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 1-6, 8-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-20 are directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 recite: a system comprising:
a computing device configured to generate interaction data based on detected activity at the computing device; and
a player tracking controller in communication with the computing device and a user device associated with a player, wherein the player tracking controller is programmed to:
store a plurality of tokens of a plurality of token collections, wherein each token collection of the plurality of token collections includes a predefined combination of specific tokens of the plurality of tokens and an award;
identify the player as being present at the computing device by detecting that a wireless communication connection is established between the computing device and the user device;
receive, from the computing device, interaction data associated with the player, wherein the interaction data is transmitted by the computing device in response to the wireless communication connection being established between the computing device and the user device;
determine to award a token of the plurality of tokens to the player based on the interaction data and on the identification of the player as being present at the computing device; and
in response to determining to award the token, randomly select a first token from one of the plurality of token collections to award; and
transmit a notification of the award of the token to the user device, wherein the user device is configured to display the token that was awarded.
Claims 10-17 recite: a method performed by a player tracking controller in communication with a computing device and a user device associated with a player, the method comprising:
storing a plurality of tokens of a plurality of token collections, wherein each token collection of the plurality of token collections includes a predefined combination of specific tokens of the plurality of tokens and an award;
identifying the player as being present at the computing device by detecting that a wireless communication connection is established between the computing device and the user device;
receiving, from the computing device, interaction data associated with the player;
wherein the interaction data is transmitted by the computing device in response to the wireless communication connection being established between the computing device and the user device;
determining to award a token of the plurality of tokens to the player based on the interaction data and on the identification of the player as being present at the computing device; and
in response to determining to award the token, randomly selecting a first token from one of the plurality of token collections to award; and
transmitting a notification of the award of the token to the user device, wherein the user device is configured to display the token that was awarded.
Claims 18-20 recite: at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by a player tracking controller in communication with a computing device and a user device associated with a player, the computer-executable instructions cause the player tracking controller to:
store a plurality of tokens of a plurality of token collections, wherein each token collection of the plurality of token collections includes a predefined combination of specific tokens of the plurality of tokens and an award;
identify the player as being present at the computing device based on the user device being located proximate to the computing device by detecting that a wireless communication connection is established between the computing device and the user device;
receive, from the computing device, interaction data associated with the player;
wherein the interaction data is transmitted by the computing device in response to the wireless communication connection being established between the computing device and the user device;
determine to award a token of the plurality of tokens to the player based on the interaction data and on the identification of the player as being present at the computing device; and
in response to determining to award the token, randomly select a first token from one of the plurality of token collections to award;
transmit a notification of the award of the token to the user device, wherein the user device is configured to display the token that was awarded.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claims recite storing a plurality of tokens, identifying a player, receiving interaction data, randomly selecting a first token from a plurality of token collections to award, and determining to award a token to the player based on the interaction data. In the broadest interpretation and as indicated by the dependent claims, the interaction data include game play information. The claim recite how tokens are award based on interaction data. Providing a token based on user activity is a social activity. In addition, in light of the specification, the computing device is a gaming device and the user activity is game play. Awarding tokens based on game play is a management of a game. The claim recites a management of a game, or a social activity by following rules. Managing interactions including social activities is an abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-20 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
The computing device, player tracking controller and user device are not used in a meaningful way. The computing device, player tracking controller and user device are generic computers used to perform the abstract idea. As indicated in Applicant’s specification (paragraph 20), the computing/gaming device devices such as, but not limited to, a smart phone, a tablet, a laptop, or a game console. The controller is also a generic computer as indicated in Applicant’s specification (paragraph 98). The user device is also a generic device (i.e. smartphone and point of sale device; paragraphs 94, 82 of published specification). The computing device, player tracking device and user device are used to implement the game in a computer embodiment. As indicated above, the user device to display the token that award awarded is a generic device to implement the abstract idea. In addition, the step of displaying the token that was award amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
The claims recite a computing device, a player tracking controller and user device.
