DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on June 26, 2024 Claims 1-4 and 10-20 have been examined in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-4 and 10-19 are drawn to a device (i.e., a manufacture) and claim 20 is drawn to a method. As such, claims 1-4, 10-19, and 20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Claims 1, 16, and 20, recite a system comprising: a processor circuit; and a memory comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to: receive a request to anonymously validate a cryptographic token associated with a first player of a wagering game in a casino environment; validate a token identifier associated with the cryptographic token; identify an anonymous player account associated with the cryptographic token; and associate the identified anonymous player account with player activity of the first player. If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 16, and 20 recite abstract ideas.
Representative Claim 1: A system comprising: a processor circuit; and a memory comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to: receive a request to anonymously validate a cryptographic token associated with a first player of a wagering game in a casino environment; validate a token identifier associated with the cryptographic token; identify an anonymous player account associated with the cryptographic token; and associate the identified anonymous player account with player activity of the first player.
Representative Claim 16: An anonymous player account management device comprising: an input device; a processor circuit; and a memory comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to: receive, via the input device, a request to anonymously validate a cryptographic token associated with a first player of a wagering game in a casino environment; validate a token identifier associated with the cryptographic token; identify an anonymous player account associated with the cryptographic token; and associate the identified anonymous player account with player activity of the first player.
Representative Claim 20: A method comprising: receiving, by a processor circuit, a request to anonymously validate a cryptographic token associated with a first player of a wagering game in a casino environment; validating, by the processor circuit, a token identifier associated with the cryptographic token; identifying, by the processor circuit, an anonymous player account associated with the cryptographic token; and associating, by the processor circuit, the identified anonymous player account with player activity of the first player.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
The additional elements are instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements of processors and/or processor circuits, and an input device are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited steps of a system, comprising: a processor and memory, able to receive a request to validate a token, validate a token; identify an account associated with the token; and associate the account with player activity (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The recited steps are a simulation that applies an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (observation (receiving a request to validate a token, identifying an account associated with a token) and/or evaluation (validating a token, associating an account with player activity)). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (CMOHA), the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 16, and 20 recite abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 10-15, and 17-19 further narrow the abstract ideas of stopping a game, displaying content, analyzing responses, enabling multiple users to participate in a game, customizing text, and narrating gameplay (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea and then it also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and then also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1, 16, and 20 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 1, 16, and 20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to 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.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “receiving a request to validate a token”, “validating a token”, “identifying an account associated with the token”, and “associating the account with player activity,” etc. (Claims 1, 16, and 20) are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of applying “receiving a request to validate a token”, “validating a token”, “identifying an account associated with the token”, and “associating the account with player activity,” etc. Independent Claim(s) 1, 16, and 20, and dependent claims 2-4, 10-15, and 17-19 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a vehicle. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., receiving a request to validate a token, validating a token, identifying an account associated with the token, and associating the account with player activity, etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of receiving a request to validate a token, validating a token, identifying an account associated with the token, and associating the account with player activity (Claim(s) 1, 16, and 20), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-4, 10-15, and 17-19 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claim(s) 1, 16, and 20, and dependent claims 2-4, 10-15, and 17-19 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of receiving a request to validate a token, validating a token, identifying an account associated with the token, and associating the account with player activity (Claim(s) 1, 16, and 20), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. selecting users (i.e. using a user interface) is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at paragraph [0078] acknowledges that “Embodiments described herein may be implemented in various configurations for gaming devices 100, including but not limited to: (1) a dedicated gaming device, wherein the computerized instructions for controlling any games (which are provided by the gaming device) are provided with the gaming device prior to delivery to a gaming establishment; and (2) a changeable gaming device, where the computerized instructions for controlling any games (which are provided by the gaming device) are downloadable to the gaming device through a data network when the gaming device is in a gaming establishment” (i.e. conventional nature of using a computer and/or computer program). This additional element therefore does not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-4, 10-15, and 17-19 are dependent from claims 1, 16, and 20 and include all the limitations of the independent claims, but fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 recite clarifications of redeeming account points, providing a game benefit to the player, requesting token transfer, transferring tokens to other players, storing account data in a blockchain, having account data and an account identifier, and encrypting data on the blockchain. Such clarifications, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely defining/selecting a type of data to be manipulated which, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claim 4, 10, 11, and 12 recite clarifications of storing tokens in a digital wallet, validating tokens at an electronic game machine (EGM), validating tokens at a mobile computing device, and validating tokens using a code scanning device. The limitations are further instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device/interface acting as an intermediary for performing the abstract ideas of receiving a request to validate a token, validating a token, identifying an account associated with the token, and associating the account with player activity, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-4, and 10-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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 1-4, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merati (US 2019/0180558 A1) in view of Luciano Jr. et al. (US 2002/0111210 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Merati discloses a system comprising:
