CTNF 18/791,778 CTNF 82318 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “A method for monitoring a player of an electronic game, the method comprising: training , by a responsible gaming server, a player model for the player of the electronic game based on a history of gaming activity by the player, the player model representing patterns of behavior for the player; receiving , by the responsible gaming server, from a gaming system, game play information for a gaming session of the electronic game while the player is playing the electronic game; detecting , by the responsible gaming server, based on the player model and the received game play information, a deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model; and in response to detecting the deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model, providing, by the responsible gaming server, an electronic message indicating the detected deviation.” (Claim 1); “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: train a player model for a player of an electronic game based on a history of gaming activity by the player, the player model representing patterns of behavior for the player; receive , from a gaming system, game play information for a gaming session of the electronic game while the player is playing the electronic game; detect, based on the player model and the received game play information, a deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model; and in response to detecting the deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model, provide an electronic message indicating the detected deviation.” (Claim 8); and “A system comprising: a communications network; a plurality of gaming systems coupled with the communications network; and a responsible gaming system coupled with the communications network, the responsible gaming system comprising a processor and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: train a player model for a player based on a history of gaming activity by the player on the plurality of gaming systems, the player model representing patterns of behavior for the player; receive , from a gaming system of the plurality of gaming systems, via the communications network, game play information for a gaming session of an electronic game executed by the gaming system while the player is playing the electronic game; detect, based on the player model and the received game play information, a deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model; and in response to detecting the deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model, provide an electronic message indicating the detected deviation to the gaming system via the communications network.” (Claim 15). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity particularly managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for training/creating a model representing patterns of behavior based on player history of a player, receiving game play information of the player, detecting a based on the model and received game play information a deviation by the player from the model. Such steps pertaining to organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). Additionally, the limitations pertaining to “in response to detecting the deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model, providing, by the responsible gaming server, an electronic message indicating the detected deviation” (Claim 1); “in response to detecting the deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model, provide an electronic message indicating the detected deviation” (Claim 8); and “in response to detecting the deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model, provide an electronic message indicating the detected deviation to the gaming system via the communications network” (Claim 15) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution outputting (via electronic message) , which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. The recitations of utilization of a “server”, “system”, “mobile device”, “processor”, and/or “memory” are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids method and/or system(s) to which a computer performs/implements the method and/or system(s). The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301) . As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible. It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016): Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.) On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015) : The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.) Nor do the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above. Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horbay (US 2011/0250972) in view of Froy (US 2023/0169823) . Claim 1: Horbay discloses a system (¶ 38- server computer (4) known to include a processor and memory) comprising: a processor, and memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to implement a method for monitoring a player of an electronic game, the method comprising: training, by a responsible gaming server (¶ 38, The server computer (4) includes or is linked to the utilities described in this invention.), a player model for the player of the electronic game based on a history of gaming activity by players, the player model representing patterns of behavior of the players (¶ 26-27, 41, 43, 54, 59-61); receiving, by the responsible gaming server, from a gaming system (8)(¶ 38- the server computer (4) is interoperable with remote computers (8) associated with operators of chance gaming websites so as to obtain the raw data mentioned below.), game play information for a gaming session of the electronic game while the player is playing the electronic game (¶ 40-41, 44-45); detecting, by the responsible gaming server, based on the player model and the received game play information, a deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model (¶ 40-41, 44-45, 64-66); and in response to detecting the deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model, providing, by the responsible gaming server, an electronic message indicating the detected deviation (¶ 45-47, 50-53). Horbay teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting history and/or patterns of the patterns of the players to create the player model includes the player of the electronic game. Horbay at least teaches that the player model can be continuously updated (¶ 66, 96, 101, 137) and maintaining/tracking historical behavior data of the player of the electronic game (¶ 131). Furthermore, an analogous art of Froy generally teaches that player model can be created by a player being monitored at an electronic game (¶ 3, 16, 99, 122, 128, 150). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and/or system(s), particularly the model therefore, to include the player of the electronic game as taught by Froy because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of creating a baseline or norm model associated with a player in which at least Horbay is intended (¶ 26-27, 41, 43, 54, 59-61). Claims 2 and 9: Horbay teaches wherein providing the electronic message indicating the detected deviation comprises providing the electronic message to the gaming system (¶ 101-113). Claims 3 and 10: Horbay teaches wherein providing the electronic message indicating the detected deviation comprises providing the electronic message to a mobile device of the player (¶ 101-113 pertaining to the message, ¶ 24, 135, 155, 158). Claims 5 and 12: Horbay discloses wherein the detected deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model comprises a deviation from a pattern of bet amounts (see above, ¶ 40, 58-61, 75-79, 103). Claim 6 and 13: Horbay discloses wherein the detected deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model comprises a deviation from a pattern of number of games played in succession (see above, ¶ 70-84, escalating sessions). Claims 7 and 14: Horbay discloses wherein detected deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model comprises a deviation from a pattern of game play pace (see above, ¶ 3, 58-61, frequency being an indication of pace) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horbay (US 2011/0250972) in view of Froy (US 2023/0169823) and in further view of Parisi (US 10,384,130) . Claims 4 and 11: Horbay in view of Froy teaches the above, in addition to the electronic message further comprising continuous receipt of messages when deviations by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model are detected (Horbay - see above, ¶ 113), but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the electronic message further comprises indication of an option to continue receiving messages when deviations by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model are detected. Furthermore, an analogous art of Parisi teaches providing a user/player the option to disable/enable the receipt of alert notifications/messages (Col. 13:38-60, Col. 20:38-60). 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 message/notification means of Horbay in view of Froy with the option means of Parisi to provide a more user-friendly messaging system. Such a modification accommodates users that prefer receiving messages and those that don’t (see above with regards to Parisi). Best Applicable Prior Art In regards to Claim 15, Horbay (US 2011/0250972) teaches a system comprising: a communications network; a plurality of gaming systems coupled with the communications network; and a responsible gaming system coupled with the communications network, the responsible gaming system comprising a processor and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: train a player model for a player, the player model representing patterns of behavior; receive, from a gaming system of the plurality of gaming systems, via the communications network, game play information for a gaming session of an electronic game executed by the gaming system while the player is playing the electronic game; detect, based on the player model and the received game play information, a deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model; and in response to detecting the deviation by the player from the patterns of behavior represented in the player model, provide an electronic message indicating the detected deviation to the gaming system via the communications network. Horbay fails to teach the processor to: train a player model for a player based on a history of gaming activity by the player on the plurality of gaming systems, the player model representing patterns of behavior for the player . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/791,778 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/791,778 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/791,778 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/791,778 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/791,778 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/791,778 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/791,778 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/791,778 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/791,778 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/791,778 Page 11 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/791,778 Page 12 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/791,778 Page 13 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights