DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are drawn to a system (machine).
Claims 10-11 are drawn to a system (machine).
Claims 12-20 are drawn to a method (process).
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
However, under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.
Let us begin by considering the requirements of each independent claim:
Thus, let us take Claim 1 as exemplary:
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of a leaderboard comprising a plurality of ranked positions and a plurality of player identifiers associated with the plurality of ranked positions, and
responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event:
enable at least a first player associated with a first player identifier of the plurality of player identifiers and a second player associated with a second player identifier of the plurality of player identifiers to participate in a competition, wherein the first player identifier is associated with a first designated ranked position of the plurality of the ranked positions, the second player identifier is associated with a second, different designated ranked position of the plurality of the ranked positions, and the first player is assigned an advantage over at least the second player in the competition (mental process: observing and evaluating gameplay to determine rankings),
determine, based at least in part on the assigned advantage, a winning player of the competition (mental process: observing and evaluating gameplay to determine a winner), and
communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of an award being made available to the winning player of the competition.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, independent claims 1, 10, and 12 are directed to a mental process, aside from the reference to a generic computer or generic gaming components (e.g. a processor, a memory device, a display device).
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, and 12 recite the additional elements of a processor, a memory device, and a display device, along with the step of communicating data that results in a display. The processor, memory device, and display device are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a generic computer or gaming components performing generic computer functions like processing and displaying data) and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply invoking a computer or generic gaming components as a tool to perform an existing process in their ordinary capacity and/or generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment. In other words, the claims invoke the processor, memory device, and display device merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional element of communicating data that results in a display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity related to transmitting data and does not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Independent claims 1, 10, and 12 do not include additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the processor, memory device, and display device are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions like processing and displaying data) and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer or gaming components. The additional elements that were considered insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d), Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result--a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink AND Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
The combination of additional elements adds nothing that is not already present when considered separately. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims
Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 inherit the same abstract idea as claims 1, 10, and 12.
Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 recite further additional element limitations related to tracking event occurrences, determining probabilities, determining advantages, and competition and award types. These additional elements, under their BRI, fall within the mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity grouping(s) of abstract ideas and/or are additional elements that are considered insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activities, and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional, as would flow naturally from the similar recitations discussed above.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stankevich (US 2021/0343104 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Stankevich discloses a system comprising:
a processor (see par. [0045], As shown, electronic gaming device 400 may include a processor 402, a memory 404, a network interface 422, input devices 428, and a display 426); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (see par. [0045], As shown, electronic gaming device 400 may include a processor 402, a memory 404, a network interface 422, input devices 428, and a display 426), cause the processor to:
communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of a leaderboard comprising a plurality of ranked positions and a plurality of player identifiers associated with the plurality of ranked positions (see fig. 13), and
responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event (see par. [0163], According to embodiments, triggering the award pools may be carried out in a variety of ways. For example, in one embodiment, the triggering of the award may be carried out randomly. In this case, the determination to trigger the award of the prize pools may be carried out randomly after each game or after n games—by a reel spin, for example. Another embodiment calls for predetermining a threshold amount that must be played or wagered before the award of the prize pools may be triggered. Other leaderboard award triggering mechanisms will occur to those of skill in this art and all such mechanisms are deemed to fall within the scope of the present disclosure):
enable at least a first player associated with a first player identifier of the plurality of player identifiers and a second player associated with a second player identifier of the plurality of player identifiers to participate in a competition, wherein the first player identifier is associated with a first designated ranked position of the plurality of the ranked positions, the second player identifier is associated with a second, different designated ranked position of the plurality of the ranked positions, and the first player is assigned an advantage over at least the second player in the competition (see par. [0154], For games utilizing a leaderboard drawing according to an embodiment, a player may be issued a predetermined number of “tickets” or digital entries into a prize drawing. The predetermined number of tickets given to the player may, according to one embodiment, depend on the spot they earn on the leaderboard, with higher-placing players being issued a greater number of tickets than comparatively lower-placing players. Assume, for example, a game with ten positions on the leaderboard and ten corresponding prize pools. When the drawing takes place, 10 tickets will be drawn, one for each of the ten prize pools in this example. Continuing with this example, the player earning the top position on a 10 position leaderboard would be issued 10 tickets into the prize drawing. In comparison, the player posting to the 10th position on the leaderboard would be issued only a single ticket into the prize drawing),
determine, based at least in part on the assigned advantage, a winning player of the competition (see par. [0156], In this example, the leaderboard prize pools are awarded a week later and, at the time of the drawing, player A has 7 tickets entered into the pool. This gives player A fully 7 opportunities (one such opportunity per ticket) out of 55 (10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1) to be awarded one of the available prize pools), and
communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of an award being made available to the winning player of the competition (see par. [0147], Since Player A occupies the top spot on the leaderboard, Player A is guaranteed to win the Grand prize pool of $10,000 (in this example) and is notified accordingly; also see par. [0169], Such notification may be caused and generated by the player's app).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Stankevich discloses wherein the first player identifier is associated with the first ranked position based on a first quantity of tracked occurrences of an event and the second player identifier is associated with the second, different ranked position based on a second, different quantity of tracked occurrences of the event (see par. [0156], Player A sits down at an endless runner game. In the game, player A gambles by collecting coins and spinning reels as discussed above relative to HAWG games. When the player's avatar is out of health, finds itself at the end of his literal or metaphorical rope or the game has otherwise ended, Player A finds that his avatar has traveled 5,000 meters. In this example, 5,000 meters places player A on the leaderboard in third place, for which they are issued 8 tickets, entitling them to participate in a later-occurring leaderboard drawing. Our player A leaves the casino and a week later is notified that another player has beat player A's score and has bumped him down to fourth place. Fourth place players are issued 7 tickets. Not satisfied with only 7 tickets, Player A decides to return to the casino to try and improve his score by traveling more than 5,000 meters at the same endless runner game).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Stankevich discloses wherein a first difference between the first quantity of tracked occurrences of the event and the second, different quantity of the event is associated with a first advantage and a second, different difference between the first quantity of tracked occurrences of the event and the second, different quantity of the event is associated with a second, different advantage (see par. [0154], Continuing with this example, the player earning the top position on a 10 position leaderboard would be issued 10 tickets into the prize drawing. In comparison, the player posting to the 10th position on the leaderboard would be issued only a single ticket into the prize drawing).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Stankevich discloses wherein the first advantage is associated with a first probability of the first player being determined to be the winning player of the competition and the second advantage is associated with a second, different probability of the first player being determined to be the winning player of the competition (see par. [0156], Instead, those placing higher on the leaderboard have a greater probability of being awarded one or more prize pools than comparatively lower-placing players, as they have a greater number of tickets that may be randomly drawn from a predetermined limited number of tickets).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Stankevich discloses wherein the event occurs independent of any play of any game (see par. [0163], According to embodiments, triggering the award pools may be carried out in a variety of ways. For example, in one embodiment, the triggering of the award may be carried out randomly. In this case, the determination to trigger the award of the prize pools may be carried out randomly after each game or after n games—by a reel spin, for example. Another embodiment calls for predetermining a threshold amount that must be played or wagered before the award of the prize pools may be triggered. Other leaderboard award triggering mechanisms will occur to those of skill in this art and all such mechanisms are deemed to fall within the scope of the present disclosure).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Stankevich discloses wherein a first difference between the first designated ranked position and the second, different designated ranked position is associated with a first advantage and a second, different difference between the first designated ranked position and the second, different designated ranked position is associated with a second, different advantage (see par. [0154], Continuing with this example, the player earning the top position on a 10 position leaderboard would be issued 10 tickets into the prize drawing. In comparison, the player posting to the 10th position on the leaderboard would be issued only a single ticket into the prize drawing. In this manner, when a player earns the third spot on the leaderboard, they would have had (in this example) 8 tickets issued to them in the drawing when the pools are awarded).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Stankevich discloses wherein the competition comprises a head-to-head competition between at least the first player and the second, different player (see par. [0154], The predetermined number of tickets given to the player may, according to one embodiment, depend on the spot they earn on the leaderboard, with higher-placing players being issued a greater number of tickets than comparatively lower-placing players; hence a head-to-head competition could simply be a leaderboard with only two ranked positions and having a drawing between those two players).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Stankevich discloses wherein the head-to-head competition comprises at least one of a random determination and a skill-based determination (see par. [0154], For games utilizing a leaderboard drawing according to an embodiment, a player may be issued a predetermined number of “tickets” or digital entries into a prize drawing).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Stankevich discloses wherein the award comprises a progressive award (see par. [0171], In another embodiment, one or more of the separate prize may be progressive in nature).
Regarding claim 10, Stankevich discloses a system comprising:
a processor (see par. [0045], As shown, electronic gaming device 400 may include a processor 402, a memory 404, a network interface 422, input devices 428, and a display 426); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (see par. [0045], As shown, electronic gaming device 400 may include a processor 402, a memory 404, a network interface 422, input devices 428, and a display 426), cause the processor to:
communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of a leaderboard comprising a plurality of ranked positions and a plurality of player identifiers associated with the plurality of ranked positions (see fig. 13), and
responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event (see par. [0163], According to embodiments, triggering the award pools may be carried out in a variety of ways. For example, in one embodiment, the triggering of the award may be carried out randomly. In this case, the determination to trigger the award of the prize pools may be carried out randomly after each game or after n games—by a reel spin, for example. Another embodiment calls for predetermining a threshold amount that must be played or wagered before the award of the prize pools may be triggered. Other leaderboard award triggering mechanisms will occur to those of skill in this art and all such mechanisms are deemed to fall within the scope of the present disclosure):
enable at least a first player associated with a first player identifier of the plurality of player identifiers and a second player associated with a second player identifier of the plurality of player identifiers to participate in a competition, wherein the first player identifier is associated with a first designated ranked position of the plurality of the ranked positions, the second player identifier is associated with a second, different designated ranked position of the plurality of the ranked positions, and the second player is assigned a disadvantage relative to at least the first player in the competition (see par. [0154], For games utilizing a leaderboard drawing according to an embodiment, a player may be issued a predetermined number of “tickets” or digital entries into a prize drawing. The predetermined number of tickets given to the player may, according to one embodiment, depend on the spot they earn on the leaderboard, with higher-placing players being issued a greater number of tickets than comparatively lower-placing players. Assume, for example, a game with ten positions on the leaderboard and ten corresponding prize pools. When the drawing takes place, 10 tickets will be drawn, one for each of the ten prize pools in this example. Continuing with this example, the player earning the top position on a 10 position leaderboard would be issued 10 tickets into the prize drawing. In comparison, the player posting to the 10th position on the leaderboard would be issued only a single ticket into the prize drawing),
determine, based at least in part on the assigned disadvantage, a winning player of the competition (see par. [0156], In this example, the leaderboard prize pools are awarded a week later and, at the time of the drawing, player A has 7 tickets entered into the pool. This gives player A fully 7 opportunities (one such opportunity per ticket) out of 55 (10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1) to be awarded one of the available prize pools), and
communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of an award being made available to the winning player of the competition (see par. [0147], Since Player A occupies the top spot on the leaderboard, Player A is guaranteed to win the Grand prize pool of $10,000 (in this example) and is notified accordingly; also see par. [0169], Such notification may be caused and generated by the player's app).
Regarding claim 11, Stankevich discloses wherein the first player identifier is associated with the first ranked position based on a first quantity of tracked occurrences of an event, the second player identifier is associated with the second, different ranked position based on a second, different quantity of tracked occurrences of the event, a first difference between the first quantity of tracked occurrences of the event and the second, different quantity of the event is associated with a first disadvantage and a second, different difference between the first quantity of tracked occurrences of the event and the second, different quantity of the event is associated with a second, different disadvantage (see par. [0156], Player A sits down at an endless runner game. In the game, player A gambles by collecting coins and spinning reels as discussed above relative to HAWG games. When the player's avatar is out of health, finds itself at the end of his literal or metaphorical rope or the game has otherwise ended, Player A finds that his avatar has traveled 5,000 meters. In this example, 5,000 meters places player A on the leaderboard in third place, for which they are issued 8 tickets, entitling them to participate in a later-occurring leaderboard drawing. Our player A leaves the casino and a week later is notified that another player has beat player A's score and has bumped him down to fourth place. Fourth place players are issued 7 tickets. Not satisfied with only 7 tickets, Player A decides to return to the casino to try and improve his score by traveling more than 5,000 meters at the same endless runner game).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thomas et al. (US 11,636,735 B2), Pieron et al. (US 9,561,433 B1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM EST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/ALLEN CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 3/4/2026