DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-6 and 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13 including the limitation of “wherein the ticket is configured to display the record in response to an action and hide the record in absence of the action”; however, it is unclear in regards to how a physical ticket can display a record in response to an action and hid the record in absence of the action e.g. in light of the specification it appears the an electronic device displays the record in response to an action such as scanning the ticket and the record is not display or absent in response to no action. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1 from which they depend; therefore are rejected herein for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A system, comprising: a display; a memory device; and at least one computing device communicatively coupled to the memory device and the display, the at least one computing device being configured to: generate a plurality of outcomes for a wagering game; store a record comprising the plurality of outcomes in a data store; rendering a respective celebration on the display for winning ones of the plurality of outcomes; determine a delivery option based on the record; and provide a ticket based on the delivery option, wherein the ticket is configured to display the record in response to an action and hide the record in absence of the action.” (Claim 1); “A method, comprising: generating, via one of one or more computing devices, at least one outcome for a wagering game; generating, via one of the one or more computing devices, a record comprising the at least one outcome; determining, via one of the one or more computing devices, a delivery option based on the record; and providing, via one of the one or more computing devices, a ticket based on the delivery option” (Claim 7); and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to: generate at least one outcome for a wagering game; generate a record comprising the at least one outcome; determine a delivery option based on the record; and provide a ticket based on the delivery option.” (Claim 15). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity, particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for providing tickets via a delivery process, wherein the tickets pertain to generating to outcomes of a wagering game). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping). In this case, instructions or rules to “generate a plurality of outcomes for a wagering game; store a record comprising the plurality of outcomes; determine a delivery option based on the record; and provide a ticket based on the delivery option, wherein the ticket is configured to display the record in response to an action and hide the record in absence of the action” (Claim 1); “generating at least one outcome for a wagering game; generating a record comprising the at least one outcome; determining a delivery option based on the record; and providing a ticket based on the delivery option” (Claim 7); and “generate at least one outcome for a wagering game; generate a record comprising the at least one outcome; determine a delivery option based on the record; and provide a ticket based on the delivery option” (Claim 15) pertain to concepts performed via managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). Additionally, the limitations pertaining to “rendering a respective celebration on the display for winning ones of the plurality of outcomes” (Claim 1) is recited at a low level of generality and amounts to mere post solution outputting (via a display), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claimed computer components (system, display, memory device, computing device, data store, and/or medium) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. The recitations of utilization of “system”, “display”, “memory device”, “computing device”, “data store”, and/or “medium” are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids system, method, and/or medium or to which a computer performs/implements the system, method, and/or medium. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-13, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walker (US 2006/0211471).
Claim 1: Walker teaches a system (¶ 158-159, 160-162, 170, 234-276), comprising: a display (¶ 250); a memory device (¶ 237); and at least one computing device communicatively coupled to the memory device and the display, the at least one computing device (¶ 236) being configured to: generate a plurality of outcomes for a wagering game (¶ 61-62); store a record comprising the plurality of outcomes in a data store (¶ 103, 105, 109-111, 114, 203, 206, 310-353, Figs. 7-10, 11a-b); rendering a respective celebration on the display for winning ones of the plurality of outcomes (¶ 250, 252, 597); determine a delivery option based on the record (¶ 610-630, 640, emphasis on ¶ 610, 619, 630); and provide a ticket based on the delivery option (¶ 113, 610), wherein the ticket is configured to display the record in response to an action and hide the record in absence of the action (¶ 113, 310-353, 610-614, emphasis on ¶ 614).
Claim 2: Walker teaches wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to generate a scannable code configured to cause the record to be displayed (¶ 224, 614).
Claim 4: Walker teaches wherein the scannable code is configured, when scanned, to enable a game feature (¶ 224, 614) for the patron account (¶ 248, 257-260, 296, 429, 611).
Claim 6: Walker teaches wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to provide the ticket in response to generating at least one outcome for the wagering game (¶ 62, 105, 113-114).
Claim 7: Walker teaches a method, comprising: generating, via one of one or more computing devices (¶ 158-159, 160-162, 170, 234-276), at least one outcome for a wagering game (¶ 61-62); generating, via one of the one or more computing devices, a record comprising the at least one outcome (¶ 103, 105, 109-111, 114, 203, 206, 310-353, Figs. 7-10, 11a-b); determining, via one of the one or more computing devices, a delivery option based on the record (¶ 610-630, 640, emphasis on ¶ 610, 619, 630); and providing, via one of the one or more computing devices, a ticket based on the delivery option (¶ 113, 610-614, Fig. 29 illustrates different examples of tickets provided).
Claim 10: Walker teaches wherein providing the ticket comprises printing, via a printer, the ticket (¶ 113, 610-612).
Claim 11: Walker teaches wherein the record comprises one or more meters associated with the wagering game (¶ 611).
Claim 12: Walker teaches presenting, via a display, the record (¶ 113, 310-353, 610-614,).
Claim 13: Walker teaches wherein the ticket is configured to display the record in response to an action and hide the record in absence of the action (¶ 113, 610-614, emphasis on ¶ 614).
Claim 15: Walker teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program that, when executed by at least one computing device (¶ 158-159, 160-162, 170, 234-276), cause the at least one computing device to: generate at least one outcome for a wagering game (¶ 61-62); generate a record comprising the at least one outcome (¶ 103, 105, 109-111, 114, 203, 206, 310-353, Figs. 7-10, 11a-b); determine a delivery option based on the record (¶ 610-630, 640, emphasis on ¶ 610, 619, 630); and provide a ticket based on the delivery option (¶ 113, 610-614, Fig. 29 illustrates different examples of tickets provided).
Claim 20: Walker teaches wherein the program further causes the at least one computing device to transmit the record to a gaming system (¶ 287, 289, 291).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2006/0211471).
Claim 3: Walker teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the scannable code is configured, when scanned, to associate credits from the wagering game to a patron account. Walker at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 675). Furthermore, in another example, Walker teaches providing a ticket wherein the scannable code is configured, when scanned, to associate credits from the wagering game to a patron account (¶ 142, 247, 260, 478-481, 486, 501, 610, emphasis on ¶ 478-481, 501, 610). It would have been obvious to modify the ticket of Walker such that scanning of the code additionally results in associating credits from the wagering game to a patron account as taught by Walker because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of allowing a user to cashout winnings of the game machine in which Walker is intended (see above). Such a modification providing a means to redeem winnings (see above).
Claims 18-19: Walker teaches wherein the program further causes the at least one computing device to: in response to generating the at least one outcome for the wagering game, decrementing a game counter or initiating a timer; determine that the game counter reaches 0 or the timer reaches 0; and providing the ticket in response to determining that the game counter reaches 0 or the timer reaches 0 (¶ 53 “A session may be deemed to be completed once an end event defining the end of the session has occurred (e.g., a predefined number of outcomes has been generated, outcomes have been generated for a predefined period of time, a credit meter balance has reached a predefined value, etc.). In some embodiments, a session may be deemed to be completed once one of a plurality of possible end events occurs, whichever end event occurs first”, ¶ 115, 285, 301-302, 614-615 (ticket is provided upon the conclusion of an executed session (end event defined in at least ¶ 53 as predetermined game counter threshold or after a predefined time threshold))), but lack explicitly suggesting in response to generating the at least one outcome for the wagering game, increment a game counter; determine that the game counter exceeds a predetermined game threshold; and provide the ticket in response to determining that the game counter exceeds the predetermined game threshold or determining that the timer exceeds a predetermined time threshold; and provide the ticket in response to determining that the timer exceeds the predetermined time threshold. However, applicant fails to disclose that in response to generating the at least one outcome for the wagering game, increment a game counter; determine that the game counter exceeds a predetermined game threshold; and provide the ticket in response to determining that the game counter exceeds the predetermined game threshold or determining that the timer exceeds a predetermined time threshold; and provide the ticket in response to determining that the timer exceeds the predetermined time threshold solve any stated problem, provides an advantage, or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the game counter means and/or timer means of Walker, or applicant’s invention, would perform the same function of providing the ticket in response to a predetermined game counter threshold or a predetermined time threshold. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Walker to obtain the invention as specified in claims 18-19 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Walker.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2006/0211471) in view of Acres (US 2010/0124993).
Claim 5: Walker teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to receive a request to cash out the wagering game, wherein the ticket is provided in response to receiving the request. Walker at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Acres teaches at least one computing device is further configured to receive a request to cash out the wagering game, wherein a ticket is provided in response to receiving the request (¶ 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing device of Walker with the cashout request means of Acres because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing the ticket to the user in which at least Walker is intended (see above). Such a modification allows the computing device to provide/print the ticket.
Claim(s) 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Walker (US 2006/0211471) in view of Howard (US 2016/0012676).
Claim 8: Walker teaches the above, in addition to, receiving, via one of the one or more computing devices, credentials for a patron account; authenticating, via one of the one or more computing devices, the credentials for the patron account (¶ 258-260 – teaches that a player identifier is retrieved from authentication and used to point to player account (player data in a relational database)), but lacks explicitly suggesting associating, via one of the one or more computing devices, the record with the patron account. Walker at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and the record of at least one outcome being associated with a player identifier (¶ 296). Furthermore, an analogous art of Howard teaches a computer device associating a record with a credential/authenticated player account (¶ 26-27, claims 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the record and credential/authenticated patron account of Walker such that the record is associated with the credential/authenticated patron account as taught by Howard because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of retrieving/providing a record that is associated with a player in which Walker is intended (see above, ¶ 95, 353, 614). Such a modification can be utilized to retrieve data defining and/or descriptive of a player (Howard, ¶ 27).
Claim 9: Walker in view of Howard teaches, wherein the ticket comprises instructions for accessing the record via the patron account (Fig. 29, ticket 2905 illustrates a ticket with instructions thereon “insert this side up” wherein the barcode provides the record, see above, ¶ 610-614 ).
Claim(s) 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Walker (US 2006/0211471) in view of Lemay (US 2013/0165209).
Claim 14: Walker teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting generating, via one of the one or more computing devices, a custom URL for accessing the record; and printing, via the printer, the custom URL on the ticket. Walker at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above); allowing a user to view a record of the outcomes via a web site (¶ 120, 124, 229, 234, 640, 663, 674); and teaches tickets associated with corresponding records (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Lemay teaches generating, via one of the one or more computing devices, a custom URL for accessing a record associated with the ticket; and printing, via the printer, the custom URL on the ticket (¶ 62, 73-76, 138). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, particularly, as it pertains to the ticket and associated record of Walker such that the ticket includes computing device generated custom url for purposes of accessing a record associated with the ticket as taught by Lemay because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of allowing a user to access or retrieve the record, for example, via a website in which at least Walker is intended (see above). Such a modification allows for gaming experiences to be shared (Lemay, ¶ 7).
Claim(s) 16-17 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Walker (US 2006/0211471) in view of Walker (US 2003/0013516), herein Walker ‘516.
Claim 16: Walker teaches wherein the program further causes the at least one computing device to: receive at least one of: a phone number or email address for a current patron account; and transmit the record to the phone number or the email address (¶ 101, 121, 123), but fails to teach the at least one computing device to: request at least one of: a phone number or email address for a current patron account. Walker at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Walker ‘516 teaches a program that causes the at least one computer device to request at least one of: a phone number or email address for a current patron account (¶ 117). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medium of Walker with the requesting means of Walker ‘516 because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of receiving the email address of the current patron account in which at least Walker is intended (see above). Such a modification ensures that the system receives accurate e-mail information.
Claim 17: Walker in view of Walker ‘516 teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the ticket comprises at least one of: the phone number or the email address. Walker at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the ticket of Walker in view of Walker ‘516 to comprise at least one of: the phone number or email address of the patron account since it would only depend on the intended use of the assembly and the desired information to be displayed. Further, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack 217 USPQ 401, (CAFC 1983). The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of content (a phone number or email address) does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter e.g. the phone number or email address and the substrate e.g. the ticket which is required for patentability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
