DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application as filed on July 25, 2024. Claims 1-27 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 23, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 8A-16B are grayscale. According to MPEP 608.01:
Legibility includes ability to be photocopied and scanned so that suitable reprints can be made and paper can be electronically reproduced by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition. This requires a high contrast, with black lines and a white background. Gray lines and/or a gray background sharply reduce photo reproduction quality.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 § CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13-15, 17, 20-22, 24, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13-15, 17, 20-22, 24, and 27 recite the language “screen shift value,” which is unclear. The term “screen shift value” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a definition or description of this term such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the meaning of this term. For example, is this a monetary value associated with play of the ticket or this display data value that is used to indicate how, when, or where to perform a screen shift. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. For purposes of examination this is interpreted as a monetary value.
Claim 2 recites the language “refocuses.” However, these terms are unclear within the context of the claim. The term “refocus” implies there was a previous focus in the claims; however, no other focusing is described in the claims. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 11 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claim 11, the claim recites the limitations “the at least one game symbol” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 27, the claim recites the limitations “the method of claim 13” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is a system not a method. It is believed this claim should depend from claim 20.
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 20 are directed to systems and a method. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309 (1980).
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, “A system and method for providing embedded feature electronic pull-tab game sessions are described. More particularly, the embedded feature electronic pull-tabs include embedded pre-reveal features that are visible prior, during, and after the game session, and may be presented to the player prior, during, and after the game session.” (par. 2).
Representative claim 20 recites the following (with emphasis):
A pull-tab gaming method comprising:
generating an electronic pull-tab deck, by a network component, that includes a plurality of electronic pull-tab tickets, in which each of the plurality of electronic pull-tab tickets includes a ticket value, a screen shift value, a foreground display area, and a background display area;
providing a plurality of game symbol display positions associated with the foreground display area;
providing a plurality of value symbol display positions associated with the background display area;
communicatively coupling a gaming device to the network component, wherein the gaming device includes a processor, a memory, and a display;
generating, by one of the plurality of gaming devices, an electronic pull-tab ticket request;
communicating, by the gaming device, the electronic pull-tab ticket request to the network component;
selecting, by the network component, one electronic pull-tab ticket having a non-zero screen shift value;
receiving, by the gaming device, the selected electronic pull-tab ticket having the non-zero screen shift value from the network component and displaying an image associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket at the foreground display area; and
receiving, by the gaming device, a game input that causes the gaming device to perform a screen shift action corresponding to the selected electronic pull-tab ticket frameshift value, wherein the screen shift action focuses the gaming device display on the background display area, wherein the screen shift action further displays at least one value symbol in at least one value symbol display position.
The underlined portions of claim 20 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially identical features in the system claims 1, 7, and 13. The dependent claims further define the abstract idea by introducing various rules to the game (e.g., prize multipliers, revealing values, etc.) or relate to implementation of the abstract idea (e.g., refocusing players attention, providing effects (zooming, animations), and awarding compensation (ticket value)). The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
a method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., playing a game with generate pull-tab tickets with value that can be exchanged for money, which are effectively methods of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the game) as discussed in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014), In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018),
a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in In re Smith, and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,
a method of managing a game similar to that of managing a game of bingo in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App'x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential);
a set of game rules similar to updating future game conditions based on past results to keep players engaged, as discussed in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021); and/or
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., allowing a human player to play an award-providing game according to rules of the game method) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The claimed abstract idea reproduced above is effectively providing embedded feature electronic pull-tab game sessions with electronic pull-tabs including embedded pre-reveal features that are visible prior, during, and after the game session, and may be presented to the player prior, during, and after the game session based on probabilities created during the game (see Smith, Marco Guldenaar, and Alice). Based on the reasoning in Smith, and Marco Guldenaar, the recited steps of conducting a game in the instant claims relate to the “fundamental economic practice” of rules for conducting a game. The abstract idea is also similar to that of Planet Bingo, in which a method of managing a bingo game was found to be an abstract idea. Though the instant claims are not limited to bingo games, they encompass the management of similar games. The abstract idea is also comparable to the game rules presented on gaming machines in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, in which a future game conditions where updated based on past results to keep players engaged. Finally, the claims allow a player to win an award, which is a financial transaction based on the rules of the game. Such transactions are akin to the sort of organizing of human activities, i.e., risk hedging, discussed in Bilski (and shadow accounts in Alice).
Under prong 1, the above analysis demonstrates that the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely provide instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, add only extra solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. While certain physical elements (e.g., elements that are not an abstract idea such as server devices) are present in the claims, such features do not effect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine (only generic gaming components), (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., a client-server environment), such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims encompass the following additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se: a network component, a gaming device including a processor, a memory, and a display to carry out the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The specification with regard to gaming devices admits, that “player interface unit 200 can comprise the authorized mobile device 112, the point-of-sale device 114, and any combination thereof. For example, the illustrative player interface unit 200 may be one of the plurality of authorized mobile devices 112 that are associated with each venue. The illustrative player interface unit 200 includes a central computing element 202 with a processor 204 and memory storage 206” (spec. 58), and “non-mobile client devices include, but are not limited to, wired devices such as gaming machines, slot machines, PCs, stationary monitors, Internet appliances, Internet of Things (loT) devices and other such non-mobile devices with hardwire connections or wireless connections to the Wide Area Network 106.” (Spec. 48).
Additionally, the specification indicates with regard to network components “the illustrative gaming system 100 includes a plurality of server applications that are configured to provide high-availability and redundancy, process all inputs and generates outputs” spec. 50 “With respect to network communications between the internal server components, the illustrative server components operate as a single network, in which the servers can communicate with one another using service requests. By way of example and not of limitation, the illustrative internal server components have two internet protocol addresses, namely, a Private IP used to maintain the server network and ensuring secure server-to-server communication, and a Public IP that is bound to the Internet and that provides access to server services through high security communications such as HTTPS. The internal server components use their private IPs for server-to-server communication so that these services are not exposed to the Internet, the game application running on the authorized mobile devices and the POS devices.”
Therefore, the specification describes the client devices and server devices in generic and functional terms, which illustrates that these are merely off-the-shelf computer components arranged in conventional ways. As a result, nothing in Applicant’s specification indicates the computer system performs anything other than well understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as receiving, storing, and processing. See, Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (ed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the [S]pecification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”); see also Alice, 573 US. at 224—26 (receiving, storing, sending information over networks insufficient to add an inventive concept); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1340, 1355 (ed. Cir, 2014) (That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”). At best, Applicant’s claimed subject matter simply uses generic processing circuitry to perform the abstract idea of converting input data from one form to another (e.g., a pull tab ticket value to a display element). As noted above, the use of a generic computer system does not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As our reviewing court has observed, “after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 223).
Taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer itself, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-13, 15-20, 23-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0139167 by Weaver et al. (“Weaver”), or, in the alternative, as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver in view of YouTube Video of Electronic Pull-Tab Game Diesel Freakz (“Diesel”).
In re claims 1 and 20, Weaver discloses a pull-tab gaming system and method implemented by the system [Figs. 1, 3, and 12, ¶201] comprising: generating an electronic pull-tab deck, by a network component, that includes a plurality of electronic pull-tab tickets, in which each of the plurality of electronic pull-tab tickets includes a ticket value, a screen shift value, a foreground display area, and a background display area [Figs. 1, 3, 12A-12D, ¶¶132-143, 200-210, among others, describe centralized gaming system 100 with network components (e.g., 102, 302, 304, 316 320, 322) include electronic pull-tab games with a deck including a plurality of tickets. Centralized resource server 302 may also be configured to operate as a central authority for generation of finite decks of predetermined electronic pull-tab results. The pull tab tickets have a ticket value that is revealed to players by shifting display images including showing monetary values, awards, and symbols associated with the ticket. Background and foreground are shown in the screen shots of the games in Figs. 12A-12D]; providing a plurality of game symbol display positions associated with the foreground display area [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, show various game symbol]; providing a plurality of value symbol display positions associated with the background display area [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, describe/show a background area where fisherman is fishing for symbols]; communicatively coupling a gaming device to the network component, wherein the gaming device includes a processor, a memory, and a display [Fig. 2 shows gaming device 200 with processor 204, memory 206, and display 208, ¶¶118, 127]; generating, by one of the plurality of gaming devices, an electronic pull-tab ticket request [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, describe player interface of gaming devices includes a user input to play the game and communicate request with the centralized gaming system]; communicating, by the gaming device, the electronic pull-tab ticket request to the network component [Figs. 1, 3, 12A-12D, ¶¶132-143, 200-210, among others, describe gaming device communicates with the centralized game system including its content generating servers to play the games, including pull-tab games]; selecting, by the network component, one electronic pull-tab ticket having a non-zero screen shift value [Figs. 1, 3, 12A-12D, ¶¶132-143, 200-210, among others, describe providing a pull-tab tickets including tickets with associated monetary values]; receiving, by the gaming device, the selected electronic pull-tab ticket having the non-zero screen shift value from the network component and displaying an image associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket at the foreground display area [Figs. 8C, 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, describe user interface provide game play with foreground display area shown in screen shots]; and receiving, by the gaming device, a game input that causes the gaming device to perform a screen shift action corresponding to the selected electronic pull-tab ticket frameshift value, wherein the screen shift action focuses the gaming device display on the background display area, wherein the screen shift action further displays at least one value symbol in at least one value symbol display position [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, describe game play in which screen is shifted to reveal values associated with pull-tab tickets when playing the game including displaying values (e.g., $1, $.25, and $50) and display symbols in the background display area including Figs. 12C and 12D].
