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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9-20 recite the limitation “responsible gaming” and one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While in gaming “responsible gaming” has a meaning, the specific metes and bounds of that definition do not clearly limit the claims. In conjunction with “system”, “action” and “features” the metes and bounds of the claims become even less clear. Clarification/amendment 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 a judicial exception. The claims will be analyzed with respect to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test at MPEP§2106.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 1 (see MPEP§2106.03)
The claims recite one of the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 1 (see MPEP§2106.04(a-c))
The claims recite abstract ideas in the following categories;
Mental processes (MPEP§2106.04(a)(2)III) (hereinafter “MP”).
The abstract ideas have been noted in the claims below.
Regarding claim 1, maintaining a trained model of player characteristics (remembering what a person looks like sober/drunk), the player characteristics indicating a level of intoxication of an individual (remembering what characteristics change in a person between the two states); maintaining a player profile for a player of an electronic game in the gaming venue, the player profile comprising a set of predefined responsible gaming setting (remembering that an individual has requested to be deterred from playing, etc. when BAC is too high); receiving a plurality of inputs from a gaming system of the gaming venue, the plurality of inputs indicating characteristics of the player of the electronic game while playing the electronic game (see a person observing an individual play a game); estimating a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) level for the player based on the trained model of player characteristics and the received plurality of inputs from the gaming system (see comparing the sober baseline and the current play to guess at BAC); determining whether to apply a responsible gaming action based on the estimated BAC level for the player and the player profile for the player (see determining if a person needs to be asked to step away/take a break, etc. when BAC is high); and in response to determining to apply the responsible gaming action, initiating, the responsible gaming action (in response to finding an individual of a certain BAC, asking them to step away/take a break, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inputs from the gaming system comprises an audio input representing speech characteristics of the player (see observing an individual’s speech).
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inputs from the gaming system comprises a video input representing visual characteristics of the player (see observing an individual’s behavior).
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inputs from the gaming system comprises a breath analysis input (see observing the smell/pace of breathing).
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inputs from the gaming system comprises game play information representing action of the player in the electronic game (see observing gameplay).
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 1, wherein the responsible gaming action comprises a responsible gaming feature of the gaming system (see informing an individual of inebriation status).
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 1, wherein the responsible gaming action comprises a message to the player (see informing an individual of inebriation status).
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 1, wherein the responsible gaming action comprises a notification to gaming venue personnel (see informing staff of inebriation status).
Claims 9-20 recite the same abstract ideas, mutatis mutandis.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP§2106.04(d))
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are generic computer hardware; insignificant extra solution activity such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data; and the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. These additional elements individually and in combination provide for limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements (1) add “insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) and (2) generally link “the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I).
These additional elements individually and in combination are not limitations that provide for “improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) apply or use the “judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) implement the “judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) effect “a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) or apply or use “the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). As such the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2B (see MPEP§2106.05)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional generic computer hardware and insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP§2106.05).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2019/0355209 by Sorey.
Regarding claim 1, Sorey discloses a method for providing responsible gaming features within a gaming venue (abstract), the method comprising: maintaining, by a processor of a responsible gaming system, a trained model of player characteristics, the player characteristics indicating a level of intoxication of an individual (para. 95-98 – see baseline used to determine BAC); maintaining, by the processor of the responsible gaming system, a player profile for a player of an electronic game in the gaming venue, the player profile comprising a set of predefined responsible gaming setting (para. 105-113 – see the system building and maintaining player preferences); receiving, by the processor of the responsible gaming system, a plurality of inputs from a gaming system of the gaming venue, the plurality of inputs indicating characteristics of the player of the electronic game while playing the electronic game (para. 95-98 – see determined reaction time and play characteristics); estimating, by the processor of the responsible gaming system, a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) level for the player based on the trained model of player characteristics and the received plurality of inputs from the gaming system (para. 98 – see estimated BAC); determining, by the processor to the responsible gaming system, whether to apply a responsible gaming action based on the estimated BAC level for the player and the player profile for the player (para. 105-113 – see changing gameplay based on player state which includes BAC); and in response to determining to apply the responsible gaming action, initiating, by the processor of the responsible gaming system, the responsible gaming action (para. 105-113 – see changing gameplay based on player state which includes BAC).
Regarding claim 2, Sorey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inputs from the gaming system comprises an audio input representing speech characteristics of the player (para. 54 – see voice recording).
Regarding claim 3, Sorey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inputs from the gaming system comprises a video input representing visual characteristics of the player (para. 54 – see camera images).
Regarding claim 4, Sorey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inputs from the gaming system comprises a breath analysis input (para. 54 – see respiratory rate).
Regarding claim 5, Sorey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inputs from the gaming system comprises game play information representing action of the player in the electronic game (para. 98 – see player inputs).
Regarding claim 6, Sorey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the responsible gaming action comprises a responsible gaming feature of the gaming system (para. 105-113 – see host cocktail frequency).
Regarding claim 7, Sorey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the responsible gaming action comprises an electronic message to the player (para. 101-113 – see “goodbye” experience).
Regarding claim 8, Sorey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the responsible gaming action comprises an electronic notification to gaming venue personnel (para. 105-113 – see host cocktail frequency).
Claims 9-20 are rejected as mapped above regarding claims 1-8, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM 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, 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.
/PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715