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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement entered December 18th, 2023 has been considered. A copy of the cited statement(s) including the notation indicating its respective consideration is attached for the Applicant's records.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-8 and a method (i.e., a process) in claims 9-17.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A system for administering an on-demand computerized game of chance for an entity to a plurality of players selected from a plurality of entity users, each entity user having a computer based account stored in an entity user database accessible via an entity server, comprising:
a game database accessible to a game administration server;
the game administration server in communication with the entity server, the game administration server further comprising a processor and a memory storing non-transient instructions that when executed by the processor:
provides a game administrator interface for a game administrator for provisioning the on-demand game of chance, the game administrator interface further providing:
access to the entity server; and
an interface for the game administration server to receive player selection criteria from the game administrator;
provides the player selection criteria to the entity server;
receives a selection of players from the entity server corresponding to the player selection criteria, wherein the selection comprises a unique identifier corresponding to the user account of each selected player; and
executes the on-demand game of chance for the selected players,
wherein the game database is configured to store a plurality of rules for the on-demand game of chance.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for observing a player and a player game selection, and provisioning a game based thereon as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a on-demand game interface.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on servers, a processor, and a memory it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other network connects devices such as generic computers, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including servers, a processor, and a memory amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Pages 16-20). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Pages 16-20). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-17 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of servers, a processor, and a memory as respectively presented in certain claims that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of each of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B because they each present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and accordingly for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 1-6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mawdesley et al (US 2022/0266133).
Claim 1: Mawdesley teaches a system for administering an on-demand computerized game of chance for an entity to a plurality of players selected from a plurality of entity users, each entity user having a computer based account stored in an entity user database accessible via an entity server(Mawdesley Abstract: Figure 6; Paragraphs [0014], [0023], [0084]), comprising:
a game database accessible to a game administration server (-defining the plurality of games and related game data accessible by the administrator/operator- Mawdesley Abstract: Paragraphs [0014], [0084]);
the game administration server in communication with the entity server, the game administration server further comprising a processor and a memory storing non-transient instructions (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0032], [0045], [0084], [0153]; Figures 16, 22;) that when executed by the processor:
provides a game administrator interface for a game administrator for provisioning the on-demand game of chance (Mawdesley Abstract: Paragraphs [0023], [0077]), the game administrator interface further providing:
access to the entity server (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0035], [0084]); and
an interface for the game administration server to receive player selection criteria from the game administrator (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0035], [0084]);
provides the player selection criteria to the entity server (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0035], [0084]);
receives a selection of players from the entity server corresponding to the player selection criteria, wherein the selection comprises a unique identifier corresponding to the user account of each selected player(Mawdesley Paragraphs [0035], [0084]); and
executes the on-demand game of chance for the selected players (Mawdesley Abstract),
wherein the game database is configured to store a plurality of rules for the on-demand game of chance (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0016], [0090]).
Claim 2: Mawdesley teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the player selection criteria is mapped to an entity application programming interface (API) for the entity server (Mawdesley Paragraph [0091])
Claim 3: Mawdesley teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a game data structure comprising:
the plurality of rules corresponding to the on-demand game (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0016], [0090]);
the player selection criteria (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0035], [0084]); and
for each player of the plurality of game players, a record further comprising;
the unique identifier for the player(Mawdesley Paragraph [0084]).
Claim 4: Mawdesley teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the game administrator interface configured to:
provide a predefined selection of a game formats to the game administrator for the on-demand game of chance, the plurality of predefined game formats comprising the plurality of rules for the on-demand game (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0028], [0035]).
Claim 5: Mawdesley teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the game administrator interface is configured to receive a game format comprising the plurality of rules for the on-demand game from the game administrator (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0016], [0111]).
Claim 6: Mawdesley teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the player selection criteria consists of at least one of the group of a minimum value of a field of a user record in the entity user database, and a maximum value of the field of the user record in the entity user database (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0035]-[0036], [0136]-[0137]).
Claim 8: Mawdesley teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the game administration server is co-resident with the entity server (Mawdesley Paragraph [0087]).
Claim 9: Mawdesley teaches a method for administering an on-demand game of chance for a plurality of players selected from a plurality of entity users having a computer-based account with an entity (Mawdesley Abstract: Figure 6; Paragraphs [0014], [0023], [0084]), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a game administrator interface for a game administrator to provision the on-demand game of chance (Mawdesley Abstract: Paragraphs [0023], [0077]), the game administrator interface further providing:
access to the entity server (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0035], [0084]); and
an interface for the game administration server to receive player selection criteria from the game administrator (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0035], [0084]);
mapping the player selection criteria to an entity application programming interface (API) for the entity server (Mawdesley Paragraph [0091]);
providing the API mapped player selection criteria to the entity server (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0035], [0084]);
receiving a selection of players from the entity server, wherein the selection comprises a unique identifier corresponding to the user account of each selected player (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0035], [0084]); and
executing the on-demand game of chance for the selected players (Mawdesley Abstract).
Claim 10: Mawdesley teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising the step of receiving a selection by the game administrator of a game format for the on-demand game of chance from a plurality of predefined game formats comprising a plurality of rules for the on-demand game (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0016] [0028], [0035], [0111]).
Claim 11: Mawdesley teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising the step of receiving a game format from the game administrator comprising a plurality of rules for the on-demand game (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0016], [0111]).
Claim 12: Mawdesley teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising the step of storing the plurality of rules for the on-demand game in a game database (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0016], [0111]).
Claim 13: Mawdesley teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising the step of storing the unique identifier in the game database (Mawdesley Paragraph [0084]).
Claim 14: Mawdesley teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the player selection criteria consists of at least one of the group of a minimum value of a field of a user record in the user database, and a maximum value of the field of the user record in the user database (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0035]-[0036], [0136]-[0137]).
Claim 15: Mawdesley teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising the step of providing the results of the on-demand game of chance to the entity (Mawdesley Paragraph [0100]).
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.
Claims 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawdesley et al (US 2022/0266133) as applied to claim 1-6, and 8-15 above, and further in view of Pace (US 2021/0280006).
Claim 7: The combination of Mawdesley & Pace teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the unique identifier comprises a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), and the game administrator interface is further configured to provide the entity server means for generating UUIDs for the selected players (Mawdesley Paragraph [0084], [0088], [0096] & Pace Abstract; Paragraph [0028]; Claim 1).
Mawdesley teaches the use of identifiers including unique identifiers for players as cited herein above. Page 5 of the Applicant’s specification defines a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) as a uniquely encrypted numeric identifier. While the prior art of Mawdesley does not explicitly describe the unique player identifier referenced therein as reflecting a uniquely encrypted numeric identifier and including the ability to generate/assign the same, these features are taught in the analogous invention of Pace (Pace Abstract; Paragraph [0028]; Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have incorporated the use of a uniquely encrypted numeric identifier and including the ability to generate/assign the same as taught by Pace in the invention of Mawdesley in order to provide the predictable and expected result of providing a format for identifying unique players and sensitive information associated therewith on open networks without risking exposure of the sensitive information.
Claim 16: The combination of Mawdesley & Pace teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the unique identifier comprises a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), and the game administrator interface is further configured to provide the entity server means for generating UUIDs for the selected players (Mawdesley Paragraph [0084], [0088]; [0096] & Pace Abstract; Paragraph [0028]; Claim 1).
Claim 17: The combination of Mawdesley & Pace teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising the step of providing the entity server results of the on-demand game of chance, comprising UUIDs of winning and losing players from the selected players (Mawdesley Paragraphs [0019], [0084], [0088] & Pace Abstract; Paragraph [0028]; Claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715