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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 7A, 11A, and 11B appear to contain typos. For example, there appears to be a typo in step 702 of Fig. 7A, step 1102 of Fig. 11A and steps 1114 and 1118 of Fig. 11B. 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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the gaming device displays an overlaid feature when the pre-reveal value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket is a non-zero value, wherein the overlaid feature corresponds to the non-zero overlaid feature value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket, wherein the overlaid feature is displayed in the foreground display area and on top of at least a portion of the background display area" in lines 15-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-20 are rejected as they depend from rejected claim 17.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of […] 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; a plurality of game symbol display positions associated with the display area; […]; an electronic pull-tab ticket request […], which selects one electronic pull-tab ticket from the electronic pull-tab deck; […] receives the electronic pull-tab ticket […] and displays a display area corresponding to the electronic pull-tab ticket; and […] displays an overlaid feature when the pre-reveal value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket is a non-zero value, wherein the overlaid feature corresponding to the non-zero pre-reveal value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket, wherein the overlaid feature is displayed on top of at least one of the plurality of game symbol display positions. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1 (wherein the limitations are substantially similar to those of independent claim(s) 9 and 17). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of A pull-tab gaming system comprising: a network component that generates […]; […]; a gaming device communicatively coupled to the network component, wherein the gaming device includes a processor, a memory, and a display; […] the gaming device that is communicated to the network component, […]; the gaming device receives […] from the network component and […]; and […], […], […] (wherein the limitations are substantially similar to those of independent claim(s) 9 and 17). These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to generate data, compute a result, display data, and update data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
Additionally, the specification makes it clear that the electronic pull-tab tickets including the overlaid feature can be implemented on a generic computer.
[0046] In an illustrative embodiment, the player interface unit 200 may be a tablet computing device running iOS or Android operating systems…
As such, the gaming device including network communications, for implementing the abstract idea, may require no more than generic, conventional, and well-known computer devices such as a general purpose computer (as evidenced in Para. 46 above).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Thus, Claims 1, 9, and 17 is rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 1 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1, Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deleon et al. (US 2019/0073877 A1) (henceforth, “Deleon”) in view of Baerlocher et al. (US 2020/0152018 A1) (henceforth, “Baerlocher”).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Deleon teaches a pull-tab gaming system comprising:
a network component that generates an electronic pull-tab deck including a plurality of electronic pull-tab tickets (e.g., pull-tab server 200 in Para. 22), in which each of the plurality of electronic pull-tab tickets is associated with a ticket value, a pre-reveal value (e.g., a pull-tab ticket identified as one that wins the second round of the game may be referred to as a SuperTab in Para. 24), and a display area (e.g., pull-tab ticket in Fig. 1 and Para. 23);
a plurality of game symbol display positions associated with the display area (e.g., pull-tab ticket in Fig. 1 and Para. 23);
a gaming device communicatively coupled to the network component, wherein the gaming device includes a processor, a memory, and a display (e.g., terminal 202 in Para. 23-24 and Fig. 6);
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 (e.g., initiating game in Para. 20-23);
the gaming device receives the electronic pull-tab ticket from the network component and displays a display area corresponding to the electronic pull-tab ticket (Para. 20-23); and
the pre-reveal value associated with the electronic pull-tab ticket is a non-zero value (e.g., determining a SuperTab in Fig. 3 and Para. 24 and visualizing the pull-tab is a SuperTab in Para. 24).
But Deleon although teaching determining a SuperTab (i.e., non-zero pre-reveal value) and a visualization for the SuperTab (Para. 23-24), lacks in explicitly teaching an overlaid feature is displayed on top of at least one of the plurality of game symbol display positions. In a related disclosure, Baerlocher teaches based on the code data portion of the wagering ticket, AR display content that is associated with the wagering event and that is viewable by a user of the AR device is determined (see abstract). More particularly, Baerlocher teaches an overlaid feature is displayed on top of at least one of the plurality of game symbol display positions (i.e., an animation or image of a volcano that may erupt randomly generated prize images 421 that may identify additional value that may be added to the value of the wagering ticket 400 Para. 95). Baerlocher states that display content associated with a wager event, such that, “the AR display content may enhance the wagering ticket and thus potentially the wagering experience” (Para. 110). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the electronic pull-tab of Deleon to include the visual features of Baerlocher in order to provide an improved user experience, as beneficially taught by Baerlocher.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, Deleon as modified by Baerlocher teaches the overlaid feature obscures at least a portion of at least one game symbol display position (Baerlocher – Fig. 4B).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 19, Deleon as modified by Baerlocher teaches the gaming device further displays at least one game symbol in at least one game symbol display position (Deleon – Fig. 1 and Baerlocher – Fig. 4B).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20, Deleon as modified by Baerlocher teaches the overlaid feature obscures at least a portion of the at least one game symbol (Baerlocher – Fig. 4B).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Deleon as modified by Baerlocher teaches the overlaid feature is opaque (Baerlocher – Fig. 4B).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Deleon as modified by Baerlocher teaches the overlaid feature is translucent (Baerlocher – Fig. 4B).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Deleon as modified by Baerlocher teaches the network component awards the ticket value to a player account (Deleon – e.g., the player may cash out and receive a ticket, card, credit, or other physical or virtual indication or receipt of any winnings accumulated in Para. 27).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Deleon as modified by Baerlocher teaches 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 (Deleon – Fig. 6 Paras. 38-41 and Para. 22).
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 CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10-6).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571)272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights