DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
In response filed on March 4, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 3-6, 12, 13, 15, and 18. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained accordingly.
Applicant specifically argues that
1) “Applicant respectfully submits that interconnecting a processor circuit over a network with electronic gaming devices to collect data including data corresponding to wagers and wager amounts, calculating odds and awards in real time based on data collected from the electronic gaming devices and providing awards to the electronic gaming devices, in combination, integrate any abstract idea into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
The recited additional elements of the processer circuit interconnecting electronic gaming devis over a network to conduct the wagering game(s) (i.e., the recitation of “a system comprising; a first electronic gaming device; a plurality of electronic gaming devices; a processor circuit; a network interconnecting the processor circuit with the first electronic gaming device and with the plurality of electronic gaming devices; and a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to…over the network…the first electronic gaming device…the plurality of electronic gaming devices… the plurality of electronic gaming devices…over the network…connected to the network…over the network…the electronic gaming devices…over the network via the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device” (claims 1 and 12) or “interconnecting, with a network, a processor circuit with a first electronic gaming device and with a plurality of electronic gaming devices…by the processor circuit over the network…the first electronic gaming device…over the network…by the processor circuit…by the processor circuit…over the network…the electronic gaming device…by the processor circuit…” (claim 18), and the further requirements of “wherein the first gaming device comprises an Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM)” (claim 7) and/or “wherein the second gaming device comprises a personal computing device” (claim 8) and/or “wherein the second gaming device comprises a Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) device” (claim 9) and/or “wherein the first gaming device comprises a personal computing device” (claim 10) and/or “wherein the first gaming device comprises a Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) device” (claim 11) and/or “wherein a second subset of the plurality of gaming devices comprises personal computing devices” (claim 16) and/or “wherein a second subset of the plurality of gaming devices comprises Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) devices” (claim 17)) serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a distributed computing environment and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces. Furthermore, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to particular types of devices used to conduct the wagering games (e.g., electronic devices, EGMs, VLT devices, etc.). The “Background” section of the published disclosure explains at paragraph [0001] that a casino environment is an exemplary environment for conducting wagering games, suggests that slot games or video poker games are also merely examples of the games that could be involved in the claimed invention, and further suggests that slot games and/or video poker games provided at EGMs or VLT devices or mobile devices are known casino environments. Paragraph [0028] confirms that such gaming devices are typically on a casino floor and in communication with one another and or one or more remote servers over a network. Paragraph [0076] explains the network may be the internet. Further, paragraph [0017] explains that it is the inventive payable (determined wagering odds) that are unconventional, not the type of game or specific gaming environment. Paragraph [0033] further confirms this by explaining “It will be appreciated that gaming devices may come in many different shapes, sizes, layouts, form factors, and configurations, and with varying numbers and types of input and output devices, and that embodiments are not limited to the particular gaming device structures described herein”. Paragraph [0062] further confirms this by explaining “Although illustrated as certain gaming devices, such as electronic gaming machines (EGMs) and mobile gaming devices, functions and/or operations as described herein may also include wagering stations that may include…conventional game tables including those involving cards, dice and/or roulette, and/or other wagering stations such as sports book stations…skill-based games…or other casino or non-casino style games”. Paragraph [0070]-[0076] further explains that the type of gaming device is substitutable and is merely a design choice. As such, it can be seen that the additional elements identified above serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a system comprising; a first electronic gaming device; a plurality of electronic gaming devices; a processor circuit; a network interconnecting the processor circuit with the first electronic gaming device and with the plurality of electronic gaming devices; and a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to…over the network…the first electronic gaming device…the plurality of electronic gaming devices… the plurality of electronic gaming devices…over the network…connected to the network…over the network…the electronic gaming devices…over the network via the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device” (claims 1 and 12) or by “interconnecting, with a network, a processor circuit with a first electronic gaming device and with a plurality of electronic gaming devices…by the processor circuit over the network…the first electronic gaming device…over the network…by the processor circuit…by the processor circuit…over the network…the electronic gaming device…by the processor circuit…” (claim 18) and the recitation of “wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to” (claim 6) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these “additional” elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., the published specification at paragraphs [0080] “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processing circuit of a general purpose computer” & [0050] “Although illustrated as a single processing circuit, multiple special purpose and/or general-purpose processors and/or processor cores may be provided” & [0028] “the central controller 40 may be any suitable server or computing device…”). Further, dependent claims 8, 10, and 16 explicitly describe the plurality of electronic gaming devices as being personal computing devices. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1, 12, and 18 (as well as each of the dependent claims) under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that Taniguchi teaches determining an award probability as a function of the determined number of players but fails to teach or suggest a system configured to "determine a first award and a second award in real time based on wager amounts received from the plurality of remote players utilizing the electronic gaming devices to participate in the second game of the wagering game". Examiner disagrees. Taniguchi discloses that awards are won (i.e., determined and provided) at least in part in response to each player making a wager (as they must wager to play), and therefore is based on wager amounts received from each player ([0022] “receive a wager…initiate a game…provide a community award…”). Furthermore, Kiss also discloses wherein awards are won (i.e., determined and provided) at least in part in response to each player making a wager (as they must wager to play), and therefore is based on wager amounts received from each player ([0047]). Furthermore, Kiss also discloses wherein odds are determined/different based on an amount of wager. The combination of Kiss and Taniguchi teach/suggest dynamic community rewards that are based on previous game outcomes, number of currently playing players, and wager amount of each player.
Claim Objections
v Claims 6-11 and 15-17 is objected to because of the following informalities: --electronic-- should be inserted preceding “gaming devices” to maintain consistency of terminology throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
v Claim(s) 1-20 is/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.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), while claim(s) 1-17 is/are drawn to systems (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps;
determine…first game results of a first game of a wagering game, wherein the first game results comprise a first game result of a player utilizing the first…gaming device and a plurality of first game results by a plurality of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of…gaming devices;
determine a number of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of…gaming devices to participate…in a second game of the wagering game;
based on a number of the first game result being winning game results, determine first odds for the second game of the wagering game associated with a first wager amount and second odds for the second game of the wagering game based on a second wager amount, wherein the first odds and the second odds are determined in real time based on the number of remote players wherein the first odds and the second odds are determined in real time based on the number of remote players;
determine a first award and a second award in real time based on wager amounts received…from the plurality of remote players utilizing the…gaming devices to participate in the second game of the wagering game
receive a wager…for the second game of the wagering game;
in response to the wager comprising the first wager amount: determine a second game result for the second game of the wagering game based on the first odds; and in response to the second game result being a winning game result, provide the first award to…the player based on the first odds; and
in response to the wager comprising the second wager amount: determine the second game result for the second game of the wagering game based on the second odds; and in response to the second game result being a winning game result, provide the second award…to the player based on the second odds
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process for conducting a wagering game (including determining odds based on previous game results and number of remote players currently playing the game), which amounts to a fundamental economic principle or practice and/or a commercial or legal interactions (sales activity or behavior; business relations); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, and/or alternatively, each of the above-recited steps/functions, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) performing one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 (representative of independent claim(s) 18) recites/describes the following steps;
determine…a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first games of a wagering game by a player utilizing the first…gaming device and a plurality of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of…gaming devices;
determine whether a number of players of the plurality of remote players meets a predetermined threshold number;
receive…a plurality of wagers for a plurality of second games of the wagering game from the plurality of remote players;
in response to the number of players meeting the threshold number, determine a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on first odds, wherein the first odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players; and
in response to the number of players failing to meet the threshold number, determine a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on second odds, wherein the second odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players; and
for each second game result, in response to the second game result being a winning game result, provide an award to…the player associated with the second game result, wherein the award is determined in real time based on the total value of the plurality of wagers for the plurality of second games
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process for conducting a wagering game (including determining odds based on previous game results and number of remote players currently playing the game and a total value of wagers), which amounts to a fundamental economic principle or practice and/or a commercial or legal interactions (sales activity or behavior; business relations); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, and/or alternatively, each of the above-recited steps/functions, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) performing one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 1 and 12 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 18 recite/describe nearly identical steps to those in claim 12 (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“a system comprising; a first electronic gaming device; a plurality of electronic gaming devices; a processor circuit; a network interconnecting the processor circuit with the first electronic gaming device and with the plurality of electronic gaming devices; and a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to…over the network…the first electronic gaming device…the plurality of electronic gaming devices… the plurality of electronic gaming devices…over the network…connected to the network…over the network…the electronic gaming devices…over the network via the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device” (claims 1 and 12)
“interconnecting, with a network, a processor circuit with a first electronic gaming device and with a plurality of electronic gaming devices…by the processor circuit over the network…the first electronic gaming device…over the network…by the processor circuit…by the processor circuit…over the network…the electronic gaming device…by the processor circuit…” (claim 18)
“wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to” (claim 6)
“wherein the first gaming device comprises an Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM)” (claim 7)
“wherein the second gaming device comprises a personal computing device” (claim 8)
“wherein the second gaming device comprises a Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) device” (claim 9)
“wherein the first gaming device comprises a personal computing device” (claim 10)
“wherein the first gaming device comprises a Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) device” (claim 11)
“wherein a second subset of the plurality of gaming devices comprises personal computing devices” (claim 16)
“wherein a second subset of the plurality of gaming devices comprises Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) devices” (claim 17)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a system comprising; a first electronic gaming device; a plurality of electronic gaming devices; a processor circuit; a network interconnecting the processor circuit with the first electronic gaming device and with the plurality of electronic gaming devices; and a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to…over the network…the first electronic gaming device…the plurality of electronic gaming devices… the plurality of electronic gaming devices…over the network…connected to the network…over the network…the electronic gaming devices…over the network via the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device” (claims 1 and 12) or by “interconnecting, with a network, a processor circuit with a first electronic gaming device and with a plurality of electronic gaming devices…by the processor circuit over the network…the first electronic gaming device…over the network…by the processor circuit…by the processor circuit…over the network…the electronic gaming device…by the processor circuit…” (claim 18) and the recitation of “wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to” (claim 6) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these “additional” elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., the published specification at paragraphs [0080] “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processing circuit of a general purpose computer” & [0050] “Although illustrated as a single processing circuit, multiple special purpose and/or general-purpose processors and/or processor cores may be provided” & [0028] “the central controller 40 may be any suitable server or computing device…”). Further, dependent claims 8, 10, and 16 explicitly describe the plurality of electronic gaming devices as being personal computing devices. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “a system comprising; a first electronic gaming device; a plurality of electronic gaming devices; a processor circuit; a network interconnecting the processor circuit with the first electronic gaming device and with the plurality of electronic gaming devices; and a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to…over the network…the first electronic gaming device…the plurality of electronic gaming devices… the plurality of electronic gaming devices…over the network…connected to the network…over the network…the electronic gaming devices…over the network via the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device” (claims 1 and 12) or “interconnecting, with a network, a processor circuit with a first electronic gaming device and with a plurality of electronic gaming devices…by the processor circuit over the network…the first electronic gaming device…over the network…by the processor circuit…by the processor circuit…over the network…the electronic gaming device…by the processor circuit…” (claim 18), and the further requirements of “wherein the first gaming device comprises an Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM)” (claim 7) and/or “wherein the second gaming device comprises a personal computing device” (claim 8) and/or “wherein the second gaming device comprises a Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) device” (claim 9) and/or “wherein the first gaming device comprises a personal computing device” (claim 10) and/or “wherein the first gaming device comprises a Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) device” (claim 11) and/or “wherein a second subset of the plurality of gaming devices comprises personal computing devices” (claim 16) and/or “wherein a second subset of the plurality of gaming devices comprises Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) devices” (claim 17) serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a distributed computing environment and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces. Furthermore, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to particular types of devices used to conduct the wagering games (e.g., electronic devices, EGMs, VLT devices, etc.). The “Background” section of the published disclosure explains at paragraph [0001] that a casino environment is an exemplary environment for conducting wagering games, suggests that slot games or video poker games are also merely examples of the games that could be involved in the claimed invention, and further suggests that slot games and/or video poker games provided at EGMs or VLT devices or mobile devices are known casino environments. Paragraph [0028] confirms that such gaming devices are typically on a casino floor and in communication with one another and or one or more remote servers over a network. Paragraph [0076] explains the network may be the internet. Further, paragraph [0017] explains that it is the inventive payable (determined wagering odds) that are unconventional, not the type of game or specific gaming environment. Paragraph [0033] further confirms this by explaining “It will be appreciated that gaming devices may come in many different shapes, sizes, layouts, form factors, and configurations, and with varying numbers and types of input and output devices, and that embodiments are not limited to the particular gaming device structures described herein”. Paragraph [0062] further confirms this by explaining “Although illustrated as certain gaming devices, such as electronic gaming machines (EGMs) and mobile gaming devices, functions and/or operations as described herein may also include wagering stations that may include…conventional game tables including those involving cards, dice and/or roulette, and/or other wagering stations such as sports book stations…skill-based games…or other casino or non-casino style games”. Paragraph [0070]-[0076] further explains that the type of gaming device is substitutable and is merely a design choice. As such, it can be seen that the additional elements identified above serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s published specification suggests that it is advantageous to implement the claimed business process because doing so can help increase player satisfaction, increase options for interaction, and motivate players to play the game (e.g., through an unconventional paytable or way of determining game odds - see, for example, Applicant’s published disclosure at paragraphs [0001] and [0018]). These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., improved rules for conducting a wagering game).
Dependent claims 2-5, 13-16, 19, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 2-5, 13-16, 19, and 20 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 2 recites “wherein the first wager amount is larger than the second wager amount; and wherein the first odds are more favorable to the player than the second odds”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 2. This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity. With respect to the other dependent claims not specifically listed here - each of the limitations/elements recited in these dependent claims other than those identified as being “additional” elements above (at the beginning of the Prong One analysis), are further part of the abstract idea encompassed by each respective dependent claim (i.e. it should be understood that these limitations are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a system comprising; a first electronic gaming device; a plurality of electronic gaming devices; a processor circuit; a network interconnecting the processor circuit with the first electronic gaming device and with the plurality of electronic gaming devices; and a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to…over the network…the first electronic gaming device…the plurality of electronic gaming devices… the plurality of electronic gaming devices…over the network…connected to the network…over the network…the electronic gaming devices…over the network via the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device” (claims 1 and 12) or by “interconnecting, with a network, a processor circuit with a first electronic gaming device and with a plurality of electronic gaming devices…by the processor circuit over the network…the first electronic gaming device…over the network…by the processor circuit…by the processor circuit…over the network…the electronic gaming device…by the processor circuit…” (claim 18) and the recitation of “wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to” (claim 6) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “a system comprising; a first electronic gaming device; a plurality of electronic gaming devices; a processor circuit; a network interconnecting the processor circuit with the first electronic gaming device and with the plurality of electronic gaming devices; and a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to…over the network…the first electronic gaming device…the plurality of electronic gaming devices… the plurality of electronic gaming devices…over the network…connected to the network…over the network…the electronic gaming devices…over the network via the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device…over the network to the electronic gaming device” (claims 1 and 12) or “interconnecting, with a network, a processor circuit with a first electronic gaming device and with a plurality of electronic gaming devices…by the processor circuit over the network…the first electronic gaming device…over the network…by the processor circuit…by the processor circuit…over the network…the electronic gaming device…by the processor circuit…” (claim 18), and the further requirements of “wherein the first gaming device comprises an Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM)” (claim 7) and/or “wherein the second gaming device comprises a personal computing device” (claim 8) and/or “wherein the second gaming device comprises a Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) device” (claim 9) and/or “wherein the first gaming device comprises a personal computing device” (claim 10) and/or “wherein the first gaming device comprises a Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) device” (claim 11) and/or “wherein a second subset of the plurality of gaming devices comprises personal computing devices” (claim 16) and/or “wherein a second subset of the plurality of gaming devices comprises Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) devices” (claim 17) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Dependent claims 2-5, 13-16, 19, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 2-5, 13-16, 19, and 20 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
v Claim 1 recites the phrase "wherein the first odds and second odds are determined in real time based on the number of remote players connected to the network." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “wherein the first odds and second odds are determined in real time based on the number of remote players connected to the network” will be interpreted as being “wherein the first odds and second odds are determined in real time based on the determined number of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices to participate, over , in the second game of the wagering game.”
Each of dependent claims 2-11 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on this claim.
v Claim 5 recites the phrase " the number of players of the plurality of remote players." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “the number of players of the plurality of remote players” will be interpreted as being “the determined number .”
v Claim 12 recites the phrase " wherein the first odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players connected to the network" and “wherein the second odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players connected to the network”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “wherein the first odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players connected to the network "” will be interpreted as being “wherein the first odds are determined in real time based on the determined number of players of the plurality of remote players .”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “wherein the second odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players connected to the network "” will be interpreted as being “wherein the second odds are determined in real time based on the determined number of players of the plurality of remote players .”.
Each of dependent claims 13-17 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on this claim.
v Claim 18 recites the phrases "wherein the first odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players” and "wherein the second odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “determining…whether a number of players of the subset of players meets…”, will be interpreted as “determining…whether a number of players of the subset of players of the plurality of remote players meets…” and the phrase “wherein the first odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players” will be interpreted as being “wherein the first odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the subset of player of the plurality of remote players meets”, and the phrase “wherein the second odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players” will be interpreted as being “wherein the second odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the subset of player of the plurality of remote players meets”.
Each of dependent claims 19 and 20 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on this claim.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
v Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2021/0295654, September 23, 2021 - hereinafter "Kiss”) in view of Taniguchi et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2017/0018144, January 19, 2017 - hereinafter "Taniguchi”)
With respect to claim 1, Kiss teaches a system comprising;
a first electronic gaming device; (Fig 1 tag 108 or 142)
a plurality of electronic gaming devices; (Fig 1 tag 108)
a processor circuit; and ([0114] “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor”, [0032] “processor…ASIC…IC”, Fig 1 tag 120)
a network interconnecting the processor circuit with the first electronic gaming device and with the plurality of electronic gaming devices; and (Fig 1 tag 104)
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to: ([0032]-[0033] “processor…instruction sets stored in memory…”, Fig 1 tag 124)
determine, over the network, first game results of a first game of a wagering game, wherein the first game results comprise a first game result of a player utilizing the first electronic gaming device; ([0090]-[0091] “initiates a first reel spin…In the event that the result of the first reel spin differs from the predetermined game outcome (e.g., providing no payout…determining whether a re-spin option is identified” – therefore the system determines/stores a game result of the players previous wagering game result/outcome (i.e., that they lost), [0023] “player may be presented with the opportunity to enhance game features…after a result of a game played on the gaming device…’near miss win’ (e.g., where four out of five symbols in a reel-spin game are aligned with a pay line…”, [0072] “available offers field…based on the player’s 112…previous game outcome” – therefore the system determines/stores a game result of the players previous wagering game result/outcome, see also [0039] “track…store an outcome of games played”, [0064] “award history field may comprise data regarding losses associated with the player…associated with one or more bets in which the player participated”, [0066] “timer value associated with tracking whether or not a particular player 112 has played a game at a particular time or won a wager on a game within a predetermined amount of time”, [0085]-[0086])
and a plurality of first game results by a plurality of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices (Fig 1 tags 108 & [0038] “all players 112 within the enhanced feature gaming system 100 or a subset of players 112 within the enhanced feature gaming system 100” – plurality of players playing the wagering game at plurality of devices in the system (i.e., there are a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first instances of the wagering game by a plurality of players), l[0030] may be using mobile devices remotely to play)
based on the first game results being winning game results, determine first odds for the second game of the wagering game associated with a first wager amount and second odds for the second game of the wagering game based on a second wager amount; ([0072] “information about offers for activating game enhancement features for players 112 based on the player's 112 current subscription service level and previous game outcome….may allow different game enhancement features to be activated by the gaming device 108 during a respin. Once a player 112 has played a first game (e.g., a reel-spin game) of a gaming device 108, the subscription service server 116 may determine that offers are available for the player 112 by referring to the available offers field 352 in the subscription information data structure 332. The available offers field 352 may include a win probability associated with each game enhancement feature. The win probability may correspond to a percentage chance that the respin including the game enhancement feature will result in a win. Activating any of the game enhancement features on a respin increases the percentage chance that the respin will result in a win over a respin that did not include the game enhancement features. The win probabilities may vary from one game enhancement feature to another. In one embodiment, the win probabilities may comprise combined game enhancement feature win probabilities defining a win probability when more than one game enhancement feature is activated on a respin. An offer to activate a particular game enhancement feature may include a cost associated therewith. For instance, a first game enhancement feature having a first win probability may cost a first amount and a second game enhancement feature having a second, higher, win probability may cost a second, higher, amount than the first amount. In some cases, as a player 112 selects multiple game enhancement features to activate together in a respin, the cost associated with doing so increases. Stated another way, as the win probability increases by adding game enhancement features so may the cost of activating the game enhancement features. This increase in cost may be proportionate to the number of game enhancement features activated and/or the overall win probability calculated including all of the game enhancement features together in a respin...” – therefore based on the first game result (e.g., the player losing and/or having a near miss) the system determines first odds for a second instance of the wagering game associated with a first wager amount (e.g., a wager/cost of a second game enhancement for the subsequent instance of the wagering game having a second higher win probability) and second odds for the second instance of the wagering game based on a second wager amount (e.g., a wager/cost of a first game enhancement having a first lower win probability, see also [0091])
determine a first award and a second award in real time based on wager amounts received over the network from the plurality of remote players utilizing the electronic gaming devices to participate in the second game of the wagering game ([0072]-[0074] “The available offers field 352 may include a win probability associated with each game enhancement feature. The win probability may correspond to a percentage chance that the respin including the game enhancement feature will result in a win. Activating any of the game enhancement features on a respin increases the percentage chance that the respin will result in a win over a respin that did not include the game enhancement features. The win probabilities may vary from one game enhancement feature to another. In one embodiment, the win probabilities may comprise combined game enhancement feature win probabilities defining a win probability when more than one game enhancement feature is activated on a respin. An offer to activate a particular game enhancement feature may include a cost associated therewith. For instance, a first game enhancement feature having a first win probability may cost a first amount and a second game enhancement feature having a second, higher, win probability may cost a second, higher, amount than the first amount. In some cases, as a player 112 selects multiple game enhancement features to activate together in a respin, the cost associated with doing so increases. Stated another way, as the win probability increases by adding game enhancement features so may the cost of activating the game enhancement features. This increase in cost may be proportionate to the number of game enhancement features activated and/or the overall win probability calculated including all of the game enhancement features together in a respin…As a player 112 is playing games on a gaming device 108, the player 112 may be presented with one or more offers to activate game enhancement features on a respin of a reel-spin game, or in a game continuation of some other game. After causing the gaming device 108 to render the offer, the subscription service server 116 may determine whether the player 112 has provided an input accepting or denying the offer.” – therefore the user selects one or more re-spin enhancement options as the associated cost/wager associated with the selection option, see also [0090]-[0091] & [0062])
receive a wager over the network via the electronic gaming device of the player for the second game of the wagering game; ([0072]-[0074] “The available offers field 352 may include a win probability associated with each game enhancement feature. The win probability may correspond to a percentage chance that the respin including the game enhancement feature will result in a win. Activating any of the game enhancement features on a respin increases the percentage chance that the respin will result in a win over a respin that did not include the game enhancement features. The win probabilities may vary from one game enhancement feature to another. In one embodiment, the win probabilities may comprise combined game enhancement feature win probabilities defining a win probability when more than one game enhancement feature is activated on a respin. An offer to activate a particular game enhancement feature may include a cost associated therewith. For instance, a first game enhancement feature having a first win probability may cost a first amount and a second game enhancement feature having a second, higher, win probability may cost a second, higher, amount than the first amount. In some cases, as a player 112 selects multiple game enhancement features to activate together in a respin, the cost associated with doing so increases. Stated another way, as the win probability increases by adding game enhancement features so may the cost of activating the game enhancement features. This increase in cost may be proportionate to the number of game enhancement features activated and/or the overall win probability calculated including all of the game enhancement features together in a respin…As a player 112 is playing games on a gaming device 108, the player 112 may be presented with one or more offers to activate game enhancement features on a respin of a reel-spin game, or in a game continuation of some other game. After causing the gaming device 108 to render the offer, the subscription service server 116 may determine whether the player 112 has provided an input accepting or denying the offer.” – therefore the user selects one or more re-spin enhancement options as the associated cost/wager associated with the selection option, see also [0090]-[0091] & [0062])
in response to the wager comprising the first wager amount: determine a second game result for the second game of the wagering game based on the first odds; and in response to the wager comprising the second wager amount: determine the second game result for the second game of the wagering game based on the second odds ([0050] respin is executed with selected option and corresponding wager and therefore based on corresponding probability/odds, see also [0075] & [0085]-[0088] & [0092] & [0098])
Although Kiss clearly explains that the system executes the second instance of the wagering game based on the first/second wager amount (and associated first/second respin enhancement options, and therefore based on the associated first/second odds) and determining whether the player wins or loses on their second instance (respin), and although Kiss generally discloses that the players are to be provided with payouts (awards) when they win (e.g., they would win a first award when the first option and first wager are selected and a second award when the second option and second wager are selected), Kiss does not appear to actually disclose providing the rewards over the network to the electronic gaming device of the player after instantiating the second instance of the wagering game. As such, Kiss does not appear to anticipate “and in response to the second game result being a winning game result, provide a first award to the player based on the first odds” and “and in response to the second game result being a winning game result, provide a second award to the player based on the second odds”. However, Kiss clearly discloses that based on results of games (e.g., wining results) the system provides the payer with a reward ([0047] & [0050] & [0090]). Therefore although this particular situation is not explicitly taught, Kiss does teach paying out awards to players based on the odds (e.g., when they win, which is based on the odds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kiss to include in response to the second game result being a winning game result, provide a first award to the player based on the first odds and in response to the second game result being a winning game result, provide a second award to the player based on the second odds, because doing so would enable the player to actually receive the award they are playing for in the second instance of the wagering game.
Kiss does not appear to disclose,
determine a number of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices to participate, over the network, in a second game of the wagering game, wherein the first odds and the second odds are determined based on the number of remote players connected to the network
providing the rewards over the network to the electronic gaming device of the player
However, Taniguchi discloses
determine a number of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices to participate, over the network, in a second game of the wagering game, wherein the first odds and the second odds are determined based on the number of remote players connected to the network ([0097]-[0102] “system comprises a plurality of gaming machines and a system controller. Each gaming machine is configured receive a wager from a respective player and responsively initiate a game. The system controller is coupled to each of the gaming machines and includes a database with a community awards list including a plurality of total award probabilities, each total award probability associated with a corresponding number of players. The system controller is then configured to detect a triggering condition; responsively determine a number of players playing the plurality of gaming machines; determine a total award probability as a function of the determined number of players and the community award list…” – therefore different odds to win are based on a determined number of players of the plurality of players connected to the network and whether this meets a predetermined threshold number (e.g., wherein there are a plurality of thresholds corresponding to different numbers of players), see also [0010]-[0011] )
providing the rewards over the network to the electronic gaming device of the player ([0037] & [0047] & [0069]-[0077])
Taniguchi suggests it is advantageous to determine a number of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices to participate, over the network, in a second game of the wagering game, wherein the first odds and the second odds are determined based on the number of remote players connected to the network, and providing the rewards over the network to the electronic gaming device of the player, because doing so can make the gameplay more interesting which can entice players to return for additional gameplay and provide an effective mechanism to provide the reward to the players ([0004] & [0097] & [0037] & [0047] & [0069]-[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kiss to determine a number of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices to participate, over the network, in a second game of the wagering game, wherein the first odds and the second odds are determined based on the number of remote players connected to the network, and providing the rewards over the network to the electronic gaming device of the player, as taught by Taniguchi, because doing so can make the gameplay more interesting which can entice players to return for additional gameplay.
With respect to claim 2, Kiss teaches the system of claim 1;
wherein the first wager amount is larger than the second wager amount; and wherein the first odds are more favorable to the player than the second odds ([0072] “The available offers field 352 may include a win probability associated with each game enhancement feature. The win probability may correspond to a percentage chance that the respin including the game enhancement feature will result in a win. Activating any of the game enhancement features on a respin increases the percentage chance that the respin will result in a win over a respin that did not include the game enhancement features. The win probabilities may vary from one game enhancement feature to another. In one embodiment, the win probabilities may comprise combined game enhancement feature win probabilities defining a win probability when more than one game enhancement feature is activated on a respin. An offer to activate a particular game enhancement feature may include a cost associated therewith. For instance, a first game enhancement feature having a first win probability may cost a first amount and a second game enhancement feature having a second, higher, win probability may cost a second, higher, amount than the first amount. In some cases, as a player 112 selects multiple game enhancement features to activate together in a respin, the cost associated with doing so increases. Stated another way, as the win probability increases by adding game enhancement features so may the cost of activating the game enhancement features. This increase in cost may be proportionate to the number of game enhancement features activated and/or the overall win probability calculated including all of the game enhancement features together in a respin...” – therefore based on the first game result (e.g., the player losing and/or having a near miss) the system determines first odds for a second instance of the wagering game associated with a first wager amount (e.g., a wager/cost of a second game enhancement for the subsequent instance of the wagering game having a second higher win probability) and second odds for the second instance of the wagering game based on a second wager amount (e.g., a wager/cost of a first game enhancement having a first lower win probability, see also [0091])
With respect to claim 3, Kiss teaches the system of claim 1;
wherein the determination of the first odds and the second odds are further based on at least one of the first game result being a losing game result ([0090]-[0091] “initiates a first reel spin…In the event that the result of the first reel spin differs from the predetermined game outcome (e.g., providing no payout…determining whether a re-spin option is identified” – therefore the system determines the enhancement options (and associated probabilities) based on the first game result being a losing result, [0023] “player may be presented with the opportunity to enhance game features…after a result of a game played on the gaming device…’near miss win’ (e.g., where four out of five symbols in a reel-spin game are aligned with a pay line…” - the system determines the enhancement options (and associated probabilities) based on the first game result being a losing result, [0072] “available offers field…based on the player’s 112…previous game outcome”)
With respect to claim 4, Kiss teaches the system of claim 3;
wherein the first game results comprises a plurality of game elements, wherein the determination of the first odds and second odds is further based on a subset of the plurality of game elements comprising a subset of a winning game result ([0023] “player may be presented with the opportunity to enhance game features…after a result of a game played on the gaming device…’near miss win’ (e.g., where four out of five symbols in a reel-spin game are aligned with a pay line…” – first game result comprises plurality of game elements (e.g., near miss where 3 or 4 out of 5 symbols match a winning configuration – and per [0072] & [0090]-[0092] the first and second options associated with the first and second odds/wagers for the second instance of the game (respin) are based on how many elements are respun (which is also based on the first result and how many are locked) and therefore the determination of the first odds and second odds is based on a subset of the plurality of game elements comprising a subset of a winning game result (i.e., how many game elements were locked from the first game))
With respect to claim 5, Kiss and Taniguchi teach the system of claim 1. Kiss does not appear to disclose,
wherein the determination of the first odds and the second odds are further based on a determination of whether the number of players of the plurality of remote players meets a predetermined threshold number
However, Taniguchi discloses
wherein the determination of the first odds and the second odds are further based on a determination of whether the number of players of the plurality of remote players meets a predetermined threshold number ([0097]-[0102] “system comprises a plurality of gaming machines and a system controller. Each gaming machine is configured receive a wager from a respective player and responsively initiate a game. The system controller is coupled to each of the gaming machines and includes a database with a community awards list including a plurality of total award probabilities, each total award probability associated with a corresponding number of players. The system controller is then configured to detect a triggering condition; responsively determine a number of players playing the plurality of gaming machines; determine a total award probability as a function of the determined number of players and the community award list…” – therefore different odds to win are based on whether a number of players of the plurality of players meets a predetermined threshold number (e.g., wherein there are a plurality of thresholds corresponding to different numbers of players))
Taniguchi suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the determination of the first odds and the second odds are further based on a determination of whether the number of players of the plurality of remote players meets a predetermined threshold number, because doing so can make the gameplay more interesting which can entice players to return for additional gameplay ([0004] & [0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kiss to include wherein the determination of the first odds and the second odds are further based on a determination of the first odds and the second odds are further based on a determination of whether the number of players of the plurality of remote players meets a predetermined threshold number, as taught by Taniguchi, because doing so can make the gameplay more interesting which can entice players to return for additional gameplay.
With respect to claim 6, Kiss teaches the system of claim 1;
wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to associate the first odds and the second odds with a player account associated with the player, ([0024] “determination of whether a respin option…information about a player identification” & [0036]-[0039] “upon determining an identity of a player 112 interacting with the gaming device 108, the subscription management instruction set 136 may access the player profile database 148 and/or the subscription database 152 to retrieve data about the identified player 112. Using the identity of the player 112, the subscription management instruction set 136 may refer to an enrollment status of the player 112 in a game continuation register, or data structure, of the subscription database 152. This data structure may define particular game enhancement features available to the player 112 during a respin, or continuation of a game played at the gaming device 108…. enrollment, a subscription service level the player 112 is enrolled in, available offers, a history of offers accepted and the results of the offers accepted, and/or the like” – therefore the options available to the player (e.g., the first/second enhancement options for the second instance of the wagering game (i.e., respin) and associated wagers/odds) are associated with the player via their respective account/profile (e.g., based on historical results and/or their subscription level), see also [0062] for storing the odds with the player account, see also [0072] & [0074]-[0075] & [0083])
wherein a first game session at a first gaming device comprises the first instance of the wagering game, ([0022] “slot machine or Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM)…”)
Kiss does not appear to explicitly disclose a second game session at a second gaming device different from the first gaming device is used in the second game of the wagering game. However, Kiss does explain that the players can play games (e.g., slot machine type games) via any number of different types of gaming devices ([0022] “EGM…other types of computational devices…portable user devices…PCs…”, [0030] “mobile device”, [0099] “video lottery terminal”) and with continuity based on their account/profile ([0037]-[0039], [0072]-[0075]). The decision for the player to play a second instance of the wagering game at a second game session at a different device is simply a matter of design choice (and/or player choice).
Therefore, although this particular embodiment is not explicitly disclose by Kiss, it would have been obvious to modify the system of Kiss such that a second game session at a second gaming device different from the first gaming device is used in the second game of the wagering game, because the decision for the player to play a second instance of the wagering game at a second game session at a different device is simply a matter of design choice (i.e., player choice).
With respect to claim 7, Kiss teaches the system of claim 6;
wherein the first gaming device comprises an Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) ([0022] “slot machine or Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM)…” – as discussed above at claim 6 the decision for the player to play at this type of gaming device is simply a matter of design choice (i.e., player choice) from the options disclosed by Kiss)
With respect to claim 8, Kiss teaches the system of claim 7;
wherein the second gaming device comprises a personal computing device ([0022] “other types of computational devices…portable user devices…PCs…” – as discussed above at claim 6 the decision for the player to play at this type of gaming device is simply a matter of design choice (i.e., player choice) from the options disclosed by Kiss), [0030] “mobile device”)
With respect to claim 9, Kiss teaches the system of claim 7;
wherein the second gaming device comprises a Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) device ([0099] “video lottery terminal” – as discussed above at claim 6 the decision for the player to play at this type of gaming device is simply a matter of design choice (i.e., player choice) from the options disclosed by Kiss))
With respect to claim 10, Kiss teaches the system of claim 6;
wherein the first gaming device comprises a personal computing device ([0022] “other types of computational devices…portable user devices…PCs…”– as discussed above at claim 6 the decision for the player to play at this type of gaming device is simply a matter of design choice (i.e., player choice) from the options disclosed by Kiss), [0030] “mobile device”)
With respect to claim 11, Kiss teaches the system of claim 6;
wherein the first gaming device comprises a Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) device ([0099] “video lottery terminal” – as discussed above at claim 6 the decision for the player to play at this type of gaming device is simply a matter of design choice (i.e., player choice) from the options disclosed by Kiss))
v Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2017/0018144, January 19, 2017 - hereinafter "Taniguchi”) in view of Kiss et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2021/0295654, September 23, 2021 - hereinafter "Kiss”)
With respect to claim 12, Taniguchi teaches a system comprising:
a first electronic gaming device; (Fig 1 tag 12 & Fig 4 tags 12A-12H)
a plurality of electronic gaming devices; (Fig 1 tag 12 & Fig 4 tags 12A-12H)
a processor circuit; and ([0110]-[0112] “one or more processors…ASIC…”)
a network interconnecting the processor circuit with the first electronic gaming device and with the plurality of electronic gaming devices; and (Fig 4 tag 14)
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to: ([0110]-[0112] “computer storage media…instructions…”)
determine whether a number of players of the plurality of remote players meets a predetermined threshold number; ([0097]-[0102] “system comprises a plurality of gaming machines and a system controller. Each gaming machine is configured receive a wager from a respective player and responsively initiate a game. The system controller is coupled to each of the gaming machines and includes a database with a community awards list including a plurality of total award probabilities, each total award probability associated with a corresponding number of players. The system controller is then configured to detect a triggering condition; responsively determine a number of players playing the plurality of gaming machines; determine a total award probability as a function of the determined number of players and the community award list…” – therefore the system determines whether a number of players of the plurality of players meets a predetermined threshold number (e.g., wherein there are a plurality of thresholds corresponding to different numbers of players) in order to determine different award probability for the game(s) they are playing), see also [0081]-[0083], [0024] gaming machine may be remote cell phone)
receive, over the network, a plurality of wagers for a plurality of second games of the wagering game from the plurality of remote players; ([0097]-[0102] “system…plurality of gaming machines. Each gaming machine is configured receive a wager from a respective player and responsively initiate a game…”)
in response to the number of players meeting the threshold number, determine a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on first odds, wherein the first odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players connected to the network ; and in response to the number of players failing to meet the threshold number, determine a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on second odds, wherein the second odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players connected to the network; and ([0097]-[0102] “Each gaming machine is configured receive a wager from a respective player and responsively initiate a game. The system controller is coupled to each of the gaming machines and includes a database with a community awards list including a plurality of total award probabilities, each total award probability associated with a corresponding number of players….determine a number of players playing the plurality of gaming machines; determine a total award probability as a function of the determined number of players and the community award list” – therefore different odds to win are based on whether a number of players of the plurality of players meets a predetermined threshold number (e.g., wherein there are a plurality of thresholds corresponding to different numbers of players) and in response to the number of players meeting the threshold number (e.g., 8 players currently playing) the system determine a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on first odds (e.g., higher odds that are used when 8 players are currently playing) and in response to the number of players failing to meet the threshold number (e.g., 6 players are currently playing) the system determines a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on second odds (e.g., worse odds that are used when 6 players are currently playing )
for each second game result, in response to the second game result being a winning game result, provide an award to the first electronic gaming device of the player associated with the second game result ([0097] “detect a triggering condition…provide a community award to at least one of the plurality of players as a function of the determined total award probability… may be configured to award a single community award amount as a function of the number of players interacting with the system”, [0046] “the player may be awarded a payout if the combination of symbols associated with a selected payline is a winning combination” [0108] “ranking at step 705. Finally, at step 706, the gaming machine received the award amount signal and distributes the appropriate award to the player”, see also [0104])
wherein the award is determined in real time based on a total value of the plurality of wagers for the plurality of second games ([0049] may be part of progressive jackpot, [0081] as a function of the received wagers)
Taniguchi does not appear to disclose,
determine, over the network, a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first games of a wagering game by a player utilizing the first electronic gaming device and a plurality of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices;
However, Kiss discloses
determine, over the network, a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first games of a wagering game by a player utilizing the first electronic gaming device and a plurality of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices (Fig 1 tags 108 & [0038] “all players 112 within the enhanced feature gaming system 100 or a subset of players 112 within the enhanced feature gaming system 100” – plurality of players playing the wagering game at plurality of devices in the system (i.e., there are a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first instances of the wagering game by a plurality of players), [0090]-[0091] “initiates a first reel spin…In the event that the result of the first reel spin differs from the predetermined game outcome (e.g., providing no payout…determining whether a re-spin option is identified” – therefore the system determines/stores a game result of the players previous wagering game result/outcome (i.e., that they lost), [0023] “player may be presented with the opportunity to enhance game features…after a result of a game played on the gaming device…’near miss win’ (e.g., where four out of five symbols in a reel-spin game are aligned with a pay line…”, [0072] “available offers field…based on the player’s 112…previous game outcome” – therefore the system determines/stores a game result of the players previous wagering game result/outcome, see also [0039] “track…store an outcome of games played”, [0064] “award history field may comprise data regarding losses associated with the player…associated with one or more bets in which the player participated”, [0066] “timer value associated with tracking whether or not a particular player 112 has played a game at a particular time or won a wager on a game within a predetermined amount of time”, [0085]-[0086], Fig 1 tags 108 & [0038] “all players 112 within the enhanced feature gaming system 100 or a subset of players 112 within the enhanced feature gaming system 100” – plurality of players playing the wagering game at plurality of devices in the system (i.e., there are a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first instances of the wagering game by a plurality of players), l[0030] may be using mobile devices remotely to play)
Kiss suggests it is advantageous to determine, over the network, a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first games of a wagering game by a player utilizing the first electronic gaming device and a plurality of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices, because doing so can enable the system to track player activity across time and across various devices they are playing at which can increase player satisfaction and can be useful for maintaining continuity and for personalizing gameplay ([0038]-[0039[] & [0090]-[0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Taniguchi to include determining, over the network, a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first games of a wagering game by a player utilizing the first electronic gaming device and a plurality of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices, as taught by Kiss, because doing so can enable the system to track player activity across time and across various devices they are playing at which can increase player satisfaction and can be useful for maintaining continuity and for personalizing gameplay.
With respect to claim 13, Taniguchi teaches the system of claim 12;
wherein the first odds are more favorable to the plurality of remote players than the second odds ([0097]-[0104] and table after [0083] “Each gaming machine is configured receive a wager from a respective player and responsively initiate a game. The system controller is coupled to each of the gaming machines and includes a database with a community awards list including a plurality of total award probabilities, each total award probability associated with a corresponding number of players….determine a number of players playing the plurality of gaming machines; determine a total award probability as a function of the determined number of players and the community award list” – shows that different odds to win are based on whether a number of players of the plurality of players meets a predetermined threshold number (e.g., wherein there are a plurality of thresholds corresponding to different numbers of players) and in response to the number of players meeting the threshold number (e.g., 8 players currently playing) the system determine a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on first odds (e.g., higher odds that are used when 8 players are currently playing) and in response to the number of players failing to meet the threshold number (e.g., 6 players are currently playing) the system determines a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on second odds (e.g., worse odds that are used when 6 players are currently playing )
With respect to claim 14, Taniguchi and Kiss teach the system of claim 12. Taniguchi does not appear to disclose,
wherein the determination of the first odds and the second odds are further based on a subset of the plurality of first game results being losing game results;
However, Kiss discloses
wherein the determination of the first odds and the second odds are further based on a subset of the plurality of first game results being losing game results; ([0090]-[0091] “initiates a first reel spin…In the event that the result of the first reel spin differs from the predetermined game outcome (e.g., providing no payout…determining whether a re-spin option is identified” – therefore the system determines the enhancement options (and associated probabilities) based on the first game result being a losing result, [0023] “player may be presented with the opportunity to enhance game features…after a result of a game played on the gaming device…’near miss win’ (e.g., where four out of five symbols in a reel-spin game are aligned with a pay line…” - the system determines the enhancement options (and associated probabilities) based on the first game result being a losing result, [0072] “available offers field…based on the player’s 112…previous game outcome”)
Kiss suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the determination of the first odds and the second odds are further based on a subset of the plurality of first game results being losing game results, because doing so can provide exciting gameplay options for near-misses which can increase player engagement and system revenue ([0002] & [0090]-[0091] & [0072]]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Taniguchi to include wherein the determination of the first odds and the second odds are further based on a subset of the plurality of first game results being losing game results, as taught by Kiss, because doing so can provide exciting gameplay options for near-misses which can increase player engagement and system revenue.
With respect to claim 15, Taniguchi teaches the system of claim 12;
wherein the plurality of first games of the wagering game and the plurality of second games of the wagering game are performed at a plurality of gaming devices (Fig 4 tags 12A though 12I & [0024] “two or more gaming machines 12…at least one of the gaming machines 12 is a video gaming machine. In another embodiment, the at least one gaming machine 12 may include a personal computer, laptop, cell phone, smart phone, tablet computer, personal data assistant, and/or any suitable computing device that enables a player to connect to the network 14.” & [0027] “As shown, the system 2 includes a plurality of gaming machines 12. Gaming machines 12 may include, but are not limited to gaming machines, electronic gaming machines (such as video slot, video poker machines, or video arcade games), electric gaming machines, virtual gaming machines, e.g., for online gaming, au interface to a table management system (not shown) for table games, or other suitable devices at which a patron or player 224 may interact or access a user or player account. In the illustrated embodiment, one electronic gaming device
With respect to claim 16, Taniguchi teaches the system of claim 15;
wherein a second subset of the plurality of gaming devices comprises personal computing devices ([0024] “two or more gaming machines 12…at least one of the gaming machines 12 is a video gaming machine. In another embodiment, the at least one gaming machine 12 may include a personal computer, laptop, cell phone, smart phone, tablet computer, personal data assistant, and/or any suitable computing device that enables a player to connect to the network 14.” & [0027] “As shown, the system 2 includes a plurality of gaming machines 12. Gaming machines 12 may include, but are not limited to gaming machines, electronic gaming machines (such as video slot, video poker machines, or video arcade games), electric gaming machines, virtual gaming machines, e.g., for online gaming, au interface to a table management system (not shown) for table games, or other suitable devices at which a patron or player 224 may interact or access a user or player account. In the illustrated embodiment, one electronic gaming device
With respect to claim 17, Taniguchi and Kiss teach the system of claim 15. Taniguchi does not appear to disclose,
wherein a second subset of the plurality of gaming devices comprises Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) devices
However, Kiss discloses
wherein a second subset of the plurality of gaming devices comprises Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) devices ([0099] “video lottery terminal”)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the type of gaming device of Kiss (a VLT) for the type of gaming device of Taniguchi (e.g., any of the possible types of the plurality of gaming machines disclosed). Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
With respect to claim 18, Taniguchi teaches a method comprising:;
interconnecting, with a network a processor circuit with a first electronic gaming device and with a a plurality of electronic gaming devices; (Fig 1 tag 12 & Fig 4 tags 12A-12H and tag 14, [0110]-[0112] “one or more processors…ASIC…”)
by a processor circuit over the network([0110]-[0112] “one or more processors…ASIC…”)
receiving, over the network, a plurality of wagers for a plurality of second games of the wagering game from a subset of players of the plurality of remote players; ([0097]-[0102] “system…plurality of gaming machines. Each gaming machine is configured receive a wager from a respective player and responsively initiate a game…”)
determining, by the processor circuit, whether a number of players of the subset of players meets a predetermined threshold number; ([0097]-[0102] “system comprises a plurality of gaming machines and a system controller. Each gaming machine is configured receive a wager from a respective player and responsively initiate a game. The system controller is coupled to each of the gaming machines and includes a database with a community awards list including a plurality of total award probabilities, each total award probability associated with a corresponding number of players. The system controller is then configured to detect a triggering condition; responsively determine a number of players playing the plurality of gaming machines; determine a total award probability as a function of the determined number of players and the community award list…” – therefore the system determines whether a number of players of the plurality of players meets a predetermined threshold number (e.g., wherein there are a plurality of thresholds corresponding to different numbers of players) in order to determine different award probability for the game(s) they are playing), see also [0081]-[0083])
in response to the number of players meeting the threshold number, determining, by the processor circuit, a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on first odds, wherein the first odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players connected to the network; in response to the number of players failing to meet the threshold number, determine a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on second odds, wherein the second odds are determined in real time based on the number of players of the plurality of remote players connected to the network; and ([0097]-[0102] “Each gaming machine is configured receive a wager from a respective player and responsively initiate a game. The system controller is coupled to each of the gaming machines and includes a database with a community awards list including a plurality of total award probabilities, each total award probability associated with a corresponding number of players….determine a number of players playing the plurality of gaming machines; determine a total award probability as a function of the determined number of players and the community award list” – therefore different odds to win are based on whether a number of players of the plurality of players meets a predetermined threshold number (e.g., wherein there are a plurality of thresholds corresponding to different numbers of players) and in response to the number of players meeting the threshold number (e.g., 8 players currently playing) the system determine a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on first odds (e.g., higher odds that are used when 8 players are currently playing) and in response to the number of players failing to meet the threshold number (e.g., 6 players are currently playing) the system determines a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on second odds (e.g., worse odds that are used when 6 players are currently playing )
for each second game result, in response to the second game result being a winning game result, provide an award to the first electronic gaming device of the player associated with the second game result ([0097] “detect a triggering condition…provide a community award to at least one of the plurality of players as a function of the determined total award probability… may be configured to award a single community award amount as a function of the number of players interacting with the system”, [0046] “the player may be awarded a payout if the combination of symbols associated with a selected payline is a winning combination” [0108] “ranking at step 705. Finally, at step 706, the gaming machine received the award amount signal and distributes the appropriate award to the player”, see also [0104])
wherein the award is determined in real time based on a total value of the plurality of wagers for the plurality of second games ([0049] may be part of progressive jackpot, [0081] as a function of the received wagers)
Taniguchi does not appear to disclose,
determine, over the network, a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first games of a wagering game by a player utilizing the first electronic gaming device and a plurality of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices;
However, Kiss discloses
determine, over the network, a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first games of a wagering game by a player utilizing the first electronic gaming device and a plurality of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices (Fig 1 tags 108 & [0038] “all players 112 within the enhanced feature gaming system 100 or a subset of players 112 within the enhanced feature gaming system 100” – plurality of players playing the wagering game at plurality of devices in the system (i.e., there are a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first instances of the wagering game by a plurality of players), [0090]-[0091] “initiates a first reel spin…In the event that the result of the first reel spin differs from the predetermined game outcome (e.g., providing no payout…determining whether a re-spin option is identified” – therefore the system determines/stores a game result of the players previous wagering game result/outcome (i.e., that they lost), [0023] “player may be presented with the opportunity to enhance game features…after a result of a game played on the gaming device…’near miss win’ (e.g., where four out of five symbols in a reel-spin game are aligned with a pay line…”, [0072] “available offers field…based on the player’s 112…previous game outcome” – therefore the system determines/stores a game result of the players previous wagering game result/outcome, see also [0039] “track…store an outcome of games played”, [0064] “award history field may comprise data regarding losses associated with the player…associated with one or more bets in which the player participated”, [0066] “timer value associated with tracking whether or not a particular player 112 has played a game at a particular time or won a wager on a game within a predetermined amount of time”, [0085]-[0086], Fig 1 tags 108 & [0038] “all players 112 within the enhanced feature gaming system 100 or a subset of players 112 within the enhanced feature gaming system 100” – plurality of players playing the wagering game at plurality of devices in the system (i.e., there are a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first instances of the wagering game by a plurality of players), l[0030] may be using mobile devices remotely to play)
Kiss suggests it is advantageous to determine, over the network, a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first games of a wagering game by a player utilizing the first electronic gaming device and a plurality of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices, because doing so can enable the system to track player activity across time and across various devices they are playing at which can increase player satisfaction and can be useful for maintaining continuity and for personalizing gameplay ([0038]-[0039[] & [0090]-[0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Taniguchi to include determining, over the network, a plurality of first game results of a plurality of first games of a wagering game by a player utilizing the first electronic gaming device and a plurality of remote players each utilizing one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices, as taught by Kiss, because doing so can enable the system to track player activity across time and across various devices they are playing at which can increase player satisfaction and can be useful for maintaining continuity and for personalizing gameplay.
With respect to claim 19, Taniguchi teaches the method of claim 18;
wherein the first odds are more favorable to the plurality of players than the second odds ([0097]-[0104] and table after [0083] “Each gaming machine is configured receive a wager from a respective player and responsively initiate a game. The system controller is coupled to each of the gaming machines and includes a database with a community awards list including a plurality of total award probabilities, each total award probability associated with a corresponding number of players….determine a number of players playing the plurality of gaming machines; determine a total award probability as a function of the determined number of players and the community award list” – shows that different odds to win are based on whether a number of players of the plurality of players meets a predetermined threshold number (e.g., wherein there are a plurality of thresholds corresponding to different numbers of players) and in response to the number of players meeting the threshold number (e.g., 8 players currently playing) the system determine a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on first odds (e.g., higher odds that are used when 8 players are currently playing) and in response to the number of players failing to meet the threshold number (e.g., 6 players are currently playing) the system determines a plurality of second game results for the second instances of the wagering game based on second odds (e.g., worse odds that are used when 6 players are currently playing )
With respect to claim 20, Taniguchi and Kiss teach the method of claim 18. Taniguchi does not appear to disclose,
wherein determining the first odds and the second odds are further based on a subset of the plurality of first game results being losing game results;
However, Kiss discloses
wherein determining the first odds and the second odds are further based on a subset of the plurality of first game results being losing game results; ([0090]-[0091] “initiates a first reel spin…In the event that the result of the first reel spin differs from the predetermined game outcome (e.g., providing no payout…determining whether a re-spin option is identified” – therefore the system determines the enhancement options (and associated probabilities) based on the first game result being a losing result, [0023] “player may be presented with the opportunity to enhance game features…after a result of a game played on the gaming device…’near miss win’ (e.g., where four out of five symbols in a reel-spin game are aligned with a pay line…” - the system determines the enhancement options (and associated probabilities) based on the first game result being a losing result, [0072] “available offers field…based on the player’s 112…previous game outcome”)
Kiss suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the determination of the first odds and the second odds are further based on a subset of the plurality of first game results being losing game results, because doing so can provide exciting gameplay options for near-misses which can increase player engagement and system revenue ([0002] & [0090]-[0091] & [0072]]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Taniguchi to include wherein the determination of the first odds and the second odds are further based on a subset of the plurality of first game results being losing game results, as taught by Kiss, because doing so can provide exciting gameplay options for near-misses which can increase player engagement and system revenue.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Baerlocher (U.S. PG Pub No. 2009/0143133, June 4, 2009) teaches increasing odds of winning based on increases in wager size
Decasa et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2009/0117979, May 7, 2009) teaches increasing payout odds based on quantity of players currently playing a wagering game of different machines
Oomori et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2009/0239616, September 24, 2009) teaches determining an outcome of a first wager game is a losing outcome and based on that result providing increased odds to win a second instance of the game that are higher when the wager is higher
Frostick (U.S. PG Pub No. 2016/0148471, May 26, 2016) teaches determining an outcome of a first wager game is a losing outcome and based on that result providing increased odds to win a second instance of the game that are higher when the wager is higher
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
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 extension fee 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 JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights