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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection of claims 6-7, 11, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims (filed 05/20/2026).
Applicant’s submission of common ownership of the previously cited art “Latifi” and “Higgins” is acknowledged (Remarks, filed 05/20/2026, pp. 10-12).
The previous rejections of claims 1-2, 12, and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and of claims 5-11, 13-15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims and Applicant’s remarks (each filed 05/20/2026). However, as necessitated by amendment, the claims now stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over newly cited prior art “Moore,” as presented in detail below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “the plurality of user” should instead read “the plurality of users”
In claim 2, “the plurality of gaming channels comprise” should instead read “the plurality of gaming channels comprises”
In claim 9, there should be a new line after the semicolon ‘;’ in line 4
In claim 16 “on-line” should instead read “online”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/061919 (hereinafter “Moore”) in view of US 2019/0333273 (hereinafter “Nelson”) and Stout.
Regarding Claim 1, Moore discloses a processor circuit (fig. 4: processor 412; par. 0020: “"processor" generally means any one or more microprocessors, CPU devices, computing devices, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, or like devices”); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (fig. 4: processor 412 coupled to memory 440 comprising program instructions 442; par. 0075: “memory 440 may store a program 442 for controlling the processor 412. The processor 412 may perform instructions of the program 442”), cause the processor circuit to:
provide a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a virtual casino that is accessed by a plurality of users (par. 0009: “a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for facilitating a wagering game tournament;” par. 0011: “a user device may comprise a non-dedicated user device such as a user's mobile device (e.g., smart phone or tablet computer) that has many purposes, is the property of the user rather than the property of the brick and mortar casino and that, while it can facilitate online gaming;” par. 0046: “the online tournament server 260a may make available, via one or more tournament interfaces (not shown in FIG. 2) as may be output to players via mobile devices (e.g., the mobile user device 202) of the players (e.g., via an app facilitated by the online tournament server 260a), online participation in the tournament by players who have registered to play in the tournament”);
receive, from the plurality of users, login credentials (par. 0046: “verify log in attempts from players;” par. 0103: “a player who registers for a tournament may be provided with a code or credentials (e.g., a QR or bar code, a passcode, a username, password or other unique identifier that indicates to the system the player's registration as a participant in a particular tournament)”); and
provide the access to the virtual casino using a plurality of gaming channels, wherein the virtual casino comprises a tournament that is playable by the plurality of users (fig. 2; abstract: “combined or hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournaments… both online and in-casino players at non-dedicated machines to participate in the same tournament;” par. 0032: “enable both online and in-casino players to participate in the same wagering game tournament;” Examiner notes the gaming channels include at least the remote online play/casino and the land-based casino itself).
Moore does not explicitly disclose a wireframe map. However, Nelson discloses the virtual casino corresponds to a wireframe map of a casino floor (par. 0025: “a three-dimensional wireframe map of a gaming area, such as a casino floor, and may provide the three-dimensional wireframe map to the AR viewers 200. The wireframe map may store various information about EGMs and other games or locations in the gaming area, such as the identity, type and location of various types of EGMs or other games”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the virtual casino of Moore with the wireframe map of Nelson in order to store information related to the gaming machines and their locations.
Moore discloses that login credentials are required for access to the tournament (pars. 0046, 0103) but does not explicitly state login credentials are needed for more general access to the virtual casino itself. However, Stout discloses receive, from the plurality of users, login credentials that provide the plurality of users with access to the virtual casino (par. 0098: “The server may include multiple servers, each serving a corresponding function of the server. Examples of the servers provided in the server are a login server responsible for login of users to the Metaverse, an environment server that provides a Metaverse environment for each avatar representing a corresponding user;” par. 0039: “a Metaverse platform for hosting a virtual 3D environment that includes multiple gaming machines in a game establishment”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the login requirement of Stout with the virtual casino of Moore at least to maintain separate accounts for every online user of the virtual casino (Stout, par. 0098).
Regarding Claim 2, Moore further discloses the plurality of gaming channels comprises a first gaming channel comprising a first gaming channel type and a second gaming channel comprising a second gaming channel type that is different from the first gaming channel type (fig. 2; abstract: “combined or hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournaments… both online and in-casino players at non-dedicated machines to participate in the same tournament;” par. 0051: “the casino tournament server 260b may be operable to receive and/or transmit data to the mobile user device 202 (e.g., via communication pathway "2”)… and/or the gaming device 210 (via a communication pathway "4”);” Examiner notes the gaming channels include at least the remote online play/casino and the land-based casino itself).
