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 .
The Applicant’s argument received on 04/27/2026 has been considered.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by De Waal et al (US 2011/0263312).
The applied reference has a common Assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1 and 12: De Waal et al discloses a system comprising: a processor (see paragraph [0112], showing the gaming system preferably includes at least one processor, such as a microprocessor, a microcontroller-based platform, a suitable integrated circuit or one or more application-specific integrated circuits); and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to an occurrence of a sporting event wager determination event (see paragraphs [0112], [0167], [0169], showing the memory device stores program code and instructions, executable by the processor, to control the gaming device. The memory device also stores other data such as image data, event data, player input data, random or pseudo-random number generators, pay-table data or information, and applicable game rules that relate to the play of the gaming device. In one embodiment, the memory device includes random access memory (RAM), which can include non-volatile RAM (NVRAM), magnetic RAM (MRAM), ferroelectric RAM (FeRAM), and other forms as commonly understood in the gaming industry. In one embodiment, the memory device includes read only memory (ROM)), cause the processor to: trigger a play of a game responsive to an occurrence of a game triggering event (see paragraph [0055], showing the multiple activating conditions which occurred on the bumpers associated with the TRIPLE LUCKY 7'S.RTM., DOUBLE DIAMOND.RTM. and RED WHITE & BLUE.RTM. games at the point in time of FIGS. 5A and 5B have also been logged in table 200 in FIG. 5C. For example, the second activating condition of the designated gaming session occurred at 2:49 when the ball 41 activated bumper 22 associated with the TRIPLE LUCKY 7'S.RTM. game. The gaming device triggers and displays a play of the TRIPLE LUCKY 7'S.RTM. game corresponding to this activation), randomly determine an outcome associated with the triggered play of the game (see paragraph [0115], showing the gaming device randomly generates awards and/or other game outcomes based on probability data. In one such embodiment, this random determination is provided through utilization of a random number generator (RNG), such as a true random number generator, a pseudo random number generator, or other suitable randomization process), determine, at least partially based on the randomly determined outcome associated with the triggered play of the game , a sporting event wager, and communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of the triggered play of the game and the determined sporting event wager (see claim 1 of De Waal et al, showing for each triggered play of one of said second games: cause each triggered second game to randomly determine an outcome; display the randomly determined outcome to the player; and if the randomly determined outcome is one of a plurality of winning outcomes, display an award to the player, the award is determined at least in part by an amount of an effective wager placed on the play of the triggered second game, and provide any awards from the plays of the triggered second games to the player).
Regarding claims 2 and 13: De Waal et al discloses wherein the sporting event wager determination event occurs responsive to a receipt, via an input device, of an input (see paragraph [0006], showing each individually activatable component of the skill based game, when that individually activatable component is activated through or as a result of one or more player inputs, the chance based game associated with that individually activatable component is triggered. The chance based game at least in part randomly determines an outcome to display to the player, and any award associated with the displayed outcome).
Regarding claims 3 and 14: De Waal et al discloses wherein the sporting event wager determination occurs responsive to a satisfaction of a condition associated with a prior sporting event wager (see paragraph [0008], showing in certain embodiments, the gaming system determines the effective wager as a percentage of the initial wager based on the time which elapsed between designated triggering conditions, such as triggering of each of the individually activatable components).
Regarding claims 4 and 15: De Waal et al discloses wherein the occurrence of the sporting event wager determination causes the occurrence of the game triggering event (see paragraph [0008], showing in certain embodiments, the gaming system determines the effective wager as a percentage of the initial wager based on the time which elapsed between designated triggering conditions, such as triggering of each of the individually activatable components).
Regarding claims 7 and 18: De Waal et al discloses wherein the sporting event wager is determined at least partially based on the randomly determined outcome associated with the triggered play of the game and at least partially based on an input received that is independent of the triggered play of the game (see paragraph [0008], showing in certain embodiments, the gaming system determines the effective wager as a percentage of the initial wager based on the time which elapsed between designated triggering conditions, such as triggering of each of the individually activatable components).
