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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 11 are drawn to a system.
Claims 12 – 20 are drawn to a method.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 11 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims 12 – 20. Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. 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:
for a play of a first game:
randomly determine an outcome associated with the play of the first game, and
communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of the randomly determined outcome associated with the play of the first game,
determine, at least partially based on the randomly determined outcome associated with the play of the first game, a first parameter of a parlay sporting event wager,
for a play of a second game:
randomly determine an outcome associated with the play of the second game, and
communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of the randomly determined outcome associated with the play of the second game,
determine, at least partially based on the randomly determined outcome associated with the play of the second game, a second parameter of the parlay sporting event wager, and
responsive to a completion of each of the parameters of the parlay sporting event wager, communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of a complete parlay sporting event wager.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Mental processes
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are fundamental economic principle such as the determination and creation of wagers based upon random events. This also falls under the grouping of managing interactions between people, i.e., (rules for creating and recording wagers). This also falls under the Mental processes, i.e. concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) wherein wager parameters are determined, outcomes are associated with parlay legs and a wager is completed upon conditions being met.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): processors, memory and a display device
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer processors, memory and display devices. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0056] The above-described embodiments may be implemented in accordance with or in conjunction with one or more of a variety of different types of systems, such as, but not limited to, those described below. The present disclosure thus contemplates a variety of different systems each having one or more of a plurality of different features, attributes, or characteristics. A “system” as used herein refers to various configurations of: (a) one or more servers; (b) one or more electronic gaming machines such as those located on a casino floor; and/or (c) one or more personal gaming devices, such as desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers or computing devices, personal digital assistants, mobile phones, and other mobile computing devices. Accordingly, in various embodiments, the system of the present disclosure includes: (a) one or more electronic gaming machines in combination with one or more servers; (b) one or more personal gaming devices in combination with one or more servers; (c) one or more personal gaming devices in combination with one or more electronic gaming machines; (d) one or more personal gaming devices, one or more electronic gaming machines, and one or more servers in combination with one another; (e) a single electronic gaming machine; (f) a plurality of electronic gaming machines in combination with one another; (g) a single personal gaming device; (h) a plurality of personal gaming devices in combination with one another; (i) a single server; and/or (j) a plurality of servers in combination with one another. For brevity and clarity and unless specifically stated otherwise, “EGM” as used herein represents one EGM or a plurality of EGMs, “personal gaming device” as used herein represents one personal gaming device or a plurality of personal gaming devices, and “server” as used herein represents one server or a plurality of servers.
[0057] As noted above, in various embodiments, the system includes an EGM (or personal gaming device) in combination with a server. In such embodiments, the EGM (or personal gaming device) is configured to communicate with the server through a data network or remote communication link. In certain such embodiments, the EGM (or personal gaming device) is configured to communicate with another EGM (or personal gaming device) through the same data network or remote communication link or through a different data network or remote communication link. For example, the system includes a plurality of EGMs that are each configured to communicate with a server through a data network.
[0058] In certain embodiments in which the system includes an EGM (or personal gaming device) in combination with a server, the server is any suitable computing device (such as a server) that includes at least one processor and at least one memory device or data storage device. As further described herein, the EGM (or personal gaming device) includes at least one EGM (or personal gaming device) processor configured to transmit and receive data or signals representing events, messages, commands, or any other suitable information between the EGM (or personal gaming device) and the server. The at least one processor of that EGM (or personal gaming device) is configured to execute the events, messages, or commands represented by such data or signals in conjunction with the operation of the EGM (or personal gaming device). Moreover, the at least one processor of the server is configured to transmit and receive data or signals representing events, messages, commands, or any other suitable information between the server and the EGM (or personal gaming device). The at least one processor of the server is configured to execute the events, messages, or commands represented by such data or signals in conjunction with the operation of the server. One, more than one, or each of the functions of the server may be performed by the at least one processor of the EGM (or personal gaming device). Further, one, more than one, or each of the functions of the at least one processor of the EGM (or personal gaming device) may be performed by the at least one processor of the server.
[0059] In certain such embodiments, computerized instructions for controlling any games (such as any primary or base games and/or any secondary or bonus games) displayed by the EGM (or personal gaming device) are executed by the server. In such “thin client” embodiments, the server remotely controls any games (or other suitable interfaces) displayed by the EGM (or personal gaming device), and the EGM (or personal gaming device) is utilized to display such games (or suitable interfaces) and to receive one or more inputs or commands. In other such embodiments, computerized instructions for controlling any games displayed by the EGM (or personal gaming device) are communicated from the server to the EGM (or personal gaming device) and are stored in at least one memory device of the EGM (or personal gaming device). In such “thick client” embodiments, the at least one processor of the EGM (or personal gaming device) executes the computerized instructions to control any games (or other suitable interfaces) displayed by the EGM (or personal gaming device).
[0060] In various embodiments in which the system includes a plurality of EGMs (or personal gaming devices), one or more of the EGMs (or personal gaming devices) are thin client EGMs (or personal gaming devices) and one or more of the EGMs (or personal gaming devices) are thick client EGMs (or personal gaming devices). In other embodiments in which the system includes one or more EGMs (or personal gaming devices), certain functions of one or more of the EGMs (or personal gaming devices) are implemented in a thin client environment, and certain other functions of one or more of the EGMs (or personal gaming devices) are implemented in a thick client environment. In one such embodiment in which the system includes an EGM (or personal gaming device) and a server, computerized instructions for controlling any primary or base games displayed by the EGM (or personal gaming device) are communicated from the server to the EGM (or personal gaming device) in a thick client configuration, and computerized instructions for controlling any secondary or bonus games or other functions displayed by the EGM (or personal gaming device) are executed by the server in a thin client configuration.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baggesen-Jensen (hereinafter “Bagg”) et al (US 2020/0372747) in view of Laster (US 10,825,298) in view of Rosette (US 2023/0009825)
As per claim 1,
a processor; and (Bagg discloses a processor) (Bagg Fig 2, #204)
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (Bagg discloses memory) (Bagg Fig 2, #208)
for a play of a first game: (Bagg discloses a first game such as reel type game that generates a randomly determined outcome) (Bagg 0061, 0062)
randomly determine an outcome associated with the play of the first game, and(Bagg discloses a first game such as reel type game that generates a randomly determined outcome) (Bagg 0061, 0062)
communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of the randomly determined outcome associated with the play of the first game, (Bagg discloses the displaying of the random game outcome) (Bagg 0062)
determine, at least partially based on the randomly determined outcome associated with the play of the first game, a first parameter of a parlay …wager, (Bagg discloses a first game that whereupon a predetermined random symbol combination occurring, a lottery bonus instruction set is called wherein a lottery number is assigned to the user by means of a lottery ticket wherein the system enables a user to build a lottery ticket by being assigned multiple lottery numbers based upon multiple occurrence of play of the first game and/or bonus instruction set (Bagg 0061 – 0062, 0065 – 0067, 0092, 0093, 0094, 0099). Bagg discloses that the user can be assigned a single set of lottery numbers or multiple sets of lottery numbers for a plurality of entries (Bagg 0107). The Examiner notes that the building of the lottery numbers to create a set of discrete numbers or multiple sets of discrete sets of numbers making up a plurality of lottery entries is akin to the multiple legs of a parlay wager wherein the player wins upon all numbers or legs of the entries being correct. )
for a play of a second game: randomly determine an outcome associated with the play of the second game, and communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of the randomly determined outcome associated with the play of the second game, determine, at least partially based on the randomly determined outcome associated with the play of the second game, a second parameter of the parlay … event wager, and (Bagg discloses a first game that whereupon a predetermined random symbol combination occurring, a lottery bonus instruction set is called wherein a lottery number is assigned to the user by means of a lottery ticket wherein the system enables a user to build a lottery ticket by being assigned multiple lottery numbers based upon multiple occurrence of play of the first game and/or bonus instruction set (Bagg 0061 – 0062, 0065 – 0067, 0092, 0093, 0094, 0099). Bagg discloses that the user can be assigned a single set of lottery numbers or multiple sets of lottery numbers for a plurality of entries (Bagg 0107). The Examiner notes that the building of the lottery numbers to create a set of discrete numbers or multiple sets of discrete sets of numbers making up a plurality of lottery entries is akin to the multiple legs of a parlay wager wherein the player wins upon all numbers or legs of the entries being correct. )