Regarding Claim 5, Moore further discloses a leaderboard provides performance data of the plurality of users in the tournament to non-user audience members in the virtual casino (par. 0067: “the table interface 320b may output an indication of tournament participants along with their respective scores, ranks, and/or standings in the tournament - e.g., a ‘leader board;’ par. 0115: “generating a leader board, at 712. The tournament system may score, sort, rank, filter, categorize, and/or group any and all retrieved data descriptive of the online and in casino tournament participants, for example, to define one or more reports, interface screens, images, icons, badges, avatars, and/or other graphical/image elements for output via an electronic display device… the tournament system may send information and/or commands that cause the mobile device to output and indication of the leader board”).
Regarding Claim 12, Moore further discloses the processor circuit is further caused to provide the virtual casino to one of the plurality of users via a mobile communication device that is associated with the one of the plurality of users (par. 0046: “output to players via mobile devices (e.g., the mobile user device 202) of the players;” par. 0044: “mobile user device 202 may comprise a mobile or portable computing device such as a smartphone”).
Regarding Claim 16, Moore further discloses the virtual casino comprises a land-based physical casino and an online casino that provide a shared gaming experience to the plurality of users (fig. 2; abstract: “combined or hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournaments… both online and in-casino players at non-dedicated machines to participate in the same tournament;” par. 0032: “enable both online and in-casino players to participate in the same wagering game tournament”).
Regarding Claim 17, Moore modified by Stout further discloses the processor circuit is further caused to provide the virtual casino to the plurality of users via a virtual reality (VR) device that is associated with one of the plurality of users (Stout, par. 00100: “the remote device may include… a virtual reality device, an augmented reality device, and the like, or any combination thereof”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the VR device of Stout with the virtual casino system of Moore in order to offer the user a more immersive or realistic experience in the online casino (Stout, pars. 0039).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Nelson and Stout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2010/0121808 (hereinafter “Kuhn”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Moore does not disclose a simulated audience. However, Kuhn discloses the processor circuit is further caused to provide a simulated audience in the virtual casino by providing a non-player character therein (par. 0021: “one or more virtual players 302 (or virtual bystanders) are animated by artificial intelligence;” par. 0081: “virtual player 302 can be programmed to perform without the possibility of human intervention that could introduce an embarrassing mistake or misstep”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the simulated bystanders/audience of Kuhn with the virtual casino of modified Moore in order to increase the overall realism of the casino (Kuhn, fig. 3) and/or to provide artificial characters the user may converse with or gain information from (Kuhn, pars. 0080-0082).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Moore does not disclose an artificial host. However, Kuhn discloses the processor circuit is further caused to provide an artificial host in the virtual casino (par. 0021: “virtual dealer 106 (also referred to as a ‘virtual host’);” par. 0023: “the underlying artificial intelligence 102, and the projected virtual dealer 106 will be referred to collectively herein as ‘the virtual dealer’ 106”), and wherein the artificial host is caused to oversee events in the virtual casino and to provide simulated reactions to actions of the plurality of users while in the virtual casino (figs. 1-3: virtual host 106, 202 oversees table game events; par. 0024: “virtual dealer 106 may make personal references to a birthday or other events;” par. 0025: “the virtual dealer 106 can accomplish most tasks that a human game host can perform;” par. 0024: “the virtual dealer 106 may engage in appropriately intelligent dialogue with human players while a more sophisticated version of the virtual dealer 106 constitutes an emulated human agent that has learning capability and displays a full range of emulated human reactions, gestures, speech, etc.… may make game-oriented comments, such as ‘nice hit, Dave’, ‘great bet, Johnnie’ to consoling comments, such as ‘better luck next time, Peggy’”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the artificial host of Kuhn with the virtual casino of modified Moore in order to increase the overall realism of the virtual casino (Kuhn, figs. 1, 3) and/or to provide an artificial character which may offer information and entertainment to the user (Kuhn, pars. 0024, 0045).
Claims 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Nelson and Stout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lyons.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Moore does not disclose any non-casino gaming channel. However, Lyons discloses the processor circuit is further caused to provide a metaverse that comprises a plurality of different virtual casinos (par. 0021: “output may include a variety of information presented to a player (e.g., live sporting events, live casino gaming events, computer generated wagering games, etc.);” par. 0004: “Poker and other table games, multi-player video games, and live or computer-generated sports, in which a player may observe and wager on a variety of live and virtual events”) and a non-casino feature that is provided via a different gaming channel than a casino gaming channel (par. 0004: “Gaming providers (e.g., casinos, arcades, resorts, on-line services, etc.) seek to attract players… may further offer non-gaming entertainment such as live music, theater, and sports events in hopes of attracting and retaining customers;” par. 0029: “the games may not involve wagering at all, either real currency or virtual currency, but may instead be non-wagering games that are competitive, strategy-based, cooperative, or combinations thereof. Games may include role-playing games, board games, arcade games, educational games, and various other genres”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the non-casino features of Lyons with the virtual casino system of modified Moore in order to provide players with a wider array of activities and therefore enhance enjoyment and increase use cases (Lyons, pars. 0004, 0029). Similarly, land-based casinos often offer non-wagering live events to attract and retain customers, so it would be obvious to incorporate this feature in a virtualized/online casino as well (Lyons, par. 0004).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Moore does not disclose sharing image data of one user with the other users. However, Lyons discloses the processor circuit is further caused to provide image data received from an image capture device of one of the plurality of users with other ones of the plurality of users in the virtual casino (par. 0020: “a webcam or other image capture device may be used to selectively share images of players within the metaverse environment;” par. 0039: “The representation of the user generated from the real-time data may be included in the VR environment so that other users in the environment may see, hear, and/or interact with the user. Enhancing the representation with dynamic facial expressions, movements, and other information not only makes the representation seem more lifelike but also provides real and perceived cues that other players in the VR environment may interpret and react to”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image sharing of Lyons with the virtual casino system of Moore in order to increase the realism of the virtual experience and therefore enhance user enjoyment (Lyons, pars. 0005 and 0039).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Moore does not disclose translating image data into a reaction of an avatar. However, Lyons discloses the processor circuit is further caused to: analyze image data generated by an image capture device corresponding to one of the plurality of users (par. 0020: “a webcam or other image capture device may be used to selectively share images of players within the metaverse environment. In some examples, a webcam may be used as an input device for an animated Avatar”); and
translate the image data into a reaction of an avatar that corresponds to the one of the plurality of users in the virtual casino (par. 0020: “a webcam or other image capture device… a video feed may be analyzed, e.g., by an artificial intelligence or machine learning model, to cause a player's avatar to replicate the player's reactions and expressions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine image translation of Lyons with the virtual casino system of Moore in order to increase the realism of the virtual experience and therefore enhance user enjoyment (Lyons, pars. 0020 and 0039).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Nelson and Stout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lyons and Vuong.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Moore does not disclose receiving image data and generating an image for use in the virtual casino. However, Lyons discloses the processor circuit is further caused to: receive image data corresponding to the plurality of users and generated by image capture devices corresponding to the plurality of users (par. 0033: “The internal frame 208 may also provide support for one or more detectors, for example, a face-directed imager such as the face-directed cameras 216 that may capture real-time dynamic video of facial characteristics of the user;” par. 0034: “Data gathered by the detectors 214, the face directed cameras 216, and other sensors and detectors that may be included in the VR headset 200 may be received by the processing circuitry 204 and may be transmitted to a game server 102 or to a local computing device 106 for primary or secondary processing”); and
generate an image in the virtual casino that is associated with respective ones of the plurality of users (pars. 0037-0038: “a face-directed camera 216 may capture the user's eye blinks, eye and eyebrow movements, and retinal qualities, to name just a few of the characteristics that are observable within the headgear. Similarly, other detectors (e.g., 214) may measure skin temperature, resistivity, heart rate, and various biometric attributes—even skin wrinkling as facial expressions change… Some of the data may be processed and incorporated in a digital or analog representation of the user. For example, data associated with facial expression may be used to generate a real-time depiction of the user's facial expressions as they participate in the VR environment. Additional data from exterior detectors, for example a remote camera, may be included to produce a full—or nearly full—body representation of a user that moves and reacts in synch with the corresponding real-time behavior of the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image generation of Lyons with the virtual casino system of Moore in order to increase the realism of the virtual experience and therefore enhance user enjoyment (Lyons, par. 0005).
Modified Moore does not explicitly disclose an opt-out signal. However, Vuong discloses receive an opt-out signal from one of the plurality of users that causes the image data not to be captured (par. 0014: “the third set of cameras may provide images of the dealer and each of the players. Clearly, some or all of the players may desire to opt out of having their image transmitted to remote players”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the virtual casino system of Moore by incorporating the opt-out feature of Vuong because it is a basic privacy option, and some users may not want their personal features or appearance used at an online virtual casino (Vuong, par. 0014).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Nelson and Stout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pierce.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Moore implies but does not explicitly disclose an invitation system. However, Pierce discloses the processor circuit is further caused to send an invitation message corresponding to a community game to the plurality of users and to receive an acceptance message from the plurality of users (par. 0068: “invitations and matching may occur in a virtual lobby, or through messages delivered to a player profile page or through messages delivered directly to a player via text message, email, phone call, or some other system;” par. 0098: “When the particular Player 2 views the invitation, they are presented with two command options: ‘Accept’ or ‘Decline’;” abstract: “By one or more processors of a computing device… send the first player eligibility to an operator of the skill based video game”), wherein the virtual casino comprises the community game that is exclusively accessible to the plurality of users that are invited to participate in the virtual casino (fig. 5: must accept invitation before community game begins; par. 0097: “a tournament receives its first accepted invitation slot;” abstract: “By one or more processors of a computing device… send the first player eligibility to an operator of the skill based video game”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invitation system of Pierce with the casino system of Moore in order to add exclusivity and therefore increase excitement of the tournaments (Pierce, pars. 0096-0098). Additionally, such an invitation system could allow friends to play in tournaments together, thereby increasing their collective enjoyment (Pierce, par. 0033).
Regarding Claim 14, Moore further discloses the community game provides a plurality of game channel types to the plurality of users (fig. 2; abstract: “combined or hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournaments… both online and in-casino players at non-dedicated machines to participate in the same tournament;” par. 0051: “the casino tournament server 260b may be operable to receive and/or transmit data to the mobile user device 202 (e.g., via communication pathway "2”)… and/or the gaming device 210 (via a communication pathway "4”)”).
Regarding Claim 15, Moore modified by Stout further discloses the community game comprises a first community game and wherein the virtual casino comprises a second community game that is different from the first community game, and wherein the first community game and the second community game are linked together across the plurality of gaming channels (Stout, par. 0096: “Any number of back-betters can play on a single gaming machine. These numbers may get quite high during tournaments or special personality play;” par. 0093: “Back-Beter can choose to leave the game at any time. When he leaves he is given options to continue to play such as any hosted or personality driver, exciting games, tournaments, or any other notable promotion;” par. 0084: Back-Betting is an alternative mode of play where the remote player chooses not to Drive but instead plays the game by observing how a Driver plays and then placing bets on the play he observes;” Examiner notes the first community game comprises a slot tournament which both local and remote players can participate in, and the different second community game comprises several remote/virtual players back-betting on those same machines, thus linking the different community games). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the second community game linked across the gaming channels to the first community game as disclosed by Stout with the virtual casino system of Moore in order to allow the users to engage in more community game types and to further provide connection between the gaming channels (Stout, pars. 0093-0096)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Nelson and Stout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lobel.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Moore does not disclose a custom virtual casino. However, Lobel discloses the processor circuit is further caused to receive customized data corresponding to the virtual casino and to provide a custom virtual casino that includes characteristics corresponding to the customized data (par. 0033: “the user will have the ability to customize her/his casino, which means control on colors, sizes, kind of cards, kind of chips and general look and feel of the casino”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the customization of Lobel with the virtual online casino of Moore in order to allow users to input their personal preferences and therefore enhance enjoyment (Lobel, par. 0033).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Nelson, Stout, and Kuhn.
Regarding Claim 19, Moore discloses providing an online virtual environment comprising a virtual casino that provides community games that are accessible to a plurality of users (fig. 2; abstract: “combined or hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournaments… both online and in-casino players at non-dedicated machines to participate in the same tournament;” par. 0032: “enable both online and in-casino players to participate in the same wagering game tournament”);
receiving, from the plurality of users, login credentials (par. 0046: “verify log in attempts from players;” par. 0103: “a player who registers for a tournament may be provided with a code or credentials (e.g., a QR or bar code, a passcode, a username, password or other unique identifier that indicates to the system the player's registration as a participant in a particular tournament)”); and
providing the access to the online virtual environment using a plurality of gaming channels that comprises a first gaming channel comprising a first gaming channel type and a second gaming channel comprising a second gaming channel type that is different from the first gaming channel type (fig. 2; abstract: “combined or hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournaments… both online and in-casino players at non-dedicated machines to participate in the same tournament;” par. 0032: “enable both online and in-casino players to participate in the same wagering game tournament;” Examiner notes the gaming channels include at least the remote online play/casino and the land-based casino itself),
wherein the virtual casino comprises a tournament that is playable by the plurality of users (fig. 2; abstract: “combined or hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournaments… both online and in-casino players at non-dedicated machines to participate in the same tournament;” par. 0032: “enable both online and in-casino players to participate in the same wagering game tournament”).
Moore does not explicitly disclose a wireframe map. However, Nelson discloses the virtual casino corresponds to a wireframe map of a casino floor (par. 0025: “a three-dimensional wireframe map of a gaming area, such as a casino floor, and may provide the three-dimensional wireframe map to the AR viewers 200. The wireframe map may store various information about EGMs and other games or locations in the gaming area, such as the identity, type and location of various types of EGMs or other games”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the virtual casino of Moore with the wireframe map of Nelson in order to store information related to the gaming machines and their locations.
Moore discloses that login credentials are required for access to the tournament (pars. 0046, 0103) but does not explicitly state login credentials are needed for more general access to the virtual casino itself. However, Stout discloses receive, from the plurality of users, login credentials that provide the plurality of users with access to the online virtual environment (par. 0098: “The server may include multiple servers, each serving a corresponding function of the server. Examples of the servers provided in the server are a login server responsible for login of users to the Metaverse, an environment server that provides a Metaverse environment for each avatar representing a corresponding user;” par. 0039: “a Metaverse platform for hosting a virtual 3D environment that includes multiple gaming machines in a game establishment”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the login requirement of Stout with the virtual casino of Moore at least to maintain separate accounts for every online user of the virtual casino (Stout, par. 0098).
Modified Moore does not disclose a simulated audience. However, Kuhn discloses providing a simulated audience in the online virtual environment by providing a non-player character therein (par. 0021: “one or more virtual players 302 (or virtual bystanders) are animated by artificial intelligence;” par. 0081: “virtual player 302 can be programmed to perform without the possibility of human intervention that could introduce an embarrassing mistake or misstep”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the simulated bystanders/audience of Kuhn with the virtual casino of modified Moore in order to increase the overall realism of the casino (Kuhn, fig. 3) and/or to provide artificial characters the user may converse with or gain information from (Kuhn, pars. 0080-0082).
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Nelson, Stout, and Lyons.
Regarding Claim 20, Moore discloses an input device (fig. 2: mobile user device 202 and/or gaming device 210);
a processor circuit (fig. 4: processor 412; par. 0020: “"processor" generally means any one or more microprocessors, CPU devices, computing devices, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, or like devices”); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (fig. 4: processor 412 coupled to memory 440 comprising program instructions 442; par. 0075: “memory 440 may store a program 442 for controlling the processor 412. The processor 412 may perform instructions of the program 442”), cause the processor circuit to:
provide an online virtual environment that comprises a virtual casino that provides a wagering tournament game that is accessible to a plurality of users in different physical locations (fig. 2; abstract: “combined or hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournaments… both online and in-casino players at non-dedicated machines to participate in the same tournament;” par. 0032: “enable both online and in-casino players to participate in the same wagering game tournament;” par. 0042: “play at least some of the tournament online (e.g., via his/her mobile device and from a remote location)”);
receive, via the input device and from the plurality of users, login credentials (par. 0046: “verify log in attempts from players;” par. 0103: “a player who registers for a tournament may be provided with a code or credentials (e.g., a QR or bar code, a passcode, a username, password or other unique identifier that indicates to the system the player's registration as a participant in a particular tournament)”);
provide the access to the online virtual environment using a plurality of gaming channels that comprises a first gaming channel and a second gaming channel that is different from the first gaming channel (fig. 2; abstract: “combined or hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournaments… both online and in-casino players at non-dedicated machines to participate in the same tournament;” par. 0032: “enable both online and in-casino players to participate in the same wagering game tournament;” Examiner notes the gaming channels include at least the remote online play/casino and the land-based casino itself); and
wherein the virtual casino comprises a tournament that is playable by the plurality of users (fig. 2; abstract: “combined or hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournaments… both online and in-casino players at non-dedicated machines to participate in the same tournament;” par. 0032: “enable both online and in-casino players to participate in the same wagering game tournament”).
Moore does not explicitly disclose a wireframe map. However, Nelson discloses the virtual casino corresponds to a wireframe map of a casino floor (par. 0025: “a three-dimensional wireframe map of a gaming area, such as a casino floor, and may provide the three-dimensional wireframe map to the AR viewers 200. The wireframe map may store various information about EGMs and other games or locations in the gaming area, such as the identity, type and location of various types of EGMs or other games”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the virtual casino of Moore with the wireframe map of Nelson in order to store information related to the gaming machines and their locations.
Moore discloses that login credentials are required for access to the tournament (pars. 0046, 0103) but does not explicitly state login credentials are needed for more general access to the virtual casino itself. However, Stout discloses receive, via the input device and from the plurality of users, login credentials that provide the plurality of users with access to the virtual casino (par. 0098: “The server may include multiple servers, each serving a corresponding function of the server. Examples of the servers provided in the server are a login server responsible for login of users to the Metaverse, an environment server that provides a Metaverse environment for each avatar representing a corresponding user;” par. 0039: “a Metaverse platform for hosting a virtual 3D environment that includes multiple gaming machines in a game establishment”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the login requirement of Stout with the virtual casino of Moore at least to maintain separate accounts for every online user of the virtual casino (Stout, par. 0098).
Modified Moore also does not disclose providing image data from one user with other users. However, Lyons discloses provide image data received from an image capture device of one of the plurality of users with other ones of the plurality of users in the online virtual environment (par. 0020: “a webcam or other image capture device may be used to selectively share images of players within the metaverse environment;” par. 0039: “The representation of the user generated from the real-time data may be included in the VR environment so that other users in the environment may see, hear, and/or interact with the user. Enhancing the representation with dynamic facial expressions, movements, and other information not only makes the representation seem more lifelike but also provides real and perceived cues that other players in the VR environment may interpret and react to”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image sharing of Lyons with the virtual casino of Moore in order to increase the realism of the virtual experience and therefore enhance user enjoyment (Lyons, pars. 0005 and 0039).
Regarding Claim 21, Moore further discloses the plurality of gaming channels comprise a first gaming channel comprising a first gaming channel type and a second gaming channel comprising a second gaming channel type that is different from the first gaming channel type (fig. 2; abstract: “combined or hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournaments… both online and in-casino players at non-dedicated machines to participate in the same tournament;” par. 0051: “the casino tournament server 260b may be operable to receive and/or transmit data to the mobile user device 202 (e.g., via communication pathway "2”)… and/or the gaming device 210 (via a communication pathway "4”);” Examiner notes the gaming channels include at least the remote online play/casino and the land-based casino itself).
Regarding Claim 22, Moore further discloses a leaderboard provides performance data of the plurality of users in the tournament to non-user audience members in the virtual casino (par. 0067: “the table interface 320b may output an indication of tournament participants along with their respective scores, ranks, and/or standings in the tournament - e.g., a ‘leader board;’ Examiner notes any audience member who is not participating in the tournament would be able to see the outward-facing table interface displaying the leaderboard; par. 0115: “generating a leader board, at 712. The tournament system may score, sort, rank, filter, categorize, and/or group any and all retrieved data descriptive of the online and in casino tournament participants, for example, to define one or more reports, interface screens, images, icons, badges, avatars, and/or other graphical/image elements for output via an electronic display device… the tournament system may send information and/or commands that cause the mobile device to output and indication of the leader board”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE DOSHER whose telephone number is (571) 272-4842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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.
/J.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights