DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,875,617; 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,297,112; 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,984,631; and 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,657,678. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are very similar to the parent application claims, but they are slightly broader and have minor rewording.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mental processes. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Please see recent Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International for guidance.
Claim 1 is an independent claim directed to a method. Processes fall within statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to an exception. In this case, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of a mental process or a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). In particular, the process of matching users to an application can be done mentally.
a player interface unit
playing a plurality of different games
receiving a player record of information from the player interface unit when a player playing a selected one of the plurality of different games initiates a game event; (Player 1 says that he would like to play Texas Hold ‘em.)
determining game rules for the selected one game corresponding to the delivered player record of information; (Texas Hold ‘em rules can be read.)
generating a first set of random numbers for use in a first subset of the plurality of different games; (a deck of cards can be shuffled.)
generating a second set of random numbers for use in a second subset of the plurality of different games; (A bingo or lottery cage of balls can be shaken.)
determining that the selected one game is one of the first subset of the plurality of different games; (Texas Hold ‘em would use cards, not a cage of balls.)
obtaining random numbers from the first set of generated random numbers when required by the determined game rules; (deal cards)
delivering to the player interface unit game play results in response to the determined game rules and obtained random numbers; (deal cards) and
implementing the game play results in the player interface unit so as to respond to the player initiated game event for the selected one game. (play Texas Hold ‘em)
The steps cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a player interface unit”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
(Step 2A, prong one: YES)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether there are additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this case, the claims recite that “a player interface unit” are configured perform the steps.
The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is 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.
(Step 2A, prong two: NO)
Viewing the limitations individually,
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
The additional elements, “a player interface unit” are configured perform the steps, in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as a combination, the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the concept of a method of playing a plurality of different games with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not add significantly more to the abstract idea of playing a plurality of different games.
(Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Please note, the 101 issue can be fixed easily. The parent applications included limitations, such as, a queue structure in an online gaming environment that created computer communication efficiencies and improved security. (See paragraphs [0070] to [0072] of the current PG pub) If the claim language incorporated the above features, applicant could show an improvement to the functioning of the computer environment and, per the current guidelines, Step 2A, Prong Two would be YES. Per Pathway B, the claim would qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Carlson (US patent 6,428,413)
Carlson shows,
A method for playing a plurality of different games at a player interface unit (Claim 20, “A method for playing a plurality of different games at a plurality of player interface units”) comprising the steps of:
receiving a player record of information from the player interface unit when a player playing a selected one of the plurality of different games initiates a game event; (Claim 20, “receiving, over the network and in the gaming engine, a player record of information from one of the plurality of player interface units when a player playing a selected one of the plurality of different games initiates a game event”)
determining game rules for the selected one game corresponding to the delivered player record of information; (Claim 20, “retrieving the game rules for the selected one game corresponding to the delivered player record of information of the initiated game event”)
generating a first set of random numbers for use in a first subset of the plurality of different games; generating a second set of random numbers for use in a second subset of the plurality of different games; (Claim 20, “providing a series of uniformly distributed pseudo-random numbers, transforming a set from the series of the uniformly distributed pseudo-random number into at least one non-uniform distribution when required in the determined game rules by the gaming engine, transforming a set from the series of the uniformly distributed pseudo-random number into at least one combinational subset when required in the determined game rules by the gaming engine, obtaining random numbers from the provided uniformly distributed pseudo-random numbers” Transforming is considered to be generating. (column 8, lines 12-15, “By integrating verification algorithms 202 in a random number circuit 104, gaming engine 100 in accordance with the present invention ensures that all of the pseudo-random numbers in buffer 203 are in fact statistically random.” The plurality of different games in the first subset could be the drawing of 1000 numbers, column 7, line 63, or Keno selecting a random 20 from a group of 80, column 8, lines 59-60. The plurality of different games in the second subset could be card games with random numbers scaled to range from 1-52, column 8, lines 63-64.)
determining that the selected one game is one of the first subset of the plurality of different games; (from the rules library 108)
obtaining random numbers from the first set of generated random numbers when required by the determined game rules; (Figure 6, steps 612 to 618)
delivering to the player interface unit game play results in response to the determined game rules and obtained random numbers; (Claim 20, “delivering, over the network and to the one player interface unit, game play results from the gaming engine in response to the retrieved game rules, obtained random numbers, at least one combinational subset and at least one non-uniform distribution”) and
implementing the game play results in the player interface unit so as to respond to the player initiated game event for the selected one game. (Claim 20, “implementing the game play results in the one player interface unit so as to respond to the player initiated game event for the selected one game.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715