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 .
Response to Arguments
The previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn in light of the amended specification (filed 11/28/2025).
The previous objection to the claim 8 is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim (filed 11/28/2025).
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim (filed 11/28/2025). However, new rejections of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have arisen as necessitated by amendments to the claims. See rejections below.
Applicant's arguments concerning the rejection of claims 6-7, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (Remarks, filed 11/28/2025, p. 8). Artificial intelligence is a rapidly evolving field, and consequently, it would not be clear to one skilled in the relevant art what type of AI model would be employed or how it would be used, e.g., machine learning model, deep learning model, generative model, natural language processing model, etc. Furthermore, it is not clear what kind of data set is potentially being provided to train an AI model, nor is it explained what kinds of algorithms would be employed in consequent data generation, analysis, or decision-making. See MPEP § 2163.03.V and rejection of claims presented in detail below.
The previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn in light of the cancelation of the claim (Remarks, filed 11/28/2025, p. 9).
Applicant's arguments concerning the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Stout fails to teach the amended limitation “wherein the virtual casino comprises a tournament that is playable by the plurality of users” (Remarks, filed 11/28/2025, p. 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to paragraph 0094 of Stout’s specification, which demonstrates that remote players may join tournaments. See rejection of claim presented in detail below.
Applicant's arguments concerning the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 19 and 20 should be patentable under the same reasoning provided for claim 1 since they have been amended to include the same limitation addressed above (Remarks, filed 11/28/2025, p. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. See explanation regarding claim 1 above and rejections presented in detail below.
Applicant also argues the remaining dependent claims should be allowable because they depend upon claim 1, which should be allowable (Remarks, filed 11/28/2025, p. 10). See explanation regarding claim 1 above and rejections presented in detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-7, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claims 6-7, 11, and 19 recite the following limitations concerning the use of artificial intelligence to perform a function(s):
Claim 6: “the processor circuit is further caused to use artificial intelligence to provide a simulated audience in the virtual casino”
Claim 7: “the processor circuit is further caused to use artificial intelligence to provide an artificial host in the virtual casino”
Claim 11: “the processor circuit is further caused to use artificial intelligence to: analyze image data… and translate the image data into a reaction of an avatar”
Claim 19: “using artificial intelligence to provide a simulated audience in the online virtual environment”
However, the Applicant’s disclosure does not properly explain how artificial intelligence will be used; paragraphs 0024, 0029, 0033, 0101-0102, and 0106 of the specification merely recite that artificial intelligence will be used without any further definition or explanation. It is not clear what kind of data set is being provided to train an AI model, nor is it explained what kinds of algorithms would be employed in consequent data generation, analysis, or decision-making. Furthermore, as of the effective filing date, artificial intelligence is a quickly changing and evolving field within the art, and as such, it would not be obvious to one skilled in the art how it is being applied in the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2163.03(V).
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 19-20 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the virtual casino" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the virtual casino” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stout.
Regarding Claim 1, Stout discloses a processor circuit (fig. 2; par. 0005: “a gaming machine, comprising a processor and a memory”); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit (fig. 2; par. 0005: “a gaming machine, comprising a processor and a memory”), the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (par. 0005: “the processor to execute instructions stored in the memory”), cause the processor circuit to:
provide a graphical user interface (GUI) (fig. 4: GUI provided by processor circuit) comprising a virtual casino (par. 0072: “the display may present a game play screen where the player navigates a virtual casino studio where he sees video streams of a live casino environment from several views and hears the live casino ambiance”) that is accessed by a plurality of users (fig. 1: plurality of users; 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”);
receive, from the plurality of users, login credentials that provide the plurality of user 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.” The Examiner notes that for the login server to function as described, the user necessarily provides their login credentials); and
provide the access to the virtual casino using a plurality of gaming channels (figs. 1-3; abstract: “the present invention provides a system and method for providing an electronic gaming system involving wagering activity that includes both land-based and online wagering and game play;” par. 00106: “The online game play allows the player to select a game where he can remotely control the gaming machine or to back-bet a game on a physical player or an online player that is already controlling the game machine and playing a game;” par. 0039: “The remote device 300 may include a smart home device, a wearable device, a smart mobile device, a virtual reality device, an augmented reality device, and the like, or any combination thereof”), wherein the virtual casino comprises a tournament that is playable by the plurality of users (par. 0094: “The Back-Bet[t]er 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. 0029: “Driver - A physical player who is playing on the electronic gaming machine or an online player remotely controlling the electronic gaming machine;” par. 0032: “Back- betters are always remote;” Examiner notes remote/online users can choose to be an active player/driver rather than a back-better, and those remote players are able to join tournaments or other promotions).