While it is submitted that Weaver describes screen shift including the foreground and background areas, to the extent Weaver lacks these features, Diesel teaches a pull-tab game with the selected electronic pull-tab ticket including displaying an image associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket at the foreground display area [Video at time 0:12/1:14 shows screen with images shown in Foreground] causes the gaming device to perform a screen shift action corresponding to the selected electronic pull-tab ticket frameshift value, wherein the screen shift action focuses the gaming device display on the background display area, wherein the screen shift action further displays at least one value symbol in at least one value symbol display position [Video at 0:20/1:14 shows screen shifts to background with symbols shown at 0:23 and revealed values (e.g., $0.40) which shift to total winnings #1.00].
Weaver and Diesel are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic pull-tab games. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pull-tab games of Weaver and include the screen shifts, as taught by Diesel, in order to improve user experience, for example, by providing a more dynamic, entertaining screen.
In re claims 4 and 23, Weaver discloses the network component awards the ticket value to a player account [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶115, 116, 138, 139, 165, 200-210, among others, , awarding prize or value to player of the pull-tab game and prize amounts are awarded to user accounts managed by the central gaming system].
In re claims 5 and 24, Weaver discloses the screen shift action includes an animation [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, animation of screen with regard to pull-tab games].
In re claims 6 and 27, Weaver discloses the network component includes a centralized resource server and a deck generator server, wherein the centralized resource server selects the one electronic pull-tab ticket from the electronic pull-tab deck, and wherein the deck generator server generates the deck including the plurality of electronic pull-tab tickets [Figs. 1, 3, 12A-12D, ¶¶137, 200-210, among others, describes a centralized resource server 302 may also be configured to operate as a central authority for generation of finite decks of predetermined electronic pull-tab results].
In re claim 7, Weaver discloses a pull-tab gaming system [Figs. 1, 3, and 12, ¶¶200,201] comprising: a network component that generates an electronic pull-tab deck including a plurality of electronic pull-tab tickets, in which each of the plurality of electronic pull-tab tickets is associated with a ticket value, a screen shift value, and a display area [Figs. 1, 3, 12A-12D, ¶¶132-143, 200-210, among others, describe centralized gaming system 100 with network components (e.g., 102, 302, 304, 316 320, 322) include electronic pull-tab games with a deck including a plurality of tickets. Centralized resource server 302 may also be configured to operate as a central authority for generation of finite decks of predetermined electronic pull-tab results. The pull tab tickets have a ticket value that is revealed to players by shifting display images including showing monetary values, awards, and symbols associated with the ticket. Background and foreground are shown in the screen shots of the games in Figs. 12A-12D]; a plurality of game symbol display positions associated with the display area [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, show various game symbol associated with a display area]; a gaming device communicatively coupled to the network component, wherein the gaming device includes a processor, a memory, and a display [Fig. 2 shows gaming device 200 with processor 204, memory 206, and display 208, ¶¶118, 127]; an electronic pull-tab ticket request generated by the gaming device that is communicated to the network component, which selects one electronic pull-tab ticket from the electronic pull-tab deck[Figs. 1, 3, 12A-12D, ¶¶132-143, 200-210, among others, describe player interface of gaming devices includes a user input to play the game and communicate request with the centralized gaming system and providing a pull-tab tickets including tickets with associated monetary values]; the gaming device receives the electronic pull-tab ticket from the network component and displays an image associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket at the display area [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, describe user interface provide game play with display area shown in screen shots]; and the gaming device performs a screen shift action when the screen shift value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket is a non-zero value, wherein the screen shift action corresponds to the non-zero screen shift value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, describe game play in which screen is shifted to reveal values associated with pull-tab tickets when playing the game including displaying values (e.g., $1, $.25, and $50) and display symbols in the background display wherein the screen with the symbols shifts to display the values won for certain combinations of symbols].
While it is submitted that Weaver describes screen shift to display values associated with the pull-tab ticket game, to the extent Weaver lacks this feature, Diesel teaches a pull-tab game with the selected electronic pull-tab ticket including performs a screen shift action when the screen shift value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket is a non-zero value, wherein the screen shift action corresponds to the non-zero screen shift value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket [Video at 0:20/1:14 shows screen shifts to symbols shown at 0:23 and revealed values (e.g., $0.40) which shift to total winnings #1.00].
Weaver and Diesel are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic pull-tab games. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pull-tab games of Weaver and include the screen shifts, as taught by Diesel, in order to improve user experience, for example, by providing a more dynamic, entertaining screen.
In re claim 9, Weaver discloses the network component awards the ticket value to a player account [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶115, 116, 138, 139, 165, 200-210, among others, , awarding prize or value to player of the pull-tab game and prize amounts are awarded to user accounts managed by the central gaming system].
In re claim 10, Weaver discloses the screen shift action includes an animation [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, animation of screen with regard to pull-tab games].
In re claim 11, Weaver discloses wherein the at least one game symbol includes a prize multiplier [¶¶20, 180-185, 188, describes prize multipliers].
In re claim 12, Weaver discloses the network component includes a centralized resource server and a deck generator server, wherein the centralized resource server selects the one electronic pull-tab ticket from the electronic pull-tab deck, and wherein the deck generator server generates the deck including the plurality of electronic pull-tab tickets [Figs. 1, 3, 12A-12D, ¶¶137, 200-210, among others, describes a centralized resource server 302 may also be configured to operate as a central authority for generation of finite decks of predetermined electronic pull-tab results].
In re claim 13, Weaver discloses a pull-tab gaming system [Figs. 1, 3, and 12, ¶¶200,201] comprising: a network component that generates an electronic pull-tab deck including a plurality of electronic pull-tab tickets, in which each of the plurality of electronic pull-tab tickets is associated with a ticket value, a pre-reveal value, and a display area [Figs. 1, 3, 12A-12D, ¶¶132-143, 200-210, among others, describe centralized gaming system 100 with network components (e.g., 102, 302, 304, 316 320, 322) include electronic pull-tab games with a deck including a plurality of tickets. Centralized resource server 302 may also be configured to operate as a central authority for generation of finite decks of predetermined electronic pull-tab results. The pull tab tickets have a ticket value (award) that is revealed to players by shifting display images including showing monetary values, awards, and symbols associated with the ticket. The tickets also have a pre-reveal value (e.g., $1, $2) used to purchase the ticket. Figs 12A-12 show screen shots of display areas]; a plurality of game symbol display positions associated with the display area [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, show various game symbols in the display areas]; a gaming device communicatively coupled to the network component, wherein the gaming device includes a processor, a memory, and a display [Fig. 2 shows gaming device 200 with processor 204, memory 206, and display 208, ¶¶118, 127]; an electronic pull-tab ticket request generated by the gaming device that is communicated to the network component, which selects one electronic pull-tab ticket from the electronic pull-tab deck [Figs. 1, 3, 12A-12D, ¶¶132-143, 200-210, among others, describe player interface of gaming devices includes a user input to play the game and communicate request with the centralized gaming system and providing a pull-tab tickets including tickets with associated monetary values]; the gaming device receives the electronic pull-tab ticket from the network component and displays an image associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket at the display area [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, describe user interface provide game play with display area shown in screen shots]; and the gaming device performs a screen shift action when the screen shift value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket is a non-zero value, wherein the screen shift action corresponds to the non-zero pre-reveal value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket, wherein the screen shift action includes reveal of at least one game symbol [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, describe game play in which screen is shifted to reveal values associated with pull-tab tickets when playing the game including displaying values (e.g., $1, $.25, and $50) when the pre-reveal value (e.g., $1 or $2) is selected causing the display symbols in the display to shift to reveal the values won for certain combinations of symbols].
While it is submitted that Weaver describes screen shift to display values associated with the pull-tab ticket game, to the extent Weaver lacks this feature, Diesel teaches gaming device performs a screen shift action when the screen shift value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket is a non-zero value, wherein the screen shift action corresponds to the non-zero pre-reveal value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket, wherein the screen shift action includes reveal of at least one game symbol [Video at 0:20/1:14 shows screen shifts to symbols shown at 0:23 and revealed values (e.g., $0.40) which shift to total winnings #1.00].
Weaver and Diesel are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic pull-tab games. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pull-tab games of Weaver and include the screen shifts, as taught by Diesel, in order to improve user experience, for example, by providing a more dynamic, entertaining screen.
In re claim 15, Weaver discloses the screen shift action includes revealing at least three game symbols [Fig. 12B shows a reveal of 4 symbols].
In re claim 16, Weaver discloses the network component awards the ticket value to a player account [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶115, 116, 138, 139, 165, 200-210, among others, , awarding prize or value to player of the pull-tab game and prize amounts are awarded to user accounts managed by the central gaming system].
In re claim 17, Weaver discloses the screen shift action includes an animation [Figs. 12A-12D, ¶¶200-210, among others, animation of screen with regard to pull-tab games].
In re claim 18, Weaver discloses the at least one game symbol includes a prize multiplier [¶¶20, 180-185, 188, describes prize multipliers].
In re claim 19, Weaver discloses the network component includes a centralized resource server and a deck generator server, wherein the centralized resource server selects the one electronic pull-tab ticket from the electronic pull-tab deck, and wherein the deck generator server generates the deck including the plurality of electronic pull-tab tickets [Figs. 1, 3, 12A-12D, ¶¶137, 200-210, among others, describes a centralized resource server 302 may also be configured to operate as a central authority for generation of finite decks of predetermined electronic pull-tab results].
In re claim 25. The method of claim 20 wherein the at least one value symbol includes a prize multiplier [¶¶20, 180-185, 188, describes prize multipliers].
Claims 2, 3, 8, 14, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver in view of Diesel.
In re claims 2 and 21, Weaver shows a screen shifts screen shift action when the screen shift value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket is the non-zero value; however, Weaver doesn’t explicitly disclose a second screen shift action refocuses the gaming device display on the background display area having the image associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket value. However, Diesel teaches a second screen shift action refocuses the gaming device display on the background display area having the image associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket value [Video shows shift to refocus on background beginning at 0:30/1:14 after shifting winnings to total win in foreground].
Weaver and Diesel are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic pull-tab games. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pull-tab games of Weaver and include the screen shifts, as taught by Diesel, in order to improve user experience, for example, by providing a more dynamic, entertaining screen.
In re claims 3, 8, 14, and 22, Weaver lacks, but Diesel teaches the screen shift action includes one of a zoom-in action, a pan action, a rotate action, and any combination thereof [Video at 0:36/1:14 shows a rotate action shift and 0:55/1:114 shows a zoom-in action shift].
Weaver and Diesel are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic pull-tab games. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pull-tab games of Weaver and include the screen shifts, as taught by Diesel, in order to improve user experience, for example, by providing a more dynamic, entertaining screen.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver in view of Diesel and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0139167 by Weaver et al. (“Weaver”), .
In re claim 26 Weaver lacks, but Acres teaches receiving, by the gaming device, a second input, wherein the second input causes at least a second value symbol to be revealed [¶¶ 82-83 describes a pull tab game with multiple inputs to reveal (e.g., selecting multiple treasure chests)].
Weaver and Acres are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic pull-tab games. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pull-tab games of Weaver and include the second input reveal, as taught by Acres, in order to improve user experience, for example, by providing a more dynamic, entertaining game in which the user is given more control over the game.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
