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. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses two systems in claims 1-11 and 12-19 (i.e., machines), and a method in claim 20 (i.e., a process). So claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 recite the steps and rules for being eligible to play a second game feature --- “The instructions further cause the processor circuit to determine whether a player associated with the physical EGM meets an eligibility threshold for a second game feature of a virtual EGM of a plurality of virtual EGMs” [0002], “The instructions further cause the processor circuit to determine whether a player associated with the virtual EGM meets an eligibility threshold for a second game feature of a physical EGM of a plurality of physical EGMs” [0003], and “The method further includes determining, by the processor circuit, whether a player associated with the physical EGM meets an eligibility threshold for a second game feature of a virtual EGM of a plurality of virtual EGMs” [0004].
Claim 1. A system comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
select a physical Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) of a plurality of physical EGMs, the physical EGM comprising a first game feature;
determine whether a player associated with the physical EGM meets an eligibility threshold for a second game feature of a virtual EGM of a plurality of virtual EGMs; and
in response to a determination that the player meets the eligibility threshold, enable play of the second game feature at the virtual EGM for the player.
The bold and underlined portions of claim 1 encompass the abstract idea, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-11, and substantially also encompassed by claims 12- 19 and 20.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite the rules governing the eligibility of a player playing a second game feature. A human -using the mind, pen and paper- is capable of using the eligibility threshold to implement the rule. And these rules are directed to commercial or legal interactions. Therefore, the claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a processor, a memory, some physical EGMs and virtual EGMs in all claims. Without any further details, the communications between these computers and EGMs are just through generic networks. These additional elements to carry out these routine steps and rules does not make the claim any less abstract. The claims are drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. The additional elements as presented is directed to the components of a commercial interaction system amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to provide a platform to implement the rules on commercial interactions from multiple generic, well-known devices.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a processor, a memory, some physical EGMs and virtual EGMs in all claims. By failing to explain how these devices are different from the conventional computer and conventional EGMs, it is reasonable that the broadest reasonable interpretation of these devices is limited to a conventional computer implementation. The generically claimed processor, memory, physical EGMs and virtual EGMs, constitute generic computers claimed at a high level of generality communicating a generic network which is also claimed at a high level of generality, and well-known, conventional gaming machines (US20010031659, para 31, “Many of the details of operating conventional gaming devices such as reel-based slot machines, video-based poker games, coin acceptors, card readers (credit, debit, smart, etc.) are well known and are not important to the teachings of the present invention other than in a functional approach”). Claims 1-20 merely implement the rules for conducting a second game feature for game play “by generic computers specified at a high level of generality over a generic network also specified at a high level of generality.” Thus the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a computer. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more", and thus not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palchetti et al. [US20150018072], hereinafter Palchetti, in view of NELSON [US20200043279].
Regarding claim 1, Palchetti discloses a system (Figs. 9A & 9B) comprising:
a processor circuit; and a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
select a physical Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) of a plurality of physical EGMs, the physical EGM comprising a first game feature ([0072], “a skill-based game triggering event occurs based on an outcome associated with one or more plays of any primary game and/or an outcome associated with one or more plays of any secondary game of the EGMs in the gaming system”);
determine whether a player associated with the physical EGM meets an eligibility threshold for a second game feature ([0074], “Upon the amount of coin-in wagered at one or more EGMs in the gaming system reaching or exceeding the bonus threshold coin-in amount, the gaming system causes one or more of such events or conditions to occur”); and
in response to a determination that the player meets the eligibility threshold, enable play of the second game feature ([0028], “In various embodiments, upon an occurrence of a skill-based game triggering event, as indicated by block 102 of FIG. 1, the gaming system initiates or triggers a play of a skill-based game”).
However, Palchetti does not explicitly disclose the second game feature is from a virtual EGM of a plurality of virtual EGMs.
Nevertheless, NELSON teaches in a like invention, using a virtual EGM of a plurality of virtual EGMs to implement the second game feature ([0104], “FIG. 4A illustrates an example of a display screen 117 of an EGM 100 on which a game view 400 is displayed… The EGM 100 may communicate the dimensions of the screen 117 and the layout of the game view 400 to an AR device 200, and the AR device may use this information to determine where to display AR graphics to the player”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Palchetti, to have the virtual EGM to implement the second game feature, as taught by NELSON, in order to make it more fun to play and have more flexibility to provide more different types of the second game feature.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Palchetti and NELSON discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first game feature comprises a first progressive wagering game (Palchetti, [0150], “In various embodiments, the gaming system includes a progressive award”), and wherein the second game feature comprises a second progressive wagering game ([0150], “When one or more triggering events occurs, the gaming system provides at least a portion of the progressive award. After the gaming system provides the progressive award, an amount of the progressive award is reset to the initial amount and a portion of each subsequent wager is allocated to the next progressive award”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Palchetti and NELSON discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the eligibility threshold for the second progressive wagering game comprises a threshold play amount of the first progressive wagering game by the player (Palchetti, [0074], “Upon the amount of coin-in wagered at one or more EGMs in the gaming system reaching or exceeding the bonus threshold coin-in amount, the gaming system causes one or more of such events or conditions to occur”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Palchetti and NELSON discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first game feature and the second game feature are equivalent to each other (Palchetti, Fig. 10A, and NELSON, Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Palchetti and NELSON discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the eligibility threshold for the second game feature comprises a threshold play amount at the physical EGM by the player (Palchetti, [0074], “Upon the amount of coin-in wagered at one or more EGMs in the gaming system reaching or exceeding the bonus threshold coin-in amount, the gaming system causes one or more of such events or conditions to occur”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Palchetti and NELSON discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the physical EGM is located in a physical casino having a physical floor layout (Palchetti, [0157], “In various embodiments, the gaming system includes one or more player tracking systems. Such player tracking systems enable operators of the gaming system (such as casinos or other gaming establishments) to recognize the value of customer loyalty by identifying frequent customers and rewarding them for their patronage”), and wherein the virtual EGM is located in a virtual casino having a virtual floor layout corresponding to the physical floor layout of the physical casino, the plurality of virtual EGMs corresponding to the plurality of physical EGMs (NELSON, [0053], “The AR controller 70 may store a three dimensional wireframe map of a gaming area, such as a casino floor, and may provide the three dimensional wireframe map to the AR devices 200”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Palchetti and NELSON discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the physical EGM is equivalent to the virtual EGM (NELSON, [0053], “The wireframe map may store various information about EGMs in the gaming area, such as the identity, type and location of various types of EGMs. The three dimensional wireframe map may enable an AR device 200 to more quickly and accurately determine its position and/or orientation within the gaming area, and also may enable the AR device 200 to assist the player in navigating the gaming area while using the AR device 200”).
Regarding claim 12, please refer to the claim rejection of claims 1, 8 and 9. (As claimed by claim 9, wherein the physical EGM is equivalent to the virtual EGM, claim 12 is equivalent to claim 1).
Regarding claims 13, 14, 16, 17 and 19, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8.
Regarding claim 20, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 10, 11, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palchetti, in view of NELSON, further in view of Danielson et al. [US20210192888], hereinafter Danielson.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Palchetti and NELSON discloses the system of claim 1. However, the combination of Palchetti and NELSON does not explicitly disclose wherein the first game feature comprises a first wager limit for the physical EGM, and wherein the second game feature comprises a second wager limit for the virtual EGM higher than the first wager limit.
Nevertheless, Danielson teaches in a like invention, having wager limits for gaming devices ([0039], “In certain situations, one or more display devices is required to provide preselected content, such as player warnings, advisory messages, or other required media content (e.g., wager limits and other gambling restrictions, last win date and amount, progressive amounts, odds of a winning or losing outcome, etc.)”).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
The combination of the known elements is achieved by a known method of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, all the claimed elements would continue to operate in the same manner.
Specifically, the system disclosed by the combination of Palchetti and NELSON has the structure/elements to provide the wagering games through both physical and virtual EGMs. And Danielson teaches to have a wager limit for a gaming device. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to select from a finite number of options to have either equal wager limits for both physical and virtual EGMs, or different wager limits for physical and virtual EGMs. Therefore, the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Palchetti and NELSON, with the wager limits as taught by Danielson, and a second wager limit for the virtual EGM higher than the first wager limit for the physical EGM, as merely performing the same function as it does separately and being no more “than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Palchetti and NELSON discloses the system of claim 1. However, the combination of Palchetti and NELSON does not explicitly disclose wherein the eligibility threshold for the second game feature comprises a determination that the physical EGM is occupied by a second player.
Nevertheless, Danielson teaches in a like invention, wherein the eligibility threshold for a event comprises a determination that the physical EGM is occupied by a second player ([0085], “Events can also arise from changes in sensed player, gaming and/or device information, which changes can also be a trigger for the generation and transmission of media content messages to multiple gaming and mobile devices 108 and 128”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by the combination of Palchetti and NELSON, to have changes in sensed player as the eligibility threshold, as taught by Danielson, in order to provide a different way for the first player to continue playing without losing interest.
Regarding claim 10, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Palchetti and NELSON discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the virtual casino comprises a first virtual casino having the virtual floor layout and a first plurality of virtual EGMs comprising a first virtual EGM corresponding to the physical EGM and a second virtual casino having the virtual floor layout and a second plurality of virtual EGMs comprising a second virtual EGM corresponding to the physical EGM (NELSON, [0053], “The wireframe map may store various information about EGMs in the gaming area, such as the identity, type and location of various types of EGMs. The three dimensional wireframe map may enable an AR device 200 to more quickly and accurately determine its position and/or orientation within the gaming area, and also may enable the AR device 200 to assist the player in navigating the gaming area while using the AR device 200”).
However, the combination of Palchetti and NELSON does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to: determine whether the physical EGM is occupied by a second player; and determine whether the first virtual EGM is occupied by a third player, wherein the eligibility threshold for the second game feature at the second virtual EGM comprises a determination that the physical EGM and the first virtual EGM are occupied.
Nevertheless, Danielson teaches in a like invention, wherein the eligibility threshold for a event comprises a determination that the physical EGM is occupied by a second player ([0085], “Events can also arise from changes in sensed player, gaming and/or device information, which changes can also be a trigger for the generation and transmission of media content messages to multiple gaming and mobile devices 108 and 128”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by the combination of Palchetti and NELSON, to have changes in sensed player as the eligibility threshold, as taught by Danielson, in order to make sure to provide an available EGM to the player to play.
Regarding claim 15, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715