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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/25/24 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 10, 12,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award growth retention event associated with a first player: determine an amount of a progressive award based on a prior gaming session of the first player, and communicate data that results of at least the determined amount of the progressive award as available to be won by the first player responsive to the first player initiating another gaming session, wherein the determined amount of the progressive award is independent of a current amount of the progressive award” (claims 1, 12), “maintain a progressive award, and responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award growth retention event associated with a first player not engaging in any current gaming session, associate with the first player at least part of an incremented amount of a progressive award previously available to be won from a prior gaming session of the first player, wherein the association guarantees, for a period of retention, a minimum amount of the progressive award for the first player responsive to the first player engaging in another gaming session” (claim 10), are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, rules). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions, a display device”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Patton et al. (2024/0062624) teaches the recited additional elements (Fig 1-4, ¶¶0073-0075, 0091-0097).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-20, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and rules in In re Smith.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-7, 9-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iddings et al. (2007/0218975) in view of De Waal et al. (2020/0402362).
Re Claim 1,
Iddings discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine an amount of a progressive award based on a prior gaming session of the first player (¶¶0210-0213; a personal progressive amount is determined based on a player’s gameplay contributions), and
communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of at least the determined amount of the progressive award as available to be won by the first player responsive to the first player initiating another gaming session, wherein the determined amount of the progressive award is independent of a current amount of the progressive award (Fig 9-10, ¶¶0178, 0210-0213, 0215, 0231-0235; the signage displays different progressive that can be won by the player, further, the personal progressive is independent of the group progressive).
Iddings does not explicitly disclose responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award growth retention event associated with a first player.
However, Waal teaches responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award growth retention event associated with a first player (¶¶0153-0155; if the triggering event which provides a player an opportunity to play for one of the personal progressive awards maintained for that player occurs, the gaming system enables the player to defer or delay their participation in such an opportunity). Waal further teaches such a configuration motivates a player to continue playing the game (¶¶0009-0010). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Waal into the progressive game of Iddings in order to motivate a player to continue playing the game.
Re Claims 2, 13,
Iddings discloses the determined amount of the progressive award comprises an amount of the progressive award at a conclusion of a final play of a game of the prior gaming session of the first player (¶¶0204-0215).
Re Claims 3, 14,
Iddings discloses the determined amount of the progressive award is based on a status of the first player and an amount of the progressive award during the prior gaming session of the first player (¶¶0204-0215).
Re Claims 4, 15,
Iddings discloses the determined amount of the progressive award is based on an amount of wagers placed by the first player during the prior gaming session and an amount of the progressive award during the prior gaming session of the first player (¶¶0204-0215).
Re Claims 5, 16,
Iddings discloses the determined amount of the progressive award is based on an amount of time of the prior gaming session and an amount of the progressive award during the prior gaming session of the first player (¶¶0204-0215).
Re Claims 6, 17,
Iddings discloses the current amount of the progressive award is greater than the determined amount of the progressive award, the current amount of the progressive award is available to be won by the first player (¶¶0204-0215).
Re Claims 7, 18,
Iddings discloses the determined amount of the progressive award is based on an amount of a supplemental award pool and an amount of the progressive award during the prior gaming session of the first player (¶¶0204-0215).
Re Claims 9, 20,
Iddings discloses the determined amount of the progressive award is available to be won by the first player for a period of retention comprising part of the other gaming session (¶¶0204-0215).
Re Claim 10,
Claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and further adds responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award growth retention event associated with a first player not engaging in any current gaming session, associate with the first player at least part of an incremented amount of a progressive award previously available to be won from a prior gaming session of the first player, wherein the association guarantees, for a period of retention, a minimum amount of the progressive award for the first player responsive to the first player engaging in another gaming session. However, Waal teaches responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award growth retention event associated with a first player not engaging in any current gaming session, associate with the first player at least part of an incremented amount of a progressive award previously available to be won from a prior gaming session of the first player, wherein the association guarantees, for a period of retention, a minimum amount of the progressive award for the first player responsive to the first player engaging in another gaming session (¶¶0153-0157; the opportunity to win the personal progressive may be associated with a time of day, certain day(s) of week, a month and/or a year which they can be used). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 11,
Iddings discloses the minimum amount of the progressive award is based on at least one of a status of the first player, an amount of wagers placed by the first player during the prior gaming session, and an amount of time of the prior gaming session (¶¶0204-0215).
Re Claim 12,
Claim is substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached on 571-272-4430. 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715