Regarding Claim 2, Stout 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 (figs. 1-3; abstract: “the present invention provides a system and method for providing an electronic gaming system involving wagering activity that includes both land-based and online wagering and game play.” The Examiner notes that the first gaming channel refers to the virtual casino, which is accessible via any number of devices including smart phones, tablets, virtual reality helmets, etc., and the second channel refers to the land-based casino itself).
Regarding Claim 12, Stout 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. 00100: “the remote device may include a smart home device, a wearable device, a smart mobile device, a virtual reality device, an augmented reality device, and the like, or any combination thereof”).
Regarding Claim 16, Stout further discloses the virtual casino comprises a land-based physical casino and an on-line casino that provide a shared gaming experience to the plurality of users (figs. 1-3; abstract: “the present invention provides a system and method for providing an electronic gaming system involving wagering activity that includes both land-based and online wagering and game play;” par. 00106: “The online game play allows the player to select a game where he can remotely control the gaming machine or to back-bet a game on a physical player or an online player that is already controlling the game machine and playing a game”).
Regarding Claim 17, 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 (par. 00100: “the remote device may include… a virtual reality device, an augmented reality device, and the like, or any combination thereof”).
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Higgins.
Regarding Claim 5, Stout does not explicitly disclose a visible leaderboard for the tournament. However, Higgins discloses a leaderboard provides performance data of the plurality of users in the tournament to non- user audience members in the virtual casino (par. 0049: “Some events could be hybrid VR and physical (mixed event). For example, a slot tournament could be composed of players in both the physical casino and the virtual casino 130. Elements of the game/event itself could be composed of data from the physical casino and virtual casino 130, such as the current leaderboard of users across both the physical casino and virtual casino 130 who are participating in the tournament”).
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 tournament leaderboard of Higgins with the virtual casino and tournament system of Stout in order to allow users and audience members to visually track the players’ performance in the tournament (Higgins, par. 0049).
Claims 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Higgins.
Regarding Claim 6, Stout does not disclose any use of artificial intelligence in creating as simulated audience. However, Latifi discloses the processor circuit is further caused to use artificial intelligence to provide a simulated audience in the virtual casino by providing a non- player character therein (par. 0003: “Embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to using artificially intelligent bots to represent automated, virtual entities, e.g., other players, spectators,… etc., in the virtual 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 simulated audience of Latifi with the virtual casino of Stout in order to make the virtual casino feel more natural and realistic (Latifi, par. 0034).
Regarding Claim 7, Stout does not disclose an artificial host. However, Latifi discloses the processor circuit is further caused to use artificial intelligence to provide an artificial host in the virtual casino (par. 0003: “Embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to using artificially intelligent bots to represent automated, virtual entities, e.g., other players, spectators, dealers, casino staff, etc., in the virtual casino.” The Examiner notes that the casino staff, including dealers, each act as a host and provide the same functions as a host), 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 (par. 0026: “The bot 145 can comment on game play and/or events of the session;” par. 0029: “In some cases, the bot can be connected to personal devices of the player 125A to inform player 125A, e.g., through a text message, email, voice call, etc., about game events in the virtual casino;” par. 0038: “models 150 can be trained for casino staff bots. Such bots 145 can help create a more realistic experience similar to real-life, physical casinos. Staff bots 145 could be asked questions, such as to explain rules of games via a natural conversation, ask organizational questions about the virtual 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 artificial host of Latifi with the virtual casino of Stout in order to increase the realism of the virtual casino and to provide players with live explanations of games (Latifi, par. 0038).
Regarding Claim 11, Stout does not disclose the use of artificial intelligence to create image data. However, Latifi discloses the processor circuit (fig. 3: processor 305) use artificial intelligence (par. 0030: “artificial intelligence process of the VR system 105 could generate a customized avatar) to:
analyze image data generated by an image capture device corresponding to one of the plurality of users (figs. 1 and 4; par. 0024: “system 155 may monitor players… e.g., through cameras, microphones, gaming systems, etc.;” par. 0030: “par. 0030: “artificial intelligence process of the VR system 105 could generate a customized avatar.” The Examiner notes that the ability to take the captured image data and consequently generate a customized avatar based on the image data necessarily includes an automated analysis of that image data); 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. 0030: “artificial intelligence process of the VR system 105 could generate a customized avatar or modify an existing avatar to match the player's mood and current game experience”).
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 reactive avatars of Latifi with the virtual casino of Stout in order to increase the realism of the virtual experience (Latifi, pars. 0030-0034).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lyons.
Regarding Claim 8, Stout discloses a metaverse but does not explicitly disclose a non-casino feature. However, Stout modified by Lyons discloses the processor circuit is further caused to provide a metaverse that comprises plurality of different virtual casinos and a non-casino feature that is provided via a different gaming channel than a casino gaming channel (Lyons, par. 0021: “perceivable 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. 0029: “In some embodiments, 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 system/metaverse of Stout in order to provide players a wider array of activities and therefore enhance enjoyment (Lyons, par. 0004). 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 virtual casino as well (Lyons, par. 0004).
Regarding Claim 10, Stout does not disclose captured image data being shared with other users. However, Lyons discloses the processor circuit (fig. 2: processing circuitry 204) 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. 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 Stout in order to increase the realism of the virtual experience and therefore enhance user enjoyment (Lyons, pars. 0005 and 0039).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lyons and Vuong.
Regarding Claim 9, Stout does not disclose receiving image data and generating an image for use in the virtual casino. However, Lyons discloses the processor circuit (fig. 2: processing circuitry 204) 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 Stout in order to increase the realism of the virtual experience and therefore enhance user enjoyment (Lyons, par. 0005).
Modified Stout does not explicitly disclose an opt-out signal. However, Vuong discloses receiv[ing] an opt-out signal from one of the plurality of users that causes the image data not to be captured (Vuong, 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 combine the opt-out feature of Vuong with the system of modified Stout 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 Stout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pierce.
Regarding Claim 13, Stout does not disclose an invitation message for the tournament. However, Pierce discloses the processor circuit (fig. 12: processor 1202) 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 Stout 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, Stout further discloses the community game provides a plurality of game channel types to the plurality of users (figs. 1-3; abstract: “the present invention provides a system and method for providing an electronic gaming system involving wagering activity that includes both land-based and online wagering and game play;” par. 00106: “The online game play allows the player to select a game where he can remotely control the gaming machine or to back-bet a game on a physical player or an online player that is already controlling the game machine and playing a game”).
Regarding Claim 15, 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 (fig. 3: multiple, differing community games; abstract: “the present invention provides a system and method for providing an electronic gaming system involving wagering activity that includes both land-based and online wagering and game play”), and
wherein the first community game and the second community game are linked together across the plurality of gaming channels (figs. 1-3; abstract: “the present invention provides a system and method for providing an electronic gaming system involving wagering activity that includes both land-based and online wagering and game play;” par. 00106: “The online game play allows the player to select a game where he can remotely control the gaming machine or to back-bet a game on a physical player or an online player that is already controlling the game machine and playing a game”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout in view of Lobel.
Regarding Claim 18, Stout does not explicitly disclose the virtual casino can be customized. However, Stout modified by 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 (Lobel, 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 Stout 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 Stout in view of Latifi.
