in receiving their prizes.
Claim 31. Thomas discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 30, wherein the game player data is received via data feeds from a tracking system implemented by the plurality of electronic gaming machines (System tracks and manages and adjust tournament scores/updates tournament including tournament dataset, points, ranking, winnings, etc. and therefore stores the tournament data; paragraphs 88, 125, 147, 161, 192, 202. The tracking server 404 tracks gaming activity of players; paragraph 89. It is interpreted that the received tournament data are data feeds from a tracking system.); and the data analyzer is further configured to send data associated with the awards distribution to a server (award service server 406 work in conjunction with tracking server and tournament backend server to facilitate the award of prizes; paragraph 90.).
Claim 32. Thomas discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 30, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether a change occurs to the plurality of electronic gaming machines associated with the plurality of players; and if the change occurs: re-validate one or more of the plurality of players to participate in game play on respective ones of the plurality of electronic gaming machines; and re-enable game play by the validated players on the respective ones of the plurality of electronic gaming machines (players may rejoin the tournament; paragraphs 78. In addition, tournament may be asynchronous to allow player at a gaming machine to leave and re-join; paragraphs 83-90.).
Claim 33. Thomas discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 32, wherein the data analyzer is further configured to: receive, from the memory, changed game player data from the plurality of electronic gaming mac determine whether at least one of the place, score, or position of the validated plurality of players has changed based on the changed game player data; and store, in the memory, data associated with the changed game player data and each determination based on the changed game player data (System tracks and manages and adjust tournament scores/updates tournament including tournament dataset, points, ranking, winnings, etc. and therefore stores the tournament data; paragraphs 88, 125, 147, 161, 192, 202.);
wherein: determining whether at least one of the place, score, or position of the validated plurality of players has changed further includes detecting a change in player status associated with one or more of the plurality of electronic gaming machines; and the change in player status includes a log-in event, a log-out event, or a game-completion event (Player logs in using credential and therefore the system determines a log in event, paragraphs 94, 216. System also track game completion events; paragraphs 8, 133, 142, 152.).
Claim 34. Thomas discloses the system of claim 30, wherein the distribution table is selected based on at least one of a number of active players participating in the electronic game and a total wager associated with the electronic game (wager may change amount award; paragraphs 3, 103, 161).
Claim 37. Thomas discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 30, wherein the plurality of electronic gaming machines includes networked gaming machines (Fig. 4) located at different physical locations (paragraphs 22-23, 91-93).
Claim 39. Thomas discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 30, wherein distributing the plurality of awards includes distributing participation awards to the plurality of players based on a predetermined placement threshold (prizes for particular ranks; paragraphs 36, 88, 154.).
Claim 40. Thomas discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 30, wherein the plurality of awards is distributed by updating player account data stored in the memory (electronic player account, digital wallet and therefore information is stored in memory; paragraph 70).
Claim 43. Thomas in view of Blatstein discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: validating one or more players to participate in an electronic game on respective ones of a plurality of electronic gaming machines; enabling validated players to participate in game play for the electronic game on the respective ones of the plurality of electronic gaming machines; receiving, from the plurality of electronic gaming machines, game player data; determining, from the game player data, at least one of a place, score, or position of the validated players; storing, in a memory, data associated with determinations of the at least one of the place, score, or position of the validated players; retrieving, from the memory, a distribution table including data identifying a distribution of a plurality of awards; awarding, based on the distribution table, the distribution of each of the plurality of awards; collecting data associated with the award distributions, including whether each award distribution was successful or unsuccessful; and storing, in the memory, data associated with the award distributions (see rejection for claim 30 above).
Claim 44. Thomas discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 43, wherein receiving the game player data comprises receiving, over one or more networks, data feeds from the plurality of electronic gaming machines using a player tracking system implemented by the plurality of electronic gaming machines (see rejection for claim 31 above).
Claim 45. Thomas discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 44, further comprising: parsing the data feeds to extract identifier data that identifies at least one of the plurality of electronic gaming machines and at least one player, wherein: the identifier data includes a serial number or a unique alphanumeric string associated with the electronic gaming machine or the at least one player (Player tracking interface has keypad to enter player tracking information and therefore comprises alphanumeric information associated with the player; 56); and the identifier data is received in association with a token card (machine can accept information player tracking card; paragraphs 46, 56, 66, 216)
Claim 46. Thomas discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 45, further comprising: parsing the data feeds to extract event-type data; and determining, based on the event-type data, at least one of a log-in event, a log-out event, or a game-complete event (see rejection for claim 33).
Claims 35-36, 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2021/0110666) in view of Blatstein (US 2018/0240304) as applied to claims 30, 46 above, and further in view of LeMay (US 2007/0178970).
Claim 35. Thomas discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 30 as discussed above but fails to teach that the data analyzer comprises a parser configured to: normalize received game player data into a common protocol; and parse identifier data associated with the plurality of players and the plurality of electronic gaming machines. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to gaming systems, LeMay discloses that player tracking information is gathered by the player tracking unit and converted into a communication format according to a communication protocol used by the player tracking server or a communication protocol (paragraph 10). For example, the network may include concentrators that employ a different communication protocol than the player tracking server. Thus, translators may be employed that convert the communication protocol used by the concentrator to the communication protocol used by the player tracking server (paragraph 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Thomas’ invention and incorporate a parser configured to: normalize received game player data into a common protocol; and parse identifier data associated with the plurality of players and the plurality of electronic gaming machines in order to provide the predictable result of converting data that can be used by the server.
Claim 36. Thomas in view of LeMay discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 35, wherein the data analyzer is further configured to determine player placement by correlating parsed game player data received from different ones of the plurality of electronic gaming machines using the common protocol (see rejection for claim 1 and 35 above).
Claim 47. Thomas in view of LeMay discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 46, further comprising: normalizing the parsed identifier data and the parsed event-type data into a common protocol to harmonize game player data received from different tracking systems or game player data having different data formats; and correlating normalized game player data using the common protocol when determining the at least one of the place, score, or position of the validated players (see rejection for claims 35 and 36 above).
Claim 48. Thomas discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 47, wherein: validating the one or more players includes processing the parsed identifier data to validate the one or more players by looking up a player profile in a database or memory, and enabling validated players to participate in game play includes enabling game play on a respective ones of the plurality of electronic gaming machines for the validated players based on the player profile (validate using login credential or player tracking information; paragraphs 94, 216. In addition, Player profile is looked up using player account or player tracking information; paragraphs 46, 56, 66, 216)
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2021/0110666) in view of Blatstein (US 2018/0240304) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Englman (US 2014/0228098).
Claim 38. Thomas discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 30, wherein the electronic game comprises a secondary game (paragraphs 47, 55) but fails to teach that the player placement is determined based on outcomes of one or more primary games. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to gaming systems Englman discloses a gaming system in which players can compete against each other. Englman discloses that winning outcomes in the base game contributes to the player’s tournament score (paragraphs 73). The player’s placement is determined on the points and therefore the outcomes of the base game (paragraph 61, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Thomas’ invention and determine the player placement based on outcomes of one or more primary games in order to provide the predictable result of providing a tournament score based on player’s primary game outcomes. This will also allow players to participate the tournament while playing the primary game.
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2021/0110666) in view of Blatstein (US 2018/0240304) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 2009/0305777).
Claim 41. Thomas discloses the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the memory stores award tables generated from the distribution table. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. Thomas discloses various type of games including games with jackpots (paragraphs 55, 78). In an analogous art to gaming systems award distribution system in which the system store award tables generated from a distribution table (Distribution table define a percentage of funds to create award tables or a plurality progressive jackpots; paragraphs 8-12. The distribution tables are periodically updated by downloading new tables from a central network, e.g. progressive gaming network; paragraph 49-56.). This allows different type of award with different funding method for the progressive jackpots (paragraph 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Thomas’ invention and generate award tables from the distribution table in order to provide the predictable result of providing different type of award with different funding methods.
Claim 42. Thomas in view of Anderson discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 30, wherein the data analyzer is further configured to retrieve the distribution table from the memory based on at least one dynamic variable associated with the electronic game (Thomas discloses that a variable outcome is associated with one of the progressive jackpots, paragraphs 34, 41).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights