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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 18, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe (US 2002/0138594) in view of Kovacs et al (US 2008/0102916) and Cleveland et al (US 2022/0092908).
Re claim 1, Rowe discloses a system comprising: a first server comprising a processor and memory (fig. 1, 100 and 106); a server side module configured to run on the first server comprising: a game database (fig. 1, 110) comprising games (fig. 1, 116), wherein each game comprises a bet size (par. [0032], the searchable categories include an amount bet per game, i.e. a bet size); and a game execution module (fig. 1, 124); a client device (fig. 1, 118, 120, 122) comprising a display and input device ([0023] and [0024], the gaming terminals are video/mechanical slot machines or gaming terminals, therefore including a display and input device), wherein the client device is configured to communicate with the server side module and output a game interface to the display device (fig. 1, game terminals 118, 120, and 122 are in communication with the server 100); wherein the server side module is configured to: receive a bet comprising bet size from the client device input device ([0003], [0032]); query the game database to locate games with bet sizes matching the bet size of the bet ([0032]); assign the bet to an open betting position within a located game ([0032], the system tracks bets made in the games and stored as game data); wherein the game comprises drawing random numbers within a range of values until the value associated with a first betting position is drawn, and assigning the first betting position to which the associated value has been drawn as the winning position ([0030], the game supports lottery games, video keno games, and other games of chance). However, Rowe does not disclose a game size, an amount of betting positions, wherein the game execution module is configured to be queried once all betting positions of a game are filled and executing the game. Kovacs teaches a gaming system enabling players to simultaneously play multiple games (fig. 1A). Therefore, the game size and amount of betting positions are equal and in the case of Kovacs can be considered a game size of at least nine. Kovacs also discloses this number being configurable and changing (figs. 1D-1E). Furthermore, players are able to select the game size and therefore number of betting positions manually, either allowing players to bet on all or selected games (fig. 2C, players select the games they wish to bet on, and the amount to bet on the selected games). At the end of the participation period, the games are simultaneously played ([0275]).
Rowe is further silent on a house betting module configured to place bets on any open betting positions of the game. Cleveland teaches a betting system wherein the table is able to open a supplementary wagering window for player positions ([0196]). It would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to implement the simultaneous gaming and wagering of Kovacs with the game search feature of Rowe in order to allow players to search for their desired gaming criteria while additionally enabling the players to play multiple of their searched games simultaneously, increasing the efficiency and speed at which they play their desired games. It would have been obvious to implement the house betting module of Cleveland in order to enable players of the game to make supplemental wagers on open positions when made available.
Re claims 18 and 27, see the above rejections.
Re claim 28, Kovacs teaches a roulette game ([0201] and [0322]).
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe in view of Kovacs as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lutnick et al (US 2008/0058049).
Re claim 2, Rowe and Kovacs do not disclose betting sub positions. Lutnick teaches allowing players to bet on sub-outcomes, such as betting on a particular range of numbers, particular number, card hands, dice rolls, etc. (see [0262] to [0277]). It would have been obvious to implement sub position betting as taught by Lutnick in order to provide additional betting opportunities for players, increasing player engagement and casino profits.
Re claims 3 and 5, see the rejection to claim 2 above. As Lutnick has taught a variety of different betting sub-outcomes, including drawing random numbers and outcomes, and Rowe teaches bingo games ([0023] and [0030], it would be obvious to include combinations such as five betting sub position slots as in a bingo game as it would be obvious to try as it would lead to the predictable outcome of allowing players to bet on multiple different game outcomes.
Re claims 19-22, see the above rejections, mutatis mutandis. Regarding claim 21 and the range of values, since Lutnick and Rowe have taught various betting positions, betting slots, and values, it would have been obvious to utilize any range of desired values as it would be obvious try leading to predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 23-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 32-36 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the Examiner marked claims 9 and 26 as allowable, these claims were previously multiply dependent on claims 1 to 8 for claim 9, and claims 18 to 25 for claim 26. The allowability of these claims were contingent on their dependencies on claims 7 and 24 respectively. In other words, claims 9 and 26 by themselves (and therefore as currently incorporated into claims 1 and 18) were not allowable. The multiple dependent claims having been modified, while claims 6-7 and 23-24 remain allowable, because claims 9 and 26 are no longer dependent on these claims, their incorporation into claims 1 and 18 do not render claims 1 and 18 allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights