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 response to the preliminary amendment filed on September 10, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 17, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-8, 13-16, and 18-20 of copending Application No. 18/775,731. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are encompassed by the claims of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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, 9, and 13 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, “the systems and methods of the present disclosure enable one or more opportunities to win a prize based on an amount of pool funded via the redemption of cashless ticket vouchers.” [See, Specification at ¶1].
Representative claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to each of an occurrence of a ticket voucher redemption award opportunity event associated with a ticket voucher received at a ticket voucher redemption kiosk and an occurrence of a ticket voucher redemption contribution event:
cause the ticket voucher to be designated as redeemed,
cause, based on at least part of an amount of the ticket voucher, a modification of an amount of a contribution pool, and
responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event associated with the designation of the ticket voucher as redeemed, determine, based on the modified amount of the contribution pool, a prize to be made available.
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially identical features in the system of 13 and substantially identical features in the system of claim 9 implemented at an electronic gaming machine instead of a Kiosk. The dependent claims further define the abstract idea by introducing various additional abstract details of the voucher/credit meter redemption and/or prize awarded. The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
a method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., awarding a prize based on chance in response redeeming an amount associated with a ticket voucher or credit meter, which are effectively means 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., and
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 opportunities to win a prize based on an amount of pool funded via the redemption of a remaining amount of funds of cashless ticket voucher or credit (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 claims also 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 elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se: a processor, a memory, and a kiosk or gaming device to carry out the abstract idea. 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.
The specification describes with regard to the kiosks and gaming devices that a processor “is any suitable processing device or set of processing devices, such as a microprocessor, a microcontroller-based platform, a suitable integrated circuit, or one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), configured to execute software enabling various configuration and reconfiguration tasks.” Similarly, the memory may include “(1) volatile memory (e.g., RAM 1009, which can include non-volatile RAM, magnetic RAM, ferroelectric RAM, and any other suitable forms); (2) non-volatile memory 1019 (e.g., disk memory, FLASH memory, EPROMs, EEPROMs, memristor-based non-volatile solid-state memory, etc.); (3) unalterable memory (e.g., EPROMs 1008); (4) read-only memory; and/or (5) a secondary memory storage device 1015, such as a non-volatile memory device, configured to store gaming software related information (the gaming software related information and the memory may be used to store various audio files and games not currently being used and invoked in a configuration or reconfiguration).” In general, the specification at ¶¶95-103, among others, lists various off the shelf computer components that make up the gaming system. In addition, see Schwartz, US 2021/0082244, Par. 4, which teaches where it is conventional to include kiosks for voucher generation and redemption.
Therefore, the specification describes the gaming controller, EGMs, and kiosks 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 data. 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 residual credit or fund to a wagering opportunity/outcome). 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.
Claims 1-7 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0139165 by McHugh et al. (“McHugh).
In re claims 1 and 13, McHugh discloses a method and system for implementing the method [Figs. 1 and 3], comprising: a processor [¶20]; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor [¶20] to: responsive to each of an occurrence of a ticket voucher redemption award opportunity event associated with a ticket voucher received at a ticket voucher redemption kiosk and an occurrence of a ticket voucher redemption contribution event [Fig. 3 S10-S12, ¶¶68-84, 135, among others, describe a player presents a ticket/voucher to a kiosk for redemption and is then presented with an offer to wager the fractional value of their ticket upon cashout of the ticket. The offer (event) can result in dispensing additional winnings or prizes as a result of the wager (i.e., a ticket voucher redemption award opportunity event). In addition, the redemption wagering event might be configured to be self-funding from the fractional value wagers (i.e., a ticket voucher redemption contribution event since the fractional value of the wager is contributed to the pool)]: cause the ticket voucher to be designated as redeemed [Fig. 3 and ¶¶82-84, 135, among others, describe that a player wagers a fractional amount on their voucher and either receives a new reward dispensed instead of the wager, or does not receive their wager. In the case of tickets with a value of less than one dollar none of the value of the voucher will be dispensed as the entirety of the voucher value will be “less their wager,” See Par. 82-84, meaning that the kiosk will dispense nothing for a losing wager or dispense a new winning amount that does not include any ticket value in the game of a winning outcome. The new winning amount and/or prize will result in a new ticket (meaning the old ticket is redeemed). Finally see ¶131 which teaches that “In this regard, the invention may be said to facilitate ‘coinless’ redemption of a ticket (in that the invention facilitates redemption of tickets in a manner which results in payment of only whole currency values and not fractional currency values, e.g. an amount of dollars and no cents, although it is possible to eliminate even payment for other fractional values such as dollar portions of five, ten or twenty dollars or the like).” The system redeems the ticket coinlessly through the fractional wager, and even higher designated amounts could be “redeemed” without be dispensed. And ¶132 describes prior to the invention, a player might not bother redeeming a ticket having a value of $.50. Now, however, the player is given the chance for winnings by redeeming the ticket, thus increasing the probability that the player will present the ticket for redemption] cause, based on at least part of an amount of the ticket voucher, a modification of an amount of a contribution pool [Fig. 3, ¶¶82-84, 135, among others, describes reducing value of the ticket by a fractional amount associated with the wager and forming a self-funding award pool from the fractional amounts], and responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event associated with the designation of the ticket voucher as redeemed, determine, based on the modified amount of the contribution pool, a prize to be made available [Fig. 3, 16, 19, 23, 75-77, 82-84, describe in determining a winning outcome in response to the fractional wager (e.g. $0.50 remaining on a ticket for redemption) including prizes, where set the odds of winning each event and the size of the awards so that winnings are paid from the pool of fractional monetary value wagers (e.g. the redemption wagering event might be configured to be self-funding from a pool of the fractional value wagers].
In re claims 2 and 14, McHugh discloses wherein the determination of the prize is further based on an input received via an input device [Fig. 3, ¶73 describes player touching a screen (input) to play the game associated with the fractional wagering event. For example, selecting yes allows the player to play the game in which determination of an award or prize is based].
In re claims 3 and 15, McHugh discloses wherein the determination of the prize is further based an identity of a user of the ticket voucher redemption kiosk [¶¶95, 104, describe a player is only able to utilize their fractional currency value to participate in the game if they have an associated player tracking/loyalty account and determining a player’s identity].
In re claims 4 and 16, McHugh discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the occurrence of the award triggering event, cause the processor to cause the prize to be associated with a gaming establishment account of a user of the ticket voucher redemption kiosk [¶¶84,113, among others, describe awards are associated with a “player tracking account” and that the award associated with a player tracking account with a wallet may be transferred directly to the player’s wallet].
In re claims 5 and 17, McHugh discloses the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the occurrence of the award triggering event, cause the processor to cause the ticket voucher redemption kiosk to issue another ticket voucher redeemable for the prize [¶¶84, 85, among others, describes the player might be awarded an award, such as a ticket which might be redeemed for a prize or the like].
In re claims 6 and 18, McHugh discloses the ticket voucher redemption award opportunity event occurs based on the amount of the ticket voucher being less than a threshold amount [¶¶10, 16, 20, 132, among others, describe presenting opportunity to wager, play a game, enter a promotion event (award opportunity events) when the ticket has a fractional value (which is less than the threshold of a whole amount), e.g., a payer having a ticket having a value of $.50 (less than a dollar) is given the chance for winnings by redeeming the ticket].
In re claims 7 and 19, McHugh discloses a probability of the award triggering event occurring is based on the amount of the ticket voucher [¶¶79,80, describe the player might be presented with the option of wagering their $0.88 by spinning a wheel having 6 segments. Two (2) of the segments might be blank (and thus losing) and the other segments might display the values of $1.00, $4.00 and $10.00. In other words, in recognition of the fact that the second player is wagering more (as compared to the first player's wager in the above example), the odds of winning and/or the awards might differ (such as by being higher)].
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 8-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,401,070 to Young et al. (“Young”).
In re claims 8 and 20, McHugh disclose an occurrence of a credit cashout award opportunity event associated with an input received at a device and an occurrence of a credit cashout contribution event, cause the processor to modify, based on at least part of an amount of a credit of the device, the amount of the contribution pool [Fig. 3, ¶¶82-84, 135, among others, describes reducing value (credit) of a ticket by a fractional amount associated with the wager and forming a self-funding award pool (contribution pool) from the fractional amounts based on a wagering game presented at cashout of the ticket].
McHugh discloses providing a user cashing out a voucher at a kiosk an opportunity to play a game or wager a fractional amount rather than receiving a cash payout of the fractional amount. While the kiosk can provide access to the game, McHugh does not explicitly disclose that the kiosk is a gaming machine or that the cashout opportunity is at a gaming machine based on credit in the gaming machine and its credit meter.
Young, like McHugh, teaches providing a gaming opportunity when cashing out a fractional denomination (e.g., less than the least available recognized denomination in the target currency). In addition, the fractional amount may be contributed to a prize pool and winner is paid out of the pool. However, Young teaches the opportunity may be performed at an electronic gaming machine based on the amount indicated by the credit meter when the player is cashing out of the machine and has a fractional denomination [Fig. 4, steps 445, 450, 460, col. 7, ll. 5-col. 8, l.4 and col. 8 l., 39-col. 9, l. 2 which describe if the player decides to cash out at step 445, the player presses cash out button 505 on display 105 and the process moves to step 450. At that point, it is determined whether there is a nonzero fractional credit portion, as shown above, in the total credits that the player has posted on meter 117. In the case that the player decides to cash-out and not continue playing in the example above, the player does have a nonzero strictly fractional credit portion of 5 credits in both the case that s/he lost or, alternatively, as shown on FIG. 5D, if s/he won. In either case, the player would then play a fractional denomination cash-out game after selecting the “wager 5 credits to cash out” button on display 105 as shown on FIG. 5D. The player may wager the entirety of the nonzero strictly fractional portion, either as one wager or as multiple wagers by playing a fractional denomination cash-out game at step 460. However, instead of a wager, the player may have the option to buy-in to a community jackpot wherein, for example, 1 ticket may be purchased for one credit. All credits in the nonzero strictly fractional credit portion go into the jackpot pool. It may be set up such that a portion of the credits go into the prize pool and a portion of the credits go into the seed refund pool. In the case that this is a mystery jackpot it would be configured to hit by a certain, payable, credit amount. In any case, whoever draws the winning ticket will win the entire prize pool up to the greatest payable credit amount. The remainder would then be rolled over into the next prize pool].
In re claim 9, McHugh discloses system [Fig. 1] comprising: a processor [¶20]; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor [¶20] responsive to each of a cashout input being received at a device, an occurrence of a credit cashout award opportunity event and an occurrence of a credit cashout contribution event [Fig. 3 S10-S12, ¶¶68-84, 135, among others, describe a player presents a ticket/voucher to a kiosk for redemption and is then presented with an offer to wager the fractional value of their ticket upon cashout of the ticket. The offer (event) can result in dispensing additional winnings or prizes as a result of the wager (i.e., a ticket voucher redemption award opportunity event). In addition, the redemption wagering event might be configured to be self-funding from the fractional value wagers (i.e., a ticket voucher redemption contribution event since the fractional value of the wager is contributed to the pool)], cause the processor to: communicate data that causes the device to reduce an amount of a credit without issuing any ticket vouchers in association with the cashout input received[Fig. 3 and ¶¶82-84, 135, among others, describe that a player wagers a fractional amount on their voucher and either receives a new reward dispensed instead of the wager, or does not receive their wager. In the case of tickets with a value of less than one dollar none of the value of the voucher will be dispensed as the entirety of the voucher value will be “less their wager,” See Par. 82-84, meaning that the kiosk will dispense nothing for a losing wager or dispense a new winning amount that does not include any ticket value in the game of a winning outcome. The new winning amount and/or prize will result in a new ticket (meaning the old ticket is redeemed). Finally see ¶131 which teaches that “In this regard, the invention may be said to facilitate ‘coinless’ redemption of a ticket (in that the invention facilitates redemption of tickets in a manner which results in payment of only whole currency values and not fractional currency values, e.g. an amount of dollars and no cents, although it is possible to eliminate even payment for other fractional values such as dollar portions of five, ten or twenty dollars or the like).” The system redeems the ticket coinlessly through the fractional wager, and even higher designated amounts could be “redeemed” without be dispensed. And ¶132 describes prior to the invention, a player might not bother redeeming a ticket having a value of $.50. Now, however, the player is given the chance for winnings by redeeming the ticket, thus increasing the probability that the player will present the ticket for redemption], modify, based on at least part of the reduced amount of the credit, an amount of a contribution pool [Fig. 3, ¶¶82-84, 135, among others, describes reducing value of the ticket by a fractional amount associated with the wager and forming a self-funding award pool from the fractional amounts], and responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event, determine, based on the modified amount of the contribution pool, a prize to be made available [Fig. 3, 16, 19, 23, 75-77, 82-84, describe in determining a winning outcome in response to the fractional wager (e.g. $0.50 remaining on a ticket for redemption) including prizes, where set the odds of winning each event and the size of the awards so that winnings are paid from the pool of fractional monetary value wagers (e.g. the redemption wagering event might be configured to be self-funding from a pool of the fractional value wagers].
McHugh discloses providing a user cashing out a voucher at a kiosk an opportunity to play a game or wager a fractional amount rather than receiving a cash payout of the fractional amount. While the kiosk can provide access to the game, McHugh does not explicitly disclose that the kiosk is a gaming machine or that the cashout opportunity is at a gaming machine based on credit in the gaming machine and its credit meter.
Young, like McHugh, teaches providing a gaming opportunity when cashing out a fractional denomination (e.g., less than the least available recognized denomination in the target currency). In addition, the fractional amount may be contributed to a prize pool and winner is paid out of the pool. However, Young teaches the opportunity may be performed at an electronic gaming machine based on the amount indicated by the credit meter when the player is cashing out of the machine and has a fractional denomination [Fig. 4, steps 445, 450, 460, col. 7, ll. 5-col. 8, l.4 and col. 8 l., 39-col. 9, l. 2 which describe if the player decides to cash out at step 445, the player presses cash out button 505 on display 105 and the process moves to step 450. At that point, it is determined whether there is a nonzero fractional credit portion, as shown above, in the total credits that the player has posted on meter 117. In the case that the player decides to cash-out and not continue playing in the example above, the player does have a nonzero strictly fractional credit portion of 5 credits in both the case that s/he lost or, alternatively, as shown on FIG. 5D, if s/he won. In either case, the player would then play a fractional denomination cash-out game after selecting the “wager 5 credits to cash out” button on display 105 as shown on FIG. 5D. The player may wager the entirety of the nonzero strictly fractional portion, either as one wager or as multiple wagers by playing a fractional denomination cash-out game at step 460. However, instead of a wager, the player may have the option to buy-in to a community jackpot wherein, for example, 1 ticket may be purchased for one credit. All credits in the nonzero strictly fractional credit portion go into the jackpot pool. It may be set up such that a portion of the credits go into the prize pool and a portion of the credits go into the seed refund pool. In the case that this is a mystery jackpot it would be configured to hit by a certain, payable, credit amount. In any case, whoever draws the winning ticket will win the entire prize pool up to the greatest payable credit amount. The remainder would then be rolled over into the next prize pool].
McHugh and Young are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic wagering opportunities, games, and casino management. 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 kiosk implemented fractional gambling system of McHugh to be implemented at cashout of a fractional value on an credit meter of an electronic gaming machine, as taught by Young, in order to increase user enjoyment or excitement by providing additional wagering opportunities and improve casino management by reducing accounting overhead associated with tracking fractional amounts, reduce waste, for example by needing to creating tickets for small fractional amounts that the user is less likely to redeemed, see, e.g., McHugh ¶132 and Young col. 2, ll. 5-10. col. 6 ll. 17-38.
In re claim 10, McHugh in view of Young discloses the occurrence of the credit meter cashout award opportunity event is based on the amount of the credit being less than a threshold amount [¶¶10, 16, 20, 132, among others, describe presenting opportunity to wager, play a game, enter a promotion event (award opportunity events) when the ticket has a fractional value (which is less than the threshold of a whole amount), e.g., a payer having a ticket having a value of $.50 (less than a dollar) is given the chance for winnings by redeeming the ticket].
In re claim 11, McHugh in view of Young discloses the determination of the prize is further based on at least one of an input received via an input device and an identity of a user of the gaming device [Fig. 3, ¶73, 95, 104 describe a player touching a screen (input) to play the game associated with the fractional wagering event. For example, selecting yes allows the player to play the game in which determination of an award or prize is based. In addition, a player is only able to utilize their fractional currency value to participate in the game if they have an associated player tracking/loyalty account and determining a player’s identity].
In re claim 12, McHugh in view of Young discloses at least one of the prize to be associated with a gaming establishment account of a user of the device and cause the device to issue a ticket voucher redeemable for the prize [¶¶84, 85, among others, describes a player might be awarded an award. The award might be monetary value, points, credits or even goods or services. Such an award might be associated with the player's player tracking account (such as if the player used their player card as part of redeeming their ticket or voucher), such as by associating winnings in the form of player tracking or rewards points with their account. Such an award might also be provided to the player in the form of an award ticket or voucher which is printed and presented to the player. That ticket might, for example, be bar coded or otherwise contain or include information regarding the award. The ticket or voucher might be redeemable at a gaming machine (such as if the award comprised credits that could be used at such a machine to play a game), or at a cashier station (such as if the award is monetary value that can be paid in coins/currency), or a prize station or booth (such as if the award is one or more promotional goods or services; such might comprise goods such as a t-shirt or jacket, a buffet pass, a show ticket, a free massage or spa pass, etc.)].
McHugh and Young are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic wagering opportunities, games, and casino management. 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 system of McHugh to implement responsive to an occurrence of a credit meter cashout award opportunity event associated with an input received at a gaming device and an occurrence of a credit meter cashout contribution event, cause the processor to modify, based on at least part of an amount of a credit meter of the gaming device, the amount of the contribution pool, as taught by Young, in order to increase user enjoyment or excitement by providing additional wagering opportunities and improve casino management by reducing accounting overhead associated with tracking fractional amounts, reduce waste, for example by needing to creating tickets for small fractional amounts that the user is less likely to redeemed, see, e.g., McHugh ¶132 and Young col. 2, ll. 5-10. col. 6 ll. 17-38.
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
Prosecution Insights