a processor circuit ([0035] and a processor coupled to the network interface and the memory for executing the processor executable instructions); and
a memory comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit ([0035] and a processor coupled to the network interface and the memory for executing the processor executable instructions), cause the processor circuit to:
receive a request to validate a cryptographic token associated with a first player of a wagering game in a casino environment ([0106] For example, if a player scans a QR barcode at a gaming table using a QR reader app installed on his or her phone and is prompted (receive a request) to register or login to his or her C3 (Casino Crypto Currency) account, the player then can either use his or her C3 wallet to place a wager at a C3-enabled table or use regular casino chip);
validate a token identifier associated with the cryptographic token ([0097] The creation and recording of C3 transactions into a centralized ledger include creation of a fingerprint (token identifier) i.e. a digital signature that at any subsequent point in the future can prove the data’s integrity (validation), [0108] In this embodiment, for every gaming transaction, the IGO updates a user's account balance and verifies (validates) the account balance using the public, distributed ledger);
identify a player account associated with the cryptographic token ([0034] the first transaction comprising a wager comprising a first amount of the first digital currency, determining that the first transaction is associated with the first user from the first transaction information (identifying a player account associated with a cryptographic token)); and
associate the identified player account with player activity of the first player ([0035] a first account associated with a first user…, first transaction information from a first gaming operator system, the first transaction comprising a wager comprising a first amount of the first digital currency, determine, by the processor, that the first transaction is associated with the first user from the first transaction information (player activity of the first player)).
However, Merati is not relied upon disclosing identifying an anonymous player or an anonymous player account.
Luciano teaches identifying an anonymous player or an anonymous player account ([0128] The functions performed by the APID (Anonymous Player Identification) data coordinator are to collect and coordinate APIDs and data associated (player account) with one or more APIDs).
Merati and Luciano are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of casino gaming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a system for validating a cryptographic token, as disclosed by Merati, further including identifying an anonymous player account as taught by Luciano for the purpose of allowing people to play and keep track of certain game states over time, without being personally identified by a casino (Luciano, [0118]).
Regarding Claim 2, Merati discloses wherein the player activity comprises redemption of player account points associated with the player account by the first player ([0029] About twenty-five years ago, casinos started rewarding players with loyalty points (player account points) based on wagering activities. Casino loyalty points are typically redeemable at various amenities of a casino’s resort such as its hotel and restaurants).
However, Merati is not relied upon disclosing an anonymous player account.
Luciano teaches an anonymous player account ([0128] The functions performed by the APID (Anonymous Player Identification) data coordinator are to collect and coordinate APIDs and data associated (player account) with one or more APIDs).
Regarding Claim 3, Merati discloses wherein the player account comprises a player status, and wherein association of the identified player account with player activity of the first player comprises providing a game benefit to the first player during play of a wagering game by the first player ([0105] a program combined with bet recognition, card recognition, win recognition and chip inventory recognition can provide real-time win and loss accounting for a table game when using traditional casino chips, as well as better rating players (player status) and rewarding them (game benefit), [0106] is prompted to register or login to his or her C3 account (associated with account)… The player may then connect to a gaming server or loyalty server coupled to a bet determination system at the table through the Internet or a local WIFI network to receive loyalty points (game benefit) on a real time basis).
However, Merati is not relied upon disclosing an anonymous player account.
Luciano teaches an anonymous player account ([0128] The functions performed by the APID (Anonymous Player Identification) data coordinator are to collect and coordinate APIDs and data associated (player account) with one or more APIDs).
Regarding Claim 4, Merati discloses wherein the cryptographic token is stored with a digital wallet associated with the first player ([0100] Embodiments of the invention allow for a user's C3 to be managed by a digital wallet).
Regarding Claim 10, Merati discloses wherein receipt of the request to validate the cryptographic token is performed at an Electronic Game Machine (EGM) ([0034] An inter-gaming operator (IGO) server and method is described. In one embodiment, a method is performed by an inter-gaming operator computer server, for managing gaming and non-gaming transactions for a plurality of gaming operator systems (analogous to an EGM), [0106] a gaming server (analogous to an EGM), [0115] For example, if a C3 wager is made on a slot machine, the slot machine (gaming machine) may determine an outcome (validating a cryptographic token; if cryptographic casino currency (C3) wager is made, determine an outcome [Wingdings font/0xE0] if C3 is validated, determine an outcome), and a slot accounting system may record the slot machine's net results and report each gaming transaction to a IGO server (electronic element of gaming machine, thereby making it an EGM), i.e., either detailed information (such as a wager amount and/or a payoff amount)).
However, Merati is not relied upon disclosing anonymously validating a token.
Luciano teaches anonymously validating a token (Fig. 26 Element 2604 [Wingdings font/0xE0] If yes, perform step at 2606, if no perform step at 2608; “yes” is the validation step).
Regarding Claim 11, Merati discloses wherein receipt of the request to validate the cryptographic token is performed at mobile computing device associated with the first player ([0106] using a QR reader app installed on his or her phone).
However, Merati is not relied upon disclosing anonymously validating a token.
Luciano teaches anonymously validating a token (Fig. 26 Element 2604 [Wingdings font/0xE0] If yes, perform step at 2606, if no perform step at 2608; “yes” is the validation step).
Regarding Claim 12, Merati discloses wherein receipt of the request to validate the cryptographic token comprises scanning, by a code scanner device, a graphical code associated with the first player ([0106] using a QR reader app installed on his or her phone).
However, Merati is not relied upon disclosing anonymously validating a token.
Luciano teaches anonymously validating a token (Fig. 26 Element 2604 [Wingdings font/0xE0] If yes, perform step at 2606, if no perform step at 2608; “yes” is the validation step).
Regarding Claim 13, Merati discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to:
receive a request to execute a blockchain transaction to transfer possession of the cryptographic token from the first player to a second player ([0098]-[0101] blockchain transaction framework, [0098] create an orderly market for both sides of a transaction (functionally analogous to transactions to transfer possession of cryptographic tokens), [0099] C3 is a cryptographic currency that has chains of records tied together in blocks that may include player and game data on a distributed ledger (implies transaction of cryptographic tokens) with each transaction having immutable records to make fraudulent misuse of its data almost impossible); and
execute the blockchain transaction ([0100] Use of C3 for both gaming and non-gaming means C3 is maintained on a hybrid blockchain, i.e. C3 offers both the benefit of private and public blockchain through a middleware or a platform that converges the functionalities of public and private block chain networks).
Regarding Claim 14, Merati discloses wherein execution of the blockchain transaction comprises transferring the cryptographic token from a first digital wallet associated with the first player to a second digital wallet associated with the second player ([0098] stored in a combination of central and distributed ledgers (implies transfer of tokens from wallet to wallet) under the control of a licensed inter-gaming operator (“IGO”), [0100] C3 to be managed by a digital wallet).
Regarding Claim 15, Merati discloses wherein the cryptographic token has a first value before the blockchain transaction, and wherein execution of the blockchain transaction comprises modifying the first value of the cryptographic token to a second value different from the first value ([0034] creating a first account associated with a first user in response to a request from the first user, the first account for use with a first digital currency issued by a first gaming operator system, receiving first transaction information from a first gaming operator system , the first transaction comprising a wager comprising a first amount of the first digital currency , (account balance before wager)… reducing a balance of the first account by the first amount when the first transaction originated from a first gaming platform associated with the first gaming operator system, [0108] In this embodiment, for every gaming transaction, the IGO updates a user's account balance and verifies the account balance using the public, distributed ledger (ledger implies modifying first value to a second value different from the first value)).
Regarding Claim 16, Merati discloses a device comprising:
an input device ([0087] a user input device);
a processor circuit ([0035] a processor coupled to the network interface); and
a memory comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to ([0035] a processor coupled to the network interface and the memory for executing the processor executable instructions):
receive, via the input device, a request to validate a cryptographic token associated with a first player of a wagering game in a casino environment ([0106] a player scans a QR barcode at a gaming table using a QR reader app installed on his or her phone and is prompted to register (receive a request) or login to his or her C3 account);
validate a token identifier associated with the cryptographic token ([0097] The creation and recording of C3 transactions into a centralized ledger include creation of a fingerprint (token identifier) i.e. a digital signature that at any subsequent point in the future can prove the data’s integrity (validation), [0108] In this embodiment, for every gaming transaction, the IGO updates a user's account balance and verifies (validates) the account balance using the public, distributed ledger);
identify a player account associated with the cryptographic token ([0034] the first transaction comprising a wager comprising a first amount of the first digital currency, determining that the first transaction is associated with the first user from the first transaction information (identifying a player account associated with a cryptographic token)); and
associate the identified player account with player activity of the first player ([0035] a first account associated with a first user…, first transaction information from a first gaming operator system, the first transaction comprising a wager comprising a first amount of the first digital currency, determine, by the processor, that the first transaction is associated with the first user from the first transaction information (player activity of the first player)).
However, Merati is not relied upon disclosing an anonymous player account management device; and identifying an anonymous player or an anonymous player account.
Luciano teaches an anonymous player account management device ([0151] Because personal/APID (Anonymous Player ID) sequence generator 2136 is in operable communication with each device on the network, APIDS can be centrally managed and accessed from any device on the network (anonymous player account management device(s))); and identifying an anonymous player or an anonymous player account ([0128] The functions performed by the APID (Anonymous Player Identification) data coordinator are to collect and coordinate APIDs and data associated (player account) with one or more APIDs).
Regarding Claim 17, Merati discloses wherein account data for the player account is stored in a blockchain data structure associated with the cryptographic token (Fig. 5 Element 516 Blockchain Network, Fig. 13C Element 1340 Crypto-Blocks of Data are Stored, [0099] C3 is a cryptographic currency that has chains of records tied together in blocks that may include player and game data on a distributed ledger with each transaction having immutable records to make fraudulent misuse of its data almost impossible).
However, Merati is not relied upon disclosing the anonymous player account.
Luciano teaches wherein the anonymous player account ([0128] The functions performed by the APID (Anonymous Player Identification) data coordinator are to collect and coordinate APIDs and data associated (player account) with one or more APIDs).
Regarding Claim 18, Merati discloses wherein the account data comprises account identifier data and gameplay data ([0096] Such data/metrics may comprise including players' names/IDs, game IDs, wager amounts, times when wagers are placed, and results of wagers (account identifier and gameplay data), [0099] records maybe tied together using a unique ID (account identifier), [0102] C3 may be used to maintain a historical database of wagers (gameplay data)).
However, Merati is not relied upon disclosing the anonymous player account.
Luciano teaches wherein the anonymous player account ([0128] The functions performed by the APID (Anonymous Player Identification) data coordinator are to collect and coordinate APIDs and data associated (player account) with one or more APIDs).
Regarding Claim 19, Merati discloses wherein the gameplay data is encrypted on the blockchain data structure by a first encryption layer, and data that is not encrypted by the first encryption layer ([0100] Gaming data related to a user's wagers is recorded in a private database over a private network associated with each gaming operator, accessible only by authorized personnel, such as gaming operators and regulators, and non-gaming data may be maintained on a public network. The private network generates hash values (account identifier data) of all transactions and stores resulting crypto-blocks on a block chain network or in a local memory or database, [0101] It should also be mentioned that some parts of C3 data maybe be encrypted using conventional methods (first encryption layer) before hashed (hashing is a second encryption layer in this scenario)).
However, Merati is not relied upon disclosing wherein the account data comprises account identifier data for the anonymous player account.
Luciano teaches wherein the account data comprises account identifier data for the anonymous player account ([0128] The functions performed by the APID (Anonymous Player Identification) data coordinator are to collect and coordinate APIDs and data associated (player account) with one or more APIDs).
Regarding Claim 20, Merati discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a processor circuit, a request to validate a cryptographic token associated with a first player of a wagering game in a casino environment ([0035] and a processor coupled to the network interface and the memory for executing the processor executable instructions, [0097] The creation and recording of C3 transactions into a centralized ledger include creation of a fingerprint (token identifier) i.e. a digital signature that at any subsequent point in the future can prove the data’s integrity (validation), [0106] For example, if a player scans a QR barcode at a gaming table using a QR reader app installed on his or her phone and is prompted (receive a request) to register or login to his or her C3 (Casino Crypto Currency) account, the player then can either use his or her C3 wallet to place a wager at a C3-enabled table or use regular casino chip, [0108] In this embodiment, for every gaming transaction, the IGO updates a user's account balance and verifies (validates) the account balance using the public, distributed ledger);
validating, by the processor circuit, a token identifier associated with the cryptographic token ([0097] The creation and recording of C3 transactions into a centralized ledger include creation of a fingerprint (token identifier) i.e. a digital signature that at any subsequent point in the future can prove the data’s integrity (validation), [0108] In this embodiment, for every gaming transaction, the IGO updates a user's account balance and verifies (validates) the account balance using the public, distributed ledger);
identifying, by the processor circuit, an anonymous player account associated with the cryptographic token ([0034] the first transaction comprising a wager comprising a first amount of the first digital currency, determining that the first transaction is associated with the first user from the first transaction information (identifying a player account associated with a cryptographic token)); and
associating, by the processor circuit, the identified player account with player activity of the first player ([0035] a first account associated with a first user…, first transaction information from a first gaming operator system, the first transaction comprising a wager comprising a first amount of the first digital currency, determine, by the processor, that the first transaction is associated with the first user from the first transaction information (player activity of the first player)).
However, Merati is not relied upon disclosing identifying an anonymous player or an anonymous player account.
Luciano teaches identifying an anonymous player or an anonymous player account ([0128] The functions performed by the APID (Anonymous Player Identification) data coordinator are to collect and coordinate APIDs and data associated (player account) with one or more APIDs).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Upadrasta et al. (US 2024/0021046 A1) teaches systems and methods for use of cryptocurrencies in a casino gaming system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4629. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM, Monday through Thursday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights