DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a method and system, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
The claims recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
a processor; 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, cause the processor to:
trigger a play of a game responsive to an occurrence of a game triggering event,
randomly determine an outcome associated with the triggered play of the game,
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.
Claim 10 recites a system comprising:
a processor; 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, cause the processor to:
determine a plurality of sporting event wagers available to be placed,
determine, based on an input received, a subset of the plurality of sporting event wagers available to be placed,
randomly determine an outcome associated with a displayed play of a game that is independent of any sporting event,
select, at least partially based on the randomly determined outcome associated with the displayed play of the game, a sporting event wager of the subset of the plurality of sporting event wagers, and
communicate data that results in an automatic placement of the selected sporting event wager.
Claim 12 recite the steps of a method of operating a system, the method comprising:
responsive to an occurrence of a sporting event wager determination event:
triggering, by a processor, a play of a game responsive to an occurrence of a game triggering event,
randomly determining, by the processor, an outcome associated with the triggered play of the game,
determining, by the processor and at least partially based on the randomly determined outcome associated with the triggered play of the game, a sporting event wager, and
displaying, by a display device, the triggered play of the game and the determined sporting event wager.
The claim limitations (as underlined above) are steps of organizing human activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, organizing human activity includes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of operating a system using a gaming system) may fall within this grouping.
The claim limitations (as underlined) recite that a gaming application is initiated and a communication interface with a player is received. The steps of playing a wagering game and managing a wagering game is step of a fundamental economic principle or practice and also step of managing social activities. The abstract idea of organizing human activity includes managing interaction between people including social activities. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rules for conducting a wagering game is an example of "fundamental economic principles or practices" described in 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) - Abstract Idea Groupings - CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY - Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-20 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
The claim recite one or more processors to perform the abstract idea of managing a game. As indicated in Applicant’s specification, the user device is a general purpose computer. Although not positively claimed as part of the claimed system, the claim indicates that that system is connected to a server, and databases. The server, database, are also used to implement the abstract idea in a computer embodiment. The use of a computer generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
The claims recites additional limitation of a computer system. These limitations are not positively claimed to be part of the claimed system. Assuming that they were part of the claims system, these limitations in combination with the user terminal is used to transmit and storing (retrieving and providing steps, identify and display information (event information, location, selection options, prizes).
The courts have ruled that storing data in a database and retrieving data from a database is well-known conventional and routine functions of a computer as indicated below.
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
The steps of identifying events, identifying and displaying available outcomes, providing selection options, are steps of presenting offers. The courts have ruled that a computer to present offers is well-known, routine and convention, or insignificant extra solution activity.
Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
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 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).
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Litman discloses skill-based, short-term fantasy sports method and system with game theory input; Corbo discloses method and system for providing real time sports betting information; Kline et al discloses real-time in-venue betting system.
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)270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715