responsive to a completion of each of the parameters of the parlay … event wager, communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of a complete parlay … event wager. (Bagg discloses the communication of data that results in the display of the complete parlay type lottery entry that comprises the players assigned numbers on a display or upon a lottery entry ticket that is printed) (Bagg 0104, 0107, 0109, 0110)
Bagg fails to disclose:
responsive to an occurrence of a sporting event wager determination event, cause the processor to:
or that the parlay event wager is a “parlay sporting event wager”228
However in a similar field of endeavor, Laster teaches a game system wherein a bonus trigger of a slot machine type game that randomly selects a sporting event for a player to place a sports wager wherein the sport wager comprises a parlay wager (Laster 7:11 – 40).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Bagg in view of Laster to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by means of using a bonus feature to enable or to trigger an opportunity to place a sporting event parlay wager. Laster teaches “Such a configuration introduces sporting event wagering to players of the gaming system whom may not otherwise place sporting event wagers. Such a configuration further enables such players to potentially win relatively higher valued awards by letting such players utilize a theoretical award amount from a triggered bonus game to place a sporting event wager which may, based on the results of the sporting event, result in an actual award far greater than the theoretical award amount associated with the triggered bonus game.” (Laster 2:55-64)
In a similar field of endeavor wherein a wagering game is played in conjunction with a sports betting system, Rosette teaches the use of a wagering game that is responsive to the parsing of a live feed of sporting events into a bettable events wherein the odds of the gaming machine are set according to or responsive to the bettable events that were parsed (Rosette Fig 1, 0032, 0034, 0035) and the wagering game uses the odds to generate game outcomes that possess random properties (Rosette0040).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Bagg in view of Rosette to utilize a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way to provide a wagering game that is responsive to a sports wagering event. This would be beneficial to some players as Rosette teaches “While many gamblers may wish to engage in granular level sports betting, they may find following play-by-play accounts less exciting than engaging with traditional gambling or gaming machine interfaces. Accordingly, improvements to video display systems for gaming machines that utilize live sports betting odds are desired.” (Rosette0004)
As per claim 2, wherein the first parameter of the parlay sporting event wager comprises a first sporting event outcome of a first leg of the parlay sporting event wager and the second parameter of the parlay sporting event wager comprises a second sporting event outcome of a second leg of the parlay sporting event wager. (Combination of Bagg in view of Laster as applied to claim 1, wherein Bagg discloses the implementation of a bonus game that provides a user with a parlay type wager based upon buildable or accumulated numbers of a lottery ticket and Laster teaches a game system wherein a bonus trigger of a slot machine type game that randomly selects a sporting event for a player to place a sports wager wherein the sport wager comprises a parlay wager (Laster 7:11 – 40).)
As per claim 3, wherein the play of the first game and the play of the second game are different plays of a same game. (Bagg discloses the play of the first and second game are different plays of the same game) (Bagg 0061 – 0062, 0065 – 0067, 0092, 0093, 0094, 0099).
As per claim 4, wherein the play of the second game occurs after the play of the first game. (Bagg 0061 – 0062, 0065 – 0067, 0092, 0093, 0094, 0099).
As per claim 5, wherein the sporting event wager determination event occurs responsive to a receipt, via an input device, of an input. (Combination of Bagg and Rosette wherein Rosette teaches an odds compiler providing inputs to parse date to thereby provide odds data for the wagering game) (Rosette0032)
As per claim 6, wherein the sporting event wager determination occurs responsive to a satisfaction of a condition associated with a prior sporting event wager. (Combination of Bagg and Rosette wherein Rosette teaches “These odds are derived from odds for the specified sports event and/or sub-event, and an odds feed may include a listing of sub-events for a particular sporting event, along with various propositions wagers, or prop bets, and associated odds for the sub-event.”) (Rosette0033)
As per claim 7, wherein the randomly determined outcome associated with the play of the first game comprises a game outcome of the play of the first game. (Bagg 0061 – 0062, 0065 – 0067, 0092, 0093, 0094, 0099).
As per claim 8, 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 complete parlay sporting event wager. (Bagg in view of Laster as applied above, wherein Bagg discloses the automatic assigning of lottery numbers to a lottery ticket wherein the drawing of the lottery ticket wager automatically takes place) (Bagg 0115-0117)
As per claim 9, wherein at least one of the first parameter of the parlay sporting event wager and the second parameter of the parlay sporting event wager is at least partially determined based on an input received that is independent of any play of any game. (Bagg discloses the user providing an input to accept the award opportunity to redeem the award (i.e. assigning of lottery numbers). This input is independent is received after the game is executed and thus independent of the game) (Bagg 0099)
As per claim 10,
a processor; and (Bagg discloses a processor) (Bagg Fig 2, #204)
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:
for each of a plurality of legs of a parlay … event wager, determine, based on a randomly determined result of a different play of a game, and (Bagg discloses a first game that whereupon a predetermined random symbol combination occurring, a lottery bonus instruction set is called wherein a lottery number is assigned to the user by means of a lottery ticket wherein the system enables a user to build a lottery ticket by being assigned multiple lottery numbers based upon multiple occurrence of play of the first game and/or bonus instruction set (Bagg 0061 – 0062, 0065 – 0067, 0092, 0093, 0094, 0099). Bagg discloses that the user can be assigned a single set of lottery numbers or multiple sets of lottery numbers for a plurality of entries (Bagg 0107). The Examiner notes that the building of the lottery numbers to create a set of discrete numbers or multiple sets of discrete sets of numbers making up a plurality of lottery entries is akin to the multiple legs of a parlay wager wherein the player wins upon all numbers or legs of the entries being correct. )
communicate data that results in an automatic placement of the parlay … event wager. (Bagg discloses the automatic assigning of lottery numbers to a lottery ticket wherein the drawing of the lottery ticket wager automatically takes place) (Bagg 0115-0117)
Bagg fails to disclose:
responsive to an occurrence of a sporting event wager determination event, cause the processor to:
or that the parlay event wager is a “parlay sporting event wager”228, or
determine… a sporting event outcome to associate with that leg of the parlay sporting event wager,
However in a similar field of endeavor, Laster teaches a game system wherein a bonus trigger of a slot machine type game that randomly selects a sporting event for a player to place a sports wager wherein the sport wager comprises a parlay wager (Laster 7:11 – 40).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Bagg in view of Laster to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by means of using a bonus feature to enable or to trigger an opportunity to place a sporting event parlay wager. Laster teaches “Such a configuration introduces sporting event wagering to players of the gaming system whom may not otherwise place sporting event wagers. Such a configuration further enables such players to potentially win relatively higher valued awards by letting such players utilize a theoretical award amount from a triggered bonus game to place a sporting event wager which may, based on the results of the sporting event, result in an actual award far greater than the theoretical award amount associated with the triggered bonus game.” (Laster 2:55-64)
In a similar field of endeavor wherein a wagering game is played in conjunction with a sports betting system, Rosette teaches the use of a wagering game that is responsive to the parsing of a live feed of sporting events into a bettable events wherein the odds of the gaming machine are set according to or responsive to the bettable events that were parsed (Rosette Fig 1, 0032, 0034, 0035) and the wagering game uses the odds to generate game outcomes that possess random properties (Rosette0040).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Bagg in view of Rosette to utilize a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way to provide a wagering game that is responsive to a sports wagering event. This would be beneficial to some players as Rosette teaches “While many gamblers may wish to engage in granular level sports betting, they may find following play-by-play accounts less exciting than engaging with traditional gambling or gaming machine interfaces. Accordingly, improvements to video display systems for gaming machines that utilize live sports betting odds are desired.” (Rosette0004)
As per claim 11, wherein the game comprises a wagering game. (Bagg 0061 – 0062, 0065 – 0067, 0092, 0093, 0094, 0099).
Independent claim(s) 12 is/are made obvious by the combination of Bagg, Laster and Rosette based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 13 - 20 is/are made obvious by the combination of Bagg, Laster and Rosette based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2 - 9, which are similar in claim scope.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. 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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1/8/2025
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715