Regarding Claim 19, Stout discloses providing an online virtual environment that comprises community games that are accessible to a plurality of users (par. 0039: “a Metaverse platform for hosting a virtual 3D environment that includes multiple gaming machines in a game establishment;” 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”);
receiving, 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.” The Examiner notes that for the login server to function as described, the user necessarily provides their login credentials); 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 (figs. 1-3; abstract: “the present invention provides a system and method for providing an electronic gaming system involving wagering activity that includes both land-based and online wagering and game play;” par. 00106: “The online game play allows the player to select a game where he can remotely control the gaming machine or to back-bet a game on a physical player or an online player that is already controlling the game machine and playing a game;” par. 0039: “The remote device 300 may include a smart home device, a wearable device, a smart mobile device, a virtual reality device, an augmented reality device, and the like, or any combination thereof.” The Examiner notes that the first gaming channel refers to the virtual casino, which is accessible via any number of devices including smart phones, tablets, virtual reality helmets, etc., and the second channel refers to the land-based casino itself),
wherein the virtual casino comprises a tournament that is playable by the plurality of users (par. 0094: “The Back-Bet[t]er 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. 0029: “Driver - A physical player who is playing on the electronic gaming machine or an online player remotely controlling the electronic gaming machine;” par. 0032: “Back- betters are always remote;” Examiner notes remote/online users can choose to be an active player/driver rather than a back-better, and those remote players are able to join tournaments or other promotions).
Stout does not disclose any use of artificial intelligence in creating as simulated audience. However, Latifi discloses using artificial intelligence to provide a simulated audience in the online virtual environment by providing a non-player character therein (par. 0003: “Embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to using artificially intelligent bots to represent automated, virtual entities, e.g., other players, spectators, dealers, casino staff, etc., in the virtual 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 simulated audience of Latifi with the virtual casino of Stout in order to make the virtual casino feel more natural and realistic (Latifi, par. 0034).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout in view of Lyons.
Regarding Claim 20, Stout discloses an input device (par. 0037: “A user interface (UI) 340 is provided for user control. In some embodiments, if the remote device 300 is, say, a smart phone or tablet device, the user interface 340 may have a touch panel display as is prevalent in many smart phone and other handheld devices. Alternatively, in other embodiments, if the remote device 300 is, say, a desktop or laptop computer, the user interface 340 may have, for example, one or more computing peripheral devices such as display monitors, computer keyboards and the like”);
a processor circuit (par. 0005: “a gaming machine, comprising a processor and a memory”); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (par. 0005: “a gaming machine, comprising a processor and a memory… the processor to execute instructions stored in the memory”), cause the processor circuit to:
provide an online virtual environment that comprises a wagering tournament game that is accessible to a plurality of users in different physical locations (par. 0076: “The player plays the virtualization of the game as if he was playing in the local venue in the sense that he is deciding when to play, how much to bet, and controlling the game with all the same gameplay as the local player. Except, he is playing a virtualized version of the game from a remote location”);
receive, via the input device and 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.” The Examiner notes that for the login server to function as described, the user necessarily provides their login credentials); and
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 (figs. 1-3; abstract: “the present invention provides a system and method for providing an electronic gaming system involving wagering activity that includes both land-based and online wagering and game play;” par. 00106: “The online game play allows the player to select a game where he can remotely control the gaming machine or to back-bet a game on a physical player or an online player that is already controlling the game machine and playing a game;” par. 0039: “The remote device 300 may include a smart home device, a wearable device, a smart mobile device, a virtual reality device, an augmented reality device, and the like, or any combination thereof.” The Examiner notes that the first gaming channel refers to the virtual casino, which is accessible via any number of devices including smart phones, tablets, virtual reality helmets, etc., and the second channel refers to the land-based casino itself),
wherein the virtual casino comprises a tournament that is playable by the plurality of users (par. 0094: “The Back-Bet[t]er 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. 0029: “Driver - A physical player who is playing on the electronic gaming machine or an online player remotely controlling the electronic gaming machine;” par. 0032: “Back- betters are always remote;” Examiner notes remote/online users can choose to be an active player/driver rather than a back-better, and those remote players are able to join tournaments or other promotions).
Stout does not disclose captured image data being shared 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. 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 Stout in order to increase the realism of the virtual experience and therefore enhance user enjoyment (Lyons, pars. 0005 and 0039).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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