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 . This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 5/4/26. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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. 2003/0190944 A1 to Manfredi et al. (hereinafter “Manfredi”).
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, corresponding to the first type of responsible gaming information, the first query requesting information from the first set of responsible gaming information using a first privacy-preserving protocol corresponding to the first query type; responding, by the responsible gaming system, to the first query with an electronic message comprising a first answer using the first privacy-preserving protocol, the first answer comprising information from the first set of responsible gaming information (paragraphs [0051], [0065]-[0067] – user enters credentials to verify user identity);
receiving, by the responsible gaming system, a second query of a second type, corresponding to the second type of responsible gaming information, the second query requesting information from the second set of responsible gaming information using a second privacy preserving protocol different from the first privacy-preserving protocol and corresponding to the second query type; and responding, by the responsible gaming system, to the second query with an electronic message comprising a second answer using the second privacy-preserving protocol, the second answer comprising information from the second set of responsible gaming information (paragraphs [0051], [0067]-[0069], [0078] – different users will verify their identity by providing different user credentials).
Marson lacks specifically disclosing, however, Manfredi discloses a first set of responsible gaming information related to a first set of players wherein the first set of responsible gaming information comprises a first type of responsible gaming information; wherein the second set of responsible gaming information comprises a second type of responsible gaming information different from the first type of responsible gaming information (paragraphs [0025]-[0032] – there are different limitations in responsible gaming information including a self-limit spending trigger, and a time trigger which correspond to different sets of responsible gaming information for different players). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate different types of responsible gaming information for players including ones with limits on gambling as disclosed by Manfredi 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, Manfredi discloses wherein the first set of responsible gaming information comprise gaming limitation information for each player of the first set of players (paragraphs [0025]-[0032] – there are different limitations in responsible gaming information including a self-limit spending trigger, and a time trigger which correspond to different sets of responsible gaming information for different players). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate different types of responsible gaming information for players including ones with limits on gambling as disclosed by Manfredi 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, Manfredi 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5/4/26 have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
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 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
Prosecution Insights