Regarding claims 8 and 19: De Waal et al discloses wherein the randomly determined outcome associated with the triggered play of the game comprises a randomly determined game outcome of the triggered play of the game (see claim 1 of De Waal et al, showing for each triggered play of one of said second games: cause each triggered second game to randomly determine an outcome; display the randomly determined outcome to the player; and if the randomly determined outcome is one of a plurality of winning outcomes, display an award to the player, the award is determined at least in part by an amount of an effective wager placed on the play of the triggered second game, and provide any awards from the plays of the triggered second games to the player).
Regarding claims 9 and 20: De Waal et al discloses wherein the play of the game comprises a play of a wagering game and the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine an award associated with the randomly determined game outcome and communicate data that result in a display, by the display device, of the determined award (see claim 1 of De Waal et al, showing for each triggered play of one of said second games: cause each triggered second game to randomly determine an outcome; display the randomly determined outcome to the player; and if the randomly determined outcome is one of a plurality of winning outcomes, display an award to the player, the award is determined at least in part by an amount of an effective wager placed on the play of the triggered second game, and provide any awards from the plays of the triggered second games to the player).
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 5, 6, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Waal et al (US 2011/0263312) in view of Gatto et al (US 2008/0015004).
Regarding claims 5 and 16: De Waal et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
In an analogous invention, Gatto et al teaches wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the occurrence of the sporting event wager determination event, cause the processor to automatically place the determined sporting event wager (see paragraph [0014], showing the game may be configured to automatically place the bet(s) in an amount is dependent upon an elapsed time since a last bet was placed. The skill-based game may be configured to place the bet(s) automatically in an amount that may be pre-selected by the player).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify De Waal et al’s gaming system as taught by Gatto et al’s automatic wagering for the purpose of providing the player with an immediate and automatic option of placing a bet based on certain events that occur during the game play without the input of the player. This yields the expected result of increasing the player’s satisfaction and enjoyment in the game.
Regarding claims 6 and 17: De Waal et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
In an analogous invention, Gatto et al teaches wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the occurrence of the sporting event wager determination event, cause the processor to enable a modification of the determined sporting event wager (see paragraph [0010], showing the modifying step may include adding wagering opportunities for selected ones of game events that would otherwise cause points to be awarded or taken away during game play of the console-type or arcade-type game).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify De Waal et al’s gaming system as taught by Gatto et al’s automatic wagering for the purpose of providing the player with an adjustable and modifying bet based on certain events that occur during the game play without the input of the player. This yields the expected result of increasing the player’s satisfaction and enjoyment in the game.
Regarding claim 10: De Waal et al discloses a system comprising: a processor (see paragraph [0112], showing the gaming system preferably includes at least one processor, such as a microprocessor, a microcontroller-based platform, a suitable integrated circuit or one or more application-specific integrated circuits); and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to an occurrence of a sporting event wager determination event (see paragraph [0112], showing the memory device stores program code and instructions, executable by the processor, to control the gaming device. The memory device also stores other data such as image data, event data, player input data, random or pseudo-random number generators, pay-table data or information, and applicable game rules that relate to the play of the gaming device. In one embodiment, the memory device includes random access memory (RAM), which can include non-volatile RAM (NVRAM), magnetic RAM (MRAM), ferroelectric RAM (FeRAM), and other forms as commonly understood in the gaming industry. In one embodiment, the memory device includes read only memory (ROM)), cause the processor to: trigger a play of a game responsive to an occurrence of a game triggering event (see paragraph [0055], showing the multiple activating conditions which occurred on the bumpers associated with the TRIPLE LUCKY 7'S.RTM., DOUBLE DIAMOND.RTM. and RED WHITE & BLUE.RTM. games at the point in time of FIGS. 5A and 5B have also been logged in table 200 in FIG. 5C. For example, the second activating condition of the designated gaming session occurred at 2:49 when the ball 41 activated bumper 22 associated with the TRIPLE LUCKY 7'S.RTM. game. The gaming device triggers and displays a play of the TRIPLE LUCKY 7'S.RTM. game corresponding to this activation), randomly determine an outcome associated with the triggered play of the game (see paragraph [0115], showing the gaming device randomly generates awards and/or other game outcomes based on probability data. In one such embodiment, this random determination is provided through utilization of a random number generator (RNG), such as a true random number generator, a pseudo random number generator, or other suitable randomization process), determine, at least partially based on the randomly determined outcome associated with the triggered play of the game , a sporting event wager, and communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of the triggered play of the game and the determined sporting event wager (see claim 1 of De Waal et al, showing for each triggered play of one of said second games: cause each triggered second game to randomly determine an outcome; display the randomly determined outcome to the player; and if the randomly determined outcome is one of a plurality of winning outcomes, display an award to the player, the award is determined at least in part by an amount of an effective wager placed on the play of the triggered second game, and provide any awards from the plays of the triggered second games to the player).