As indicated in Applicant’s specification (paragraph 20 of published specification), the computing device is a generic device such as, but not limited to, a smart phone, a tablet, a laptop, or a game console. The server is also a generic computer as indicated in Applicant’s specification paragraph 98 of published specification). The user device to receive information and the non-gaming device are also a generic device (i.e. smartphone; paragraph 94 of the specification). These are well known conventional devices.
In addition, the additional limitations of the controller the gaming machine are used to performed well known conventional activities.
The additional element of a controller programed to store data (storing data a plurality of token collection) is well known routine and conventional in the art as indicated by the courts (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 steps of receiving interaction data, transmitting a notification are steps of receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well known routine and conventional in the art as indicated by the courts (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).
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17, 19-20 further recite the abstract idea of organizing human activity with a conventional computer to perform computer functions that is well known routine and conventional as discussed above.
Dependent claims 3-4, 12-13 further include a non-gaming device such as a point of sale device. The non-gaming device is also a generic device (i.e. point of sale device; paragraphs 82 of the specification).
Dependent claims 6, 15 incorporate the additional element of a user device including a GPS to receive GPS data to determine a location of a user device to identify the user device to correspond to the player. The GPS is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity. The GPS does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The, additional element of a GPS in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Furthermore, Adams (US 2013/0344932) discloses that many mobile devices contain GPS transmitters/receivers and obtaining GPS coordinates and verifying device location is well known in the art (paragraph 70). The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 8, 17 incorporate the additional element of a random number generator to determine award to token. A random number generator (RNG) is well known routine and conventional. Dorr (US 2012/0282993) discloses that a processor conventionally obtains a random number from a random number generator to provide a random game play which may be winning outcome of a value award, a feature award, an item award, according to a paytable (paragraph 28). The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The additional limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12051303. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding pending claim 1, claim 1 of US 12051303 discloses the claim limitations of pending claim 1 and additional limitations of a first RNG and second RNG and token spaces collectively forming an image on a user interface, but fails to teach fails to teach a player tracking controller in communication with a user device associated with a player; identify the player as being present at the computing device by detecting that a wireless communication connection is established between the computing device and the user device; wherein the interaction data is transmitted by the computing device in response to the wireless communication connection being established between the computing device and the user device; transmit a notification of the award of the selected first token to the user device. In an analogous art to gaming systems Davis discloses a gaming system comprising a controller (at least one server 402 in Fig. 4; paragraph 93) in communication with a computing device (gaming machine 406 in Fig. 4) and a user device (mobile computing device 404). Davis discloses the controller is in communication with a user device associated with a player (mobile computing device 404); identify the player as being present at the computing device by detecting that a wireless communication connection is established between the computing device and the user device (Identify that the player is being present by detecting short range communication session between the mobile computing device and the gaming machine, paragraphs 24-31. The connection is communicated to the server, paragraph 29.); wherein the interaction data is transmitted by the computing device in response to the wireless communication connection being established between the computing device and the user device (interaction data such as question of installing application, identifier message, authentication information, etc. paragraphs 38-40). The user device is used to authenticate the user account (paragraph 6) and provide notifications to the player and allow remote game play (paragraphs 32, 94, 96, 139). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Anderson’s invention and identify the player as being present at the computing device by detecting that a wireless communication connection is established between the computing device and the user device and receive interaction data by the computing device in order to provide the predictable result of authenticating the user account with a user’s device and provide game play notifications.
Regarding pending claims 26, 8-15, 17-20, claims 1-19 of US 12051303 discloses the claim limitations of pending claims 26, 8-15, 17-20, and therefore would have been obvious over claims 1-19 of US 12051303.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2007/0259706) in view of Davis (US 2013/0023339) and Allen (US 2011/0207525).
1. Anderson discloses a system (Fig. 2) comprising:
a computing device (10 in Figs. 1-2) configured to generate interaction data based on detected activity at the computing device (provide interaction data or game outcome, paragraphs 32, 42-45); and
a player tracking controller (system memory 52 and network 50 in Fig. 2 and CPU of game network as described in paragraph 36) in communication with the computing device (Fig. 2), wherein the player tracking controller is programmed to:
store a plurality of tokens (Store assets, paragraphs 10-11, 36-38, 42, 54. More specifically, game network can retrieve assets and stored in the system memory; paragraph 36, 42) of a plurality of token collections, wherein each token collection of the plurality of token collections (different types of assets such as properties, utilities, railroads, and other items; “properties of the same color, i.e. a set”; paragraphs 36, 44, 47) includes a predefined combination of specific tokens of the plurality of tokens and an award (Predefined combination or collection within a set. For example, properties of the same color with the associated award for collecting all the properties in the set; such as property collection of “dark blue” comprising Boardwalk and Park Place with the award 5000 credits; paragraphs 44-47);
receive, from the computing device, interaction data associated with the player (winning combination, i.e. deeds with boardwalk/property symbol; paragraphs 45-46);
determine to award a token of the plurality of tokens to the player based on the interaction data (award token/asset or property based on the winning combination, i.e. deeds with boardwalk/property symbol; paragraphs 45-46), and the identification of the player (based on user identification so that assets can be stored and retrieved; paragraphs 38-42);
in response to determining to award the token (award token/asset or property based on the winning combination, i.e. deeds with boardwalk/property symbol; paragraphs 45-46), randomly select a first token from one of the plurality of token collection to award (paragraphs 9, 44) wherein the token awarded token is displayed (paragraphs 45-46, Figs. 3-4).
Anderson discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach a player tracking controller in communication with a user device associated with a player; identify the player as being present at the computing device by detecting that a wireless communication connection is established between the computing device and the user device; wherein the interaction data is transmitted by the computing device in response to the wireless communication connection being established between the computing device and the user device; transmit a notification of the award of the selected first token to the user device, wherein the user device is configured to display the token that was awarded. However, such modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art.
In an analogous art to gaming systems Davis discloses a gaming system comprising a controller (at least one server 402 in Fig. 4; paragraph 93) in communication with a computing device (gaming machine 406 in Fig. 4) and a user device (mobile computing device 404). Davis discloses the controller is in communication with a user device associated with a player (mobile computing device 404); identify the player as being present at the computing device by detecting that a wireless communication connection is established between the computing device and the user device (Identify that the player is being present by detecting short range communication session between the mobile computing device and the gaming machine, paragraphs 24-31. The connection is communicated to the server, paragraph 29.); wherein the interaction data is transmitted by the computing device in response to the wireless communication connection being established between the computing device and the user device (interaction data such as question of installing application, identifier message, authentication information, etc. paragraphs 38-40). The user device is used to authenticate the user account (paragraph 6) and provide notifications to the player and allow remote game play (paragraphs 32, 94, 96, 139). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Anderson’s invention and identify the player as being present at the computing device by detecting that a wireless communication connection is established between the computing device and the user device and receive interaction data by the computing device in order to provide the predictable result of authenticating the user account with a user’s device and provide game play notifications.
In addition, in analogous art to providing award to a user, Allen discloses a gaming system that award player tokens (virtual assets, paragraphs 54, 57-58, 60, 59-70). Allen discloses a server stores and manages the assets to be awarded (virtual asset server paragraphs 5, 41, 65). The server also stores the assets that are associated with the player (paragraphs 54, 65, 74). The external systems, or virtual server controls and manages the awarding of virtual assets (paragraph 65). A notification is provided to the user gaming device to inform the player of the occurrence of an award/asset (paragraphs 57, 97). Allen discloses tokens (virtual assets) can be displayed on a mobile device, PDA or other device and tracked over the internet (paragraph 85). This allows the user to check the awarded tokens remotely with various devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention and configure the user device to display the token that was awarded in order to provide the predictable result of allowing the user to check the awarded tokens remotely with various devices
Claim 2. Anderson discloses that the computing device comprises an electronic gaming machine (10 in Figs. 1-2), and wherein the interaction data includes gameplay information (provide interaction data or game outcome, paragraphs 32, 42-45).
Claim 3. Anderson discloses identifying a token to award to a user and transmitting a notification of the award to a user device as discussed above. However, Anderson fails to teach that the player tracking controller is further in communication with at least one non-gaming device configured to detect a non-gaming trigger, and wherein the player tracking controller is further programmed to: receive, from the non-gaming device, data in response to detecting the non-gaming trigger; identify a second token collection of the plurality of token collections based on the data received from the non-gaming device, wherein the second token collection is associated with the non-gaming trigger; and transmit a second notification of the award of the token to the user device, wherein the user device is configured to display the second token that was awarded. As indicated above, Allen discloses a gaming system that award player tokens. Allen also discloses that awards can be earned though non-gaming activities (paragraph 80). For example, watching advertisements, writing or submitting content for reviews, selling creative content, making purchases of some kind (paragraph 80). Allen explicitly discloses “virtual assets may be award randomly to players based upon a variety of gaming an on-gaming events” (paragraphs 86). For example, “person who are not wagering game players” may be part of a social networking environment collection achievements or other assets. It is interpreted the computing device that allows the user to watch advertisements, write or submit content for reviews, sell creative content, make purchases of some kind is interpreted as a non-gaming device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Anderson’s invention and identify a second token to award the user based on a non-gaming trigger on a non-gaming device and transmit a notification of the award as taught by Allen in order to provide the predictable result of awarding wards to non-gaming participants.
Claim 5. Anderson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the player tracking controller is further programmed to: store a plurality of records of tokens awarded to the player; update, in response to determining to award the token to the player, the plurality of records of tokens to include the awarded token; determine, based on the plurality of records of tokens, that the player has been awarded each of the predefined combination of tokens associated with a token collection of the plurality of token collections; and award, to the player, the award associated with the determined token collection (paragraphs 35-37, 44-49, 54-55).
Claim 6. Davis disclose identifying the player as the player as being present at the computing device as discussed above. Davis also discloses the user device includes a global positioning system (GPS) configured to generate GPS data (paragraphs 59, 135), and wherein to identify the player as being present at the computing device (paragraphs 21-22, 24, 28-31, 40), the player tracking controller is further programed to: receive GPS data from the user device; determine that the user device is proximate to the computing device based on the GPS data; and identify the player as being present at the computing device based on the determination (paragraphs 21-22, 24, 28-31, 40, 59, 135).
Claim 8. Anderson discloses that wherein to randomly select the first token, the player tracking controller is programmed to: in response to and after determining to award the token, perform a random number generator call; parse a pay table including a plurality of possible random number generator call outputs and a plurality of candidate tokens of the token set to identify a candidate token associated with an output of the performed random number generator call; and award the candidate token associated with the output of the performed random number generator call as the selected first token (The accumulation of assets is affected by the randomly selected outcomes in the basic game. These outcomes are controlled by a processor or controller that performs random selections, thereby allowing the board game; paragraph 26. The random selection is controlled by a processor or controller and therefore inherently by an RNG operated by or with the processor or controller.). In addition, Allen discloses a random generator that determines the game comes and game assets for presenting the determined outcome may be stored in the external systems (paragraph 41).
Claim 9. Anderson discloses that the player tracking controller is programmed to award the token based on a determination the player has at least one of (i) been awarded a specific combination of symbols by the computing device; (ii) been active at the computing device for greater than a threshold period of time; (iii) wagered an amount at least a threshold amount at the computing device; or (iv) exceeded a minimum bet threshold at the computing device a threshold number of times (award of the token is partially based on the determination the player has been awarded a specific combination of symbols or bonus game outcome; paragraphs 10, 45-54).
Claims 10-12, 14-15, 17-18. See rejections above.
Claims 4, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2007/0259706) in view of Davis (US 2013/0023339) and Allen (US 2011/0207525) as applied to claims 3, 12 above, and further in view of in view of Joran (US 2007/0106553)
Claims 4, 13. Anderson in view of Davis and Allen discloses the claimed system but fails to teach that the non-gaming device is a point-of-sale (POS) device, and wherein the data received in response to detecting the non-gaming trigger includes transaction data. More specifically, Allen discloses various non-gaming activities (For example, watching advertisements, writing or submitting content for reviews, selling creative content, making purchases of some kind, being part of a social networking environment; paragraphs 80, 86) which inherently requires a non-gaming device to trigger or keep track of the non-gaming activity to provide the awards/assets. Making a purchase would require a point of sale device for the system to recognize an award should be provided for the purchase activity. Alternatively, in an analogous art to providing awards to a user, Jordan discloses that an asset or bonus may be award to the user from a gaming machine (wagering terminals) and non-gaming machine such as point of sale systems including (including food & beverage, event ticketing and other retail outlets) and hotel management systems (paragraphs 14, 121-122). This will encourage to make non-gaming purchases and allow users to earn awards without playing a game. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Anderson in view Allen’s invention and award the user an asset based on a sale at a point of sale device in order to provide the predictable result of encouraging users to make non-gaming purchases and allowing users to earn awards without playing a game.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
No specific arguments have been made. New double patenting rejection has been made to address the amended limitations
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Assuming that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Applicant argues that a technical problem exists in that in order to properly track player activity based on which a token may be awarded, the system must be capable of determining if the player is present at an electronic gaming machine that may trigger an award of one of the tokens. To solve this problem, Claim 1 recites identifying the player as being present at the electronic gaming machine based on a detection of computing device establishing a wireless communication connection with a user device having a known association with the user, thereby indicating that the user locate proximate to the computing device and therefore activity at the computing device may be attributed to the user. As described at paragraph [0095] of the Specification this detection may be accomplished using certain specific technologies such as near field communication or Bluetooth.
However, the claim generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The wireless communication such as near field communication or Bluetooth generally links the use of the judicial exception to a computer embodiment. There is no improvement to the function or technology of the wireless communication such as near field communication or Bluetooth. Therefore, the claim limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Regarding step 2B, Applicant argues that Office Action it is well understood, routine or conventional to (i) identify a player as being present at the computing device by detecting that a wireless communication connection is established between the computing device and the user device; (ii) receive, from the computing device, interaction data associated with the player, wherein the interaction data is transmitted by the computing device in response to the wireless communication connection being established between the computing device and the user device; and (iii) determine to award a token of the plurality of tokens to the player based on the interaction data and on the identification of the player as being present at the computing device. The fact that the pending claims overcome the cited art for the reasons described below with respect to the traversal of the § 103 rejection strengthens the conclusion that these steps are not well understood, routine, and conventional.
However, as indicated in the rejection above, the claims recite an abstract idea. The use of a controller or a computer to perform the claim steps are well known conventional activities.
35 USC 103
New grounds of rejection using the previously cited art has have been made to address the amended limitations. Applicant argues that Davis does not describe a communication connection to be established to trigger transmission of interaction data to a player tracking server.
However, Davis discloses the controller is in communication with a user device associated with a player (mobile computing device 404) and identifies the player as being present at the computing device by detecting that a wireless communication connection is established between the computing device and the user device (Identify that the player is being present by detecting short range communication session between the mobile computing device and the gaming machine, paragraphs 24-31. The connection is communicated to the server, paragraph 29.). Interaction data is transmitted by the computing device in response to the wireless communication connection being established between the computing device and the user device (interaction data such as question of installing application, identifier message, authentication information, etc. paragraphs 38-40). It is noted that that the claim does not specify what the interaction data is. Davis discloses various interaction data is initiated in response to the short range communication session.
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 Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715