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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method for preserving privacy in a responsible gaming system. The limitation of maintaining, by the responsible gaming system, a first set of responsible gaming information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the responsible gaming system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the by the responsible gaming system” language, “maintaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally maintaining information about other players. Similarly, the limitations of: receiving and responding are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – by the responsible gaming system. The by the responsible gaming system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using by the responsible gaming system amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 2-20.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2024/0129125 A1 to Marson et al. (hereinafter “Marson”) in view of US Publication No. 2006/0211493 A1 to Walker et al. (hereinafter “Walker”).
Concerning claim 1, Marson discloses a method for preserving privacy in a responsible gaming system (Abstract, paragraph [0021]), the method comprising:
maintaining, by the responsible gaming system, a first set of responsible gaming information; maintaining, by the responsible gaming system, a second set of responsible gaming information related to a second set of players (paragraphs [0019]-[0023], [0037]-[0039], [0045]);
receiving, by the responsible gaming system, a first query of a first query type, the first query requesting information from the first set of responsible gaming information using a first privacy-preserving protocol; responding, by the responsible gaming system, to the first query with a first answer using the first privacy-preserving protocol, the first answer comprising information from the first set of responsible gaming information (paragraphs [0065]-[0067]);
receiving, by the responsible gaming system, a second query of a second type, the second query requesting information from the second set of responsible gaming information using a second protocol; and responding, by the responsible gaming system, to the second query with a second answer using the second privacy-preserving protocol, the second answer comprising information from the second set of responsible gaming information (paragraphs [0067]-[0069], [0078]).
Marson lacks specifically disclosing, however, Walker discloses a first set of responsible gaming information related to a first set of players (paragraphs [0039], [0040], [0046]-[0048], [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate two levels of players including ones with limits on gambling as disclosed by Walker in the blacklist system disclosed by Marson in order to provide more flexibility to players on casino banned lists.
Concerning claims 2, 9, and 16, Marson lacks specifically disclosing, however, Walker discloses wherein the first set of responsible gaming information comprise gaming limitation information for each player of the first set of players (paragraphs [0039], [0040], [0046]-[0048], [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate two levels of players including ones with limits on gambling as disclosed by Walker in the blacklist system disclosed by Marson in order to provide more flexibility to players on casino banned lists.
Concerning claims 3, 10, and 17, Marson discloses wherein the first privacy-preserving protocol comprises Oblivious Transfer (OT) protocol (paragraphs [0074]-[0076]).
Concerning claims 4, 11, and 18, Marson discloses wherein the second set of responsible gaming information comprises a banned player list comprising the second set of players (paragraphs [0019]-[0023], [0037]-[0039], [0045]).
Concerning claims 6 and 13, Marson discloses wherein the first query, the first answer, the second query, and the second answer are signed with a key issued by a certificate authority (paragraphs [0065]-[0069], [0078]).
Concerning claims 7, 14, and 20, Marson discloses wherein the first query, the first answer, the second query, and the second answer are signed using Blind Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) encryption (paragraphs [0065]-[0069], [0075], [0081], [0078]).
Concerning claims 8 and 15, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s)5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marson, Walker and further in view of US Publication No. 2025/0258950 A1 to Phillips et al. (hereinafter “Phillips”).
Concerning claims 5, 12, and 19, Marson lacks specifically disclosing, however, Walker discloses wherein the second privacy-preserving protocol comprises Private Set Intersection (PSI) protocol (paragraphs [0033]-[0035], [0129]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using PSI protocol disclosed by Philips in the blacklist system disclosed by Marson in order to enable data collaboration and analysis while strictly preserving privacy and adhering to data protection laws.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715