In an analogous invention, Gatto et al teaches wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the occurrence of the sporting event wager determination event, cause the processor to automatically place the determined sporting event wager (see paragraph [0014], showing the game may be configured to automatically place the bet(s) in an amount is dependent upon an elapsed time since a last bet was placed. The skill-based game may be configured to place the bet(s) automatically in an amount that may be pre-selected by the player).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify De Waal et al’s gaming system as taught by Gatto et al’s automatic wagering for the purpose of providing the player with an immediate and automatic option of placing a bet based on certain events that occur during the game play without the input of the player. This yields the expected result of increasing the player’s satisfaction and enjoyment in the game.
Regarding claim 11: De Waal et al discloses wherein the randomly determined outcome associated with the displayed play of the game comprises a randomly determined game outcome of the displayed play of the game (see claim 1 of De Waal et al, showing for each triggered play of one of said second games: cause each triggered second game to randomly determine an outcome; display the randomly determined outcome to the player; and if the randomly determined outcome is one of a plurality of winning outcomes, display an award to the player, the award is determined at least in part by an amount of an effective wager placed on the play of the triggered second game, and provide any awards from the plays of the triggered second games to the player).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that De Waal does not teach or suggest a sporting event wager, the examiner disagrees. The examiner points out that De Waal explicitly disclose and teaches a wagering system, where wagering game is based on the outcome of interactive game as shown in paragraph [0167] for example:
”In another embodiment, the gaming device includes a plurality of different wagering games. The gaming device determines which of the different wagering games to provide to the player based, at least in part, on the player's outcome of the interactive game. The different wagering games may be of the same type such as different slot games or variations of the same slot game, or maybe of different types such as slot, poker, blackjack, keno, checkers, or bunco. The wagering games may all employ the same paytable or may employ different paytables. Alternatively, one of the wagering games, a plurality of the wagering games, or each wagering game may have multiple different paytables. In one embodiment, the employed paytable may also be based on the outcome in the interactive game.”.
Further, De Waal teaches in paragraph [0169], that an interactive game includes a sports-based game, racing game, competitive game, which the examiner construes to show wager on a sports based game:
” The first interactive game can be any suitable interactive skill game, interactive partial skill game or interactive pseudo skill game. In one embodiment, the skill game may include any suitable type and any suitable number of skill events, such as hand-eye coordination events or dexterity events. For example, the interactive game is any suitable type of racing or competitive game, a sports-based game or a shooting game. In another embodiment, the first interactive game involves mental skill, knowledge, logical deduction or strategy. For example, the first interactive game may be a trivia game or a memory game. The first interactive game is a non-wagering game. That is, a wager is not applied to the first interactive game. The gaming device does not provide an award for the outcome obtained in the first interactive game based on the wager. That is, the player does not have any chance of obtaining any type of award or prize in the interactive game. The first game may alternatively be referred to herein as the interactive game, the interactive skill game, the skill game, the preliminary game, the introductory game, the opening game, the arcade game, the non-wagering game, the non-awarding game, or the functional game.”
Therefore the examiner points out that De Waal at least suggest a wagering game based on sports based game outcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADETOKUNBO OLUSEGUN TORIMIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1345. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8am - 4pm).
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)27. 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.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights