DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on June 26, 2024 Claims 1-20 havebeen examined in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 6/26/2024, has been acknowledged.
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 1-19 are drawn to a device (i.e., a manufacture) and claim 20 is drawn to a method. As such, claims 1-20 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, 8, and 20, recite a system comprising: processing circuitry; and memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the system to perform operations comprising: determining an indication of a cryptographic token associated with a player, the cryptographic token comprising an indication of access to an event; determining an indication of gameplay by the player; and modifying the cryptographic token to adjust the access to the event based on the gameplay by the 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, 8, and 20 recite abstract ideas.
Representative Claim 1: A system comprising: processing circuitry; and memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the system to perform operations comprising: determining an indication of a cryptographic token associated with a player, the cryptographic token comprising an indication of access to an event; determining an indication of gameplay by the player; and modifying the cryptographic token to adjust the access to the event based on the gameplay by the player.
Representative Claim 8: An electronic gaming machine (“EGM”) comprising: processing circuitry; and memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the EGM to perform operations comprising: receiving an indication of a cryptographic token associated with a player, the cryptographic token comprising an indication of access to an event; and providing a wagering game to the player using a game feature based on the access to the event.
Representative Claim 20: A method comprising: determining a cryptographic token associated with a player, the cryptographic token comprising an indication of access to a non-gaming event; modifying a game feature of a wagering game provided to the player based on the access to the non-gaming event; and modifying the cryptographic token to adjust the access to the non-gaming event based on gameplay of the wagering game by the 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 processing circuitry, and an electronic gaming machine (EGM) 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, associating a token with a player, indicating the token comprises access to an event; checking to see if a player is playing a game; and adjusting access to an event depending on how the player plays a game (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 (associating a token with a player, indicating the token comprises access to an event, checking to see if a player is in a game) and/or evaluation (adjusting access to an event depending on how the player plays a game)). 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, 8, and 20 recite abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2-7, and 9-19 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, 8, 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, 8, 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 “determining that a token is associated with a player”, “indicating the token provides access to an event”, “determining if a player is playing a game”, and “changing the token to provide access to an event based on a player’s gameplay” etc. (Claims 1, 8, 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 “determining that a token is associated with a player”, “indicating the token provides access to an event”, “determining if a player is playing a game”, and “changing the token to provide access to an event based on a player’s gameplay” etc. Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 20, and dependent claims 2-7, and 9-19 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., determining that a token is associated with a player, indicating the token provides access to an event, determining if a player is playing a game, and changing the token to provide access to an event based on a player’s gameplay 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 determining that a token is associated with a player, indicating the token provides access to an event, determining if a player is playing a game, and changing the token to provide access to an event based on a player’s gameplay (Claim(s) 1, 8, 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 2-7, and 9-19 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, 8, and 20, and dependent claims 2-7, and 9-19 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 determining that a token is associated with a player, indicating the token provides access to an event, determining if a player is playing a game, and changing the token to provide access to an event based on a player’s gameplay (Claim(s) 1, 8, 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 paragraphs [0036], [0039], and [0045] acknowledges that “As shown in FIG. 2B, the gaming device 100 may include a processor circuit 12 that controls operations of the gaming device 100. Although illustrated as a single processor circuit, multiple special purpose and/or general-purpose processors and/or processor cores may be provided in the gaming device 100. For example, the gaming device 100 may include one or more of a video processor, a signal processor, a sound processor and/or a communication controller that performs one or more control functions within the gaming device 100”, “The memory device 14 may store program code and instructions, executable by the processor circuit 12, to control the gaming device 100. The memory device 14 may also store other data such as image data, event data, player input data, random or pseudo-random number generators, pay-table data or information and applicable game rules that relate to the play of the gaming device”, and “In some embodiments, the gaming device 100 may be operable over a wireless network, such as part of a wireless gaming system. In such embodiments, the gaming machine may be a hand-held device, a mobile device or any other suitable wireless device that enables a player to play any suitable game at a variety of different locations” (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 2-7, and 9-19 are dependent from claims 1, 8, 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, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19 recite clarifications of receiving information that a cryptographic token is associated with a virtual wallet, modifying a token to alter level of access to an event based on gameplay or otherwise, using a specific game feature, using a specific game feature whether the token has or has not been used to access an event or outcome of the event, the event being a real-world or in-game event, modifying a cosmetic element, modifying a payout, and increasing the value of access to an event. 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 3, 5, 6, 7, and 18 recite clarifications of displaying a notification that a game is being played, sending a message indicating that game performance will result in an event, determining that gameplay has met a threshold amount/value, transmitting instructions to modify a game or game feature, and displaying a progress indicator to show progress towards obtaining access to an event. 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 determining that a token is associated with a player, indicating the token provides access to an event, determining if a player is playing a game, and changing the token to provide access to an event based on a player’s gameplay, 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 1-20 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 1-7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartholomew (US 2012/0142432 A1) in view of Freire (US 2023/0153802 A1), in view of Barba et al. (US 2023/0376572 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Bartholomew discloses a system comprising ([0020] A player specific game system (PSGS)):
processing circuitry ([0029] The PSGS server 60 may be embodied by a single or multi-processor computer having 1-4 CPUs); and
memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the system to perform operations comprising ([0022] stored on an accounting system (memory), [0025] player inserts his or her card into card reader 30 of EGM 10, information related to that player's account is fetched from the host computer, transmitted on the network, and stored in the RAM (memory)):
determining an indication of a token associated with a player, the token comprising an indication of access to an event ([0025] When the player inserts his or her card into card reader 30 of EGM 10, information related to that player's account is fetched from the host computer (indication of association with player), [0038] Some of the bonuses are available to carded and uncarded players, while other bonuses are available only to carded players (access to an event). In one particular bonus, available only to carded players, the players take a simulated “journey” (virtual event));
determining an indication of gameplay by the player ([0088] When a player places a bet (indication of gameplay by the player), the EGM 10 generates a Patron Bet message, which is received by the PSGS server 60 and updates the particular database 62, 64); and
modifying the token to adjust the access to the event based on the gameplay by the player ([0038] A player advances to another point on the journey when events occur. For instance, in a simple embodiment, the journey may begin after the carded (token) player has played for 'x' minutes, or has played “y” number of games, or has played “z” amount of value in the game (adjusting access to the event based on the gameplay by the player), [0074] Once the record is sent to the EGM 10, the game makes adjustments (modifications) based on the record in a process 260. For example, if the player had already progressed to the third of ten stops in the reward journey (based on gameplay by the player), then the EGM 10 would change to a state where the third stop had already been reached (adjusting access to an event)).
However, Bartholomew is not relied upon disclosing a cryptographic token; and modifying the cryptographic token to adjust the access to the event based on the gameplay by the player.
Freire teaches a cryptographic token ([0023] The token server may be further programmed to grant use of the at least one licensor crypto token based on at least one of an account, [0119] By using the crypto tokens to manage the licensure of proxy persons, players or teams, the real persons, players or teams represented by the proxy).
Bartholomew and Freire 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 determining an object associated with a player where that object is modified to adjust access to an event based on an indication of a player’s gameplay, as disclosed by Bartholomew, further including a cryptographic token as taught by Freire for the purpose of creating proof of ownership for a unique digital or physical asset of at least one licensor (Freire, [0036]).
However, Freire is not relied upon disclosing modifying the cryptographic token to adjust the access to the event based on the gameplay by the player.
Barba teaches modifying the cryptographic token to adjust the access to the event based on the gameplay by the player ([0038] Over time, linked NFT (analogous to a cryptographic token) 124/224 can gain attributes and properties (modifications and access to events through newly acquired attributes and/or properties) that reflect key events or account activity of user account 116/216 related to content 112/212 consumed by user 118/218 that is relevant to NFT 124/224 or an activity or activities engaged in by user (such as gameplay) 118/218 that are relevant to NFT 124/224).
Bartholomew and Barba 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 determining an object associated with a player where that object is modified to adjust access to an event based on an indication of a player’s gameplay, as disclosed by Bartholomew, further including a cryptographic token to adjust the access to the event based on the gameplay by the player as taught by Barba for the purpose of creating NFTs that are living artifacts that can be linked to a timeline of content (Barba, [0039]).
Regarding Claim 2, Bartholomew discloses receiving an identifier of the player from an electronic gaming machine (“EGM”) providing a wagering game to the player ([0021]-[0022] Prior to playing one of the EGMs in FIG. 1, the player inserts the card into reader 30 thus permitting the player tracking system 40 to track player activity, Such as amounts wagered and won and rate of play),
wherein determining the indication of the token associated with the player comprises retrieving the indication of the token associated with the identifier of the player ([0036] Identified players are known as “carded” players because they identify themselves by placing an identification card into a card reader 28 (FIG. 1)).
However, Bartholomew is not relied upon disclosing wherein determining the indication of the cryptographic token associated with the player comprises retrieving the indication of the cryptographic token from a virtual wallet associated with the identifier of the player.
Freire teaches wherein a cryptographic token ([0023] The token server may be further programmed to grant use of the at least one licensor crypto token based on at least one of an account, [0119] By using the crypto tokens to manage the licensure of proxy persons, players or teams, the real persons, players or teams represented by the proxy); determining the indication of the cryptographic token associated with the player comprises retrieving the indication of the cryptographic token from a virtual wallet associated with the identifier of the player ([0121] The at least one licensee apparatus 130 may store the at least one licensor crypto token 10 in a digital wallet that may be part of the app and/or a website linked to the token server 110 and/or the blockchain 140, [0133] The at least one licensee apparatus 130 may be further programmed to store the at least one licensor crypto token 10 in a digital wallet).
Regarding Claim 3, Bartholomew discloses wherein determining the indication of the gameplay by the player comprises receiving an indication of the gameplay by the player from an electronic gaming machine (“EGM”) providing a wagering game to the player ([0025] When the player inserts his or her card into card reader 30 of EGM 10, information related to that player's account is fetched from the host computer, trans mitted on the network, and stored in the RAM included in SMIB 22 of EGM 10… In accordance with the present invention, the player's account may also include credits that may be transferred by the player from the player's account to the credit meter on the machine and thereafter wagered by the player (indication of gameplay from EGM, providing a wagering game)).
Regarding Claim 4, Bartholomew discloses wherein the access to the event comprises a first level of access to the event, and replacing the first level of access with a second level of access to the event based on the gameplay ([0026] The earned credit multiplier is a number between 1 and 10 and can be made higher for higher level (and thus higher valued) players (levels of access), [0038] For example, the journey may include 10 stopping points and the player advances to the next stopping point after the player has the minimum amount of coin-in since the previous stopping point (second level of access based on gameplay)).
However, Bartholomew is not relied upon disclosing modifying the cryptographic token to change access to the event.
Barba teaches modifying the cryptographic token to change access to the event ([0053]-[0057] Modifying access upon meeting a user activity threshold; [0056] As noted above, the account activity in user account 116/216 may include the attendance history of user 118/218 at a venue. In some implementations, modifying the one or more attributes of NFT 124/224 in action 365 may be further based on that attendance history (modifying access based on user activity)… In some implementations in which modifying the one or more attributes of NFT 124/224 in action 365 is further based on an attendance history of user 118/218 at a venue, modifying the one or more attributes of NFT 124/224 may entitle user 118/218 to a VR. AR, or MR experience. (VR/AR/MR experience is a second level of access)).
Regarding Claim 5, Bartholomew discloses the operations further comprising: determining that there is availability of the second level of access to the event ([0038] The game can include one or more bonuses. Some of the bonuses are available to carded and uncarded players, while other bonuses are available only to carded players (determine availability of access when player inserts card or decides to play the game). In one particular bonus, available only to carded players, the players take a simulated “journey” (event and/or second level of access from base game) along a path beginning at a first location (first level of access) and ending at a known destination (second or higher level of access); [0057] The system checks to see if any multiplier currently applies to the machine and player. The multiplier is available as a token and can communicate to the guest via display on the EGM (multiplier is an event)); and
transmitting an indication to a device associated with the player indicating that performance of the gameplay by the player will result in replacing the first level of access with the second level of access to the event ([0043]-[0048] Displays Reward Messaging to Player; [0048] an amount of money that the player could win by completing the reward journey (second level of access); [0057] The multiplier would be displayed using a conditional message feature of the display. Session points would accumulate at the “multiplied” rate and are displayed as such on the EGM display (indicating to player that performance of gameplay will result in replacing 1st level of access (base game with no multiplier) with a second level of access (base game with the multiplier) to the event)).
However, Bartholomew is not relied upon disclosing replacing the first level of access with the second level of access to the event.
Barba teaches replacing the first level of access with the second level of access to the event ([0039] Alternatively, in some implementations, modification of NFT 124/224 could take effect in response to affirmative consumption of content 112/212 by user 118/218, or in response to activities engaged in by user 118/218; [0053]-[0057] Modifying access upon meeting a user activity threshold; [0056] As noted above, the account activity in user account 116/216 may include the attendance history of user 118/218 at a venue. In some implementations, modifying the one or more attributes of NFT 124/224 in action 365 may be further based on that attendance history (modifying access based on user activity)… In some implementations in which modifying the one or more attributes of NFT 124/224 in action 365 is further based on an attendance history of user 118/218 at a venue, modifying the one or more attributes of NFT 124/224 may entitle user 118/218 to a VR. AR, or MR experience (VR/AR/MR experience is a second level of access)).
Regarding Claim 6, Bartholomew discloses wherein modifying the token comprises: determining that the gameplay comprises a threshold amount of gameplay of a specific wagering game within a period of time associated with a time of the event ([0038] Using coin-in is a convenient way to measure patron activity. For example, the journey may include 10 stopping points and the player advances to the next stopping point after the player has the minimum amount of coin-in since the previous stopping point (threshold amount of gameplay); [0068] The PSGS server 60 may modify machine paytables at games to which it is connected every hour (time period associated with a time of the event). Therefore, a particular machine outcome at 5:00 am may be different from one at 11:00 pm); and
modifying the access to the event based on determining that the gameplay comprises a threshold amount of gameplay of a specific wagering game ([0038] For instance, in a simple embodiment, the journey may begin after the carded player has played for 'x' minutes, or has played “y” number of games, or has played “Z” amount of value in the game. The last determination, amount of value played in the game is known as “coin-in', and is a measure of how much money the patron has spent on the game, no matter how long it took the patron to do so (threshold amount of gameplay), [0068] In short, the PSGS system 8 control of modified game tables can extend down to the level of a different paytable for a player for each and every single game to which the PSGS system is connected (modifying access to event based on any given factor including but not limited to, gameplay, demographics, and/or time of day)).
However, Bartholomew is not relied upon disclosing a cryptographic token; and modifying the cryptographic token to adjust the access to the event within a period of time associated with a time of the event.
Freire teaches a cryptographic token ([0023] The token server may be further programmed to grant use of the at least one licensor crypto token based on at least one of an account, [0119] By using the crypto tokens to manage the licensure of proxy persons, players or teams, the real persons, players or teams represented by the proxy).
However, Freire is not relied upon teaching modifying the cryptographic token to adjust the access to the event within a period of time associated with a time of the event.
Barba teaches modifying the cryptographic token to adjust the access to the event within a period of time associated with a time of the event ([0052] Continuing to refer to FIGS. 1, 2, and 3 in combination, flowchart 360 further includes modifying, based on one or both of the content viewing history of user 118/218 or the release date of content 112/212 available to user 118/218, one or more attributes of NFT (cryptographic token) 124/224 (action 365). It is noted that, in some implementations user 118/218 must merely reach certain timestamps for the modification of NFT 124/224 to take place. The amount of time required can be dependent on content 112/212 itself. For example, assume that NFT 124/224 is minted so as to be associated with certain character in broadcast TV or streaming series (typically associated with a certain airing time): if that character only appears within the first few minutes of an episode, user 118/218 may only have to watch until the time that appearance of the character concludes (time period of time associated with event), i.e., those first few minutes of the episode).
Regarding Claim 7, Bartholomew discloses the operations further comprising: transmitting instructions to modify a game feature associated with a wagering game being provided to the player based on the token ([0068] Additionally, if a player known to the PSGS server 60 is playing a machine at 5:00 am, the PSGS could be programmed to either override the standard “modified” paytable, or to load the paytable that has been “created” for that particular player).
However, Bartholomew is not relied upon disclosing a cryptographic token.
Freire teaches a cryptographic token ([0023] The token server may be further programmed to grant use of the at least one licensor crypto token based on at least one of an account, [0119] By using the crypto tokens to manage the licensure of proxy persons, players or teams, the real persons, players or teams represented by the proxy).
Regarding Claim 20, Bartholomew discloses a method comprising: determining a token associated with a player ([0022] Card reader 30 reads a player-tracking card that is issued by the casino to individual players who choose to have such a card);
modifying a game feature of a wagering game provided to the player based on the access to the non-gaming event ([0055] Multipliers (game feature) can also be applied to groups of players such as those born in a particular month, all women, everyone over a certain age, or anyone from a certain geographic location (e.g. limited by city and/or state). Multiple point rewards may also be granted based on individual achievement such as the achievement of a personal play goal, where a random award is made to the player based on a casino visit, as well as an awarding the multiple based on a machine game outcome such as when a Lucky Coin result is hit); and
modifying the token to adjust the access to the non-gaming event based on gameplay of the wagering game by the player ([0038] A player advances to another point on the journey when events occur. For instance, in a simple embodiment, the journey may begin after the carded player has played for 'x' minutes, or has played “y” number of games, or has played “z” amount of value in the game (adjusting access to the event based on the gameplay by the player)).
However, Bartholomew is not relied upon disclosing a cryptographic token; indication of access to an event; determining a cryptographic token associated with a player, the cryptographic token comprising an indication of access to a non-gaming event; and modifying the cryptographic token to adjust the access to the non-gaming event.
Freire teaches a cryptographic token ([0023] The token server may be further programmed to grant use of the at least one licensor crypto token based on at least one of an account, [0119] By using the crypto tokens to manage the licensure of proxy persons, players or teams, the real persons, players or teams represented by the proxy); indication of access to an event ([0021] The at least one licensee apparatus may be further programmed to gain access to use the digital or physical asset of the at least one licensor in at least one of the game (event), the fantasy sport, and the wagering opportunity in response to obtaining the license (indication of access) for the at least one licensor crypto token).
However, Freire is not relied upon teaching determining a cryptographic token associated with a player, the cryptographic token comprising an indication of access to a non-gaming event; and modifying the cryptographic token to adjust the access to the non-gaming event.
Barba teaches determining a cryptographic token associated with a player, the cryptographic token comprising an indication of access to a non-gaming event ([0044] In use cases in which the modification to NFT 124/224 owned by user 118/218 is based on a location visited by user 118/218, that location may be a real-world location such as a city, a recreation or resort property, an entertainment venue, a hotel, a cruise ship, or the immediate vicinity (non-gaming events). e.g., within ten feet or any other predetermined distance, of a physical object or coordinate (e.g., latitude and longitude)); and modifying the cryptographic token to adjust the access to the non-gaming event ([0056] As noted above, the account activity in user account 116/216 may include the attendance history of user 118/218 at a venue. In some implementations, modifying the one or more attributes of NFT 124/224 in action 365 may be further based on that attendance history).
Claims 8-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartholomew (US 2012/0142432 A1) in view of Freire (US 2023/0153802 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Bartholomew discloses an electronic gaming machine (“EGM”) comprising ([0028] Although only one detailed EGM 10 is illustrated in FIG. 1, multiple EGMs 10 can be connected to the PSGS server 60 over a separate or shared communication link 52):
processing circuitry ([0029] The PSGS server 60 may be embodied by a single or multi-processor computer having 1-4 CPUs); and
memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the EGM to perform operations comprising ([0022] stored on an accounting system (memory), [0025] player inserts his or her card into card reader 30 of EGM 10, information related to that player's account is fetched from the host computer, transmitted on the network, and stored in the RAM (memory)):
receiving an indication of a token associated with a player, the token comprising an indication of access to an event ([0025] When the player inserts his or her card into card reader 30 of EGM 10, information related to that player's account is fetched from the host computer (indication of association with player), [0038] Some of the bonuses are available to carded and uncarded players, while other bonuses are available only to carded players (access to an event). In one particular bonus, available only to carded players, the players take a simulated “journey” (virtual event)); and
providing a wagering game to the player using a game feature based on the access to the event ([0038] A player advances to another point on the journey when events occur. For instance, in a simple embodiment, the journey may begin after the carded player has played for 'x' minutes, or has played “y” number of games, or has played “z” amount of value in the game (adjusting access to the event based on the gameplay by the player)).
However, Bartholomew is not relied upon disclosing a cryptographic token.
Freire teaches a cryptographic token ([0083] Additionally, the token server 110 may have a program running thereon to determine any transactions of at least one licensor crypto token 10 over the network, such as a non-fungible token (NFT), cryptocurrency, and/or any other computer-generated encrypted token).
Regarding Claim 9, Bartholomew discloses wherein the indication of access to the event comprises an indication that the token has been used to access the event ([0046]), and
wherein providing the wagering game to the player using the game feature comprises using a specific game feature based on the toke having been used to access the event ([0057] In use, the player would insert his or her player card at the EGM 10. The system checks to see if any multiplier currently applies to the machine and player).
However, Bartholomew is not relied upon disclosing a cryptographic token.
Freire teaches a cryptographic token ([0083] Additionally, the token server 110 may have a program running thereon to determine any transactions of at least one licensor crypto token 10 over the network, such as a non-fungible token (NFT), cryptocurrency, and/or any other computer-generated encrypted token).
Regarding Claim 10, Bartholomew discloses wherein the indication of access to the event comprises an indication that the token has not been used to access the event ([0047] If a non-carded player is playing the game on the EGM 10, the reward messaging area 112 can illustrate enticing messages that invite the non-carded player to register to become a carded player), and
wherein providing the wagering game to the player using the game feature comprises using a specific game feature based on the toke having not been used to access the event ([0037] These special game features may be advertised to uncarded players to give them an extra incentive to join the loyalty program in the casino where the game is located).
However, Bartholomew is not relied upon disclosing a cryptographic token.
Freire teaches a cryptographic token ([0083] Additionally, the token server 110 may have a program running thereon to determine any transactions of at least one licensor crypto token 10 over the network, such as a non-fungible token (NFT), cryptocurrency, and/or any other computer-generated encrypted token).
Regarding Claim 11, Bartholomew discloses wherein the indication of access to the event comprises an indication of an access level to the event, and wherein providing the wagering game to the player using the game feature comprises using a specific game feature based on the access level to the event ([0026] The earned credit multiplier is a number between 1 and 10 and can be made higher for higher level (and thus higher valued) players (access level). In this way, higher level (e.g. more desirable) players are encouraged to play more often at the casino by receiving a higher bonus award for a certain level of play).
Regarding Claim 13, Bartholomew discloses wherein the event comprises an in-game event ([0038] In one particular bonus, available only to carded players, the players take a simulated “journey” along a path beginning at a first location and ending at a known destination (in-game event)).
Regarding Claim 14, Bartholomew discloses wherein providing the wagering game to the player using the game feature comprises modifying a cosmetic element of the wagering game based on the access to the event ([0045] Messages and graphics (cosmetic elements) can be shown informing the player that certain benefits are available to a carded player that are not available to an uncarded player; [0069] The PSGS system 60 is able to use past and present data about the player to provide individualized messages (cosmetic element) to the player through the display 12 of the EGM, or, in other embodiments, though a display, [0074] Next, the EGM 10 displays a personalized message (cosmetic element) in the reward area 112 of the gamescreen 12).
Regarding Claim 15, Bartholomew discloses wherein providing the wagering game to the player using the game feature comprises modifying a payout of the wagering game based on the access to the event ([0068] Therefore, a particular machine outcome at 5:00 am may be different from one at 11:00 pm. Additionally, if a player known to the PSGS server 60 is playing a machine at 5:00 am, the PSGS could be programmed to either override the standard “modified” paytable, or to load the paytable that has been “created” for that particular player).
Regarding Claim 16, Bartholomew discloses wherein providing the wagering game to the player using the game feature comprises using a specific game feature based on an outcome of the event ([0004] Regardless of whether money is used, scoring (game feature) is set prior to the participants beginning play. For example, in fantasy football, the participants may earn points if one of their players completes a touchdown, recovers a fumble, and/or runs over twenty-five yards (outcomes of an event)).
Regarding Claim 17, Bartholomew discloses wherein providing the wagering game to the player using the game feature comprises using a specific game feature based on a current time relative to a time of the event ([0068] Therefore, a particular machine outcome at 5:00 am may be different from one at 11:00 pm. Additionally, if a player known to the PSGS server 60 is playing a machine at 5:00 am, the PSGS could be programmed to either override the standard “modified” paytable, or to load the paytable that has been “created” for that particular player).
Regarding Claim 18, Bartholomew discloses wherein providing the wagering game to the player using the game feature comprises displaying an indicator of an amount of gameplay required by the player to improve an access level of the access to the event ([0038] An indicator of where the player is on the journey advances along a displayed route, so the player knows where they are in the journey. A player advances to another point on the journey when events occur).
Regarding Claim 19, Bartholomew discloses the operations further comprising: modifying the token to increase a value of the access to the event based on gameplay by the player ([0026] The earned credit multiplier is a number between 1 and 10 and can be made higher for higher level (and thus higher valued) players. In this way, higher level (e.g. more desirable) players are encouraged to play more often at the casino by receiving a higher bonus award for a certain level of play).
However, Bartholomew is not relied upon disclosing a cryptographic token.
Freire teaches a cryptographic token ([0083] Additionally, the token server 110 may have a program running thereon to determine any transactions of at least one licensor crypto token 10 over the network, such as a non-fungible token (NFT), cryptocurrency, and/or any other computer-generated encrypted token).
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartholomew (US 2012/0142432 A1) in view of Freire (US 2023/0153802 A1), and in further view of Barba et al. (US 2023/0376572 B2).
Regarding Claim 12, Bartholomew discloses wherein the event comprises a real-world event.
However, Bartholomew is not relied upon disclosing wherein the event comprises a real-world event.
Barba teaches wherein the event comprises a real-world event ([0043] Alternatively, or in addition, in various implementations the modification to NFT 124/224 owned by user 118/218 may be based on one or more of purchases by user 118/218, events such as movie premieres and sporting events attended by user 118/218, theme park rides or experiences enjoyed by user 118/218, or locations visited by user 118/218, to name a few examples).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fowler et al. (US 2022/0253811 A1) teaches interactive and dynamic digital events.
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