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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendments/arguments filed 7/21/26. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-26 remain pending, Claims 22-26 are newly added, and Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, 18-19, and 21 are currently amended.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A gaming system comprising: one or more gameplay stations, the gameplay stations including a user interface; and a gaming server in communication with the one or more gameplay stations through a communications interface, the gaming server comprising a memory and a processor configured for executing instructions stored on the memory to perform the following steps: maintain a first pool, wherein said first pool is partitioned into a plurality of partitioned levels, each of the plurality of partitioned levels of the first pool correlating to a predetermined wager parameter and to a predetermined award level or rate, and each of the plurality of partitioned levels having a size defined as a percent of the first pool allocated to the respective portioned level; receive a gameplay request from at least one of the one or more gameplay stations; evaluate the gameplay request based on corresponding one of the plurality of partitioned award levels from the first pool; and determine a reward value for the gameplay request using the partitioned award levels and a pool processing system; wherein the partitioned award levels include at least a dynamic value based on the first pool of the pool processing system.” (Claim 1); “A method for conducting games, comprising: receiving a gameplay request from one or more gameplay stations; evaluating the gameplay request based on partitioned award levels from a first pool, each of the plurality of partitioned levels of the first pool correlating to a predetermined wager parameter and to a predetermined award level or rate, and each of the plurality of partitioned levels having a size defined as a percent of the first pool allocated to the respective portioned level; and determining a reward value for the gameplay request using the partitioned award levels and a pool processing system; wherein the partitioned award levels include at least a value based on the first pool of the pool processing system.” (Claim 11); and “A storage device having instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by one or more processors of a gaming system, configure the one or more processors to perform a method for conducting games, comprising: receiving a gameplay request from one or more gameplay stations; evaluating the gameplay request based on partitioned award levels from a first pool, each of the plurality of partitioned levels of the first pool correlating to a predetermined wager parameter and to a predetermined award level or rate, and each of the plurality of partitioned levels having a size defined as a percent of the first pool allocated to the respective portioned level; and determining a reward value for the gameplay request using the partitioned award levels and a pool processing system; wherein the partitioned award levels include at least a value based on the first pool of the pool processing system” (Claim 21). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as it pertains to either fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
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)). The claimed computer components (system, station, user interface, server, memory, processor, and/or storage device) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. 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. For example, the recitations of utilization of a “system”, “station”, “user interface”, “server”, “memory”, “processor”, and/or “storage device”) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea, merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality, and fails 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 the system, method, and/or device and/or the extent to which a computer performs/implements the system, method, and/or device. 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 2-10, 12-20, and 22-26 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as it pertains to either fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). 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(s) 21 is ineligible subject matter because the claimed limitations are drawn toward non-statutory subject matter. Particularly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is drawn toward a storage device or computer readable media (also called computer readable medium and other such variants), which typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of storage device or computer readable media. Therefore, since the claims cover transitory propagating signals per se the claims are rendered non-statutory. In order to overcome the above rejection the applicant is advised to narrow the claims to cover only statutory embodiments e.g. by adding the limitation "non-transitory."
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 1-10 and 22-26 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 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of partitioned award levels” in lines 16-17; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 and 22-26 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1 from which they depend; therefore are rejected for the same reasons herein.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
(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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-14, and 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fulton (US 2021/0158660).
Claims 1, 11, and 21: Fulton discloses a gaming system (Fig. 2b) comprising: one or more gameplay stations (60), the gameplay stations (60) including a user interface (¶ 99); and a gaming server (58) in communication with the one or more gameplay stations through a communications interface (¶ 94-106), the gaming server comprising a memory (storage device) and a processor (¶ 68, 94, 98) configured for executing instructions stored on the memory to perform the following steps (e.g. perform a method)(¶ 94-106): maintain a first pool (750), wherein said first pool is partitioned into a plurality of partitioned levels (770), each of the plurality of partitioned levels of the first pool correlating to a predetermined wager parameter (¶ 130- “The payout snapshot 800 may present the scorecards 810 available for a wager level, as well as the associated reward values based on a current value of the pari-mutuel pool.”, ¶ 137 – “the scorecards … scorecards are available for comparison to the predicted rankings based on the wager level provided by the player”, ¶ 143 “multiple wagers may correspond to different scorecards or award levels”) and to a predetermined award level or rate (¶ 24-25, 40, 137-143) and each of the plurality of partitioned levels having a size defined as a percent of the first pool allocated to the respective portioned level (¶ 134-144, emphasis on ¶ 136-139); receive a gameplay request from at least one of the one or more gameplay stations (¶ 108-109, 110); evaluate the gameplay request based on the partitioned awards levels including a corresponding one of the plurality of partitioned award levels and from the first pool (¶ 118-120, 131-132, 134-144); and determine a reward value for the gameplay request using the partitioned award levels including a corresponding one of the plurality of the plurality of the partitioned award levels out of the plurality and pool processing system; wherein the plurality of partitioned award levels include at least a dynamic value based on the first pool of the processing system (Fig. 7, ¶ 134-144).
Claims 2 and 12: Fulton teaches wherein the gameplay request comprises at least a wager value (¶ 108-109), and wherein a provider commission is removed from the wager value and a remaining value of the wager value is applied to the first pool (¶ 22, 106, 108-109).
Claims 3 and 13: Fulton teaches wherein the award levels comprise a percentage value of the first pool(¶ 120, 136-138).
Claims 4 and 14: Fulton teaches wherein the award levels comprise a percentage value of the first pool (¶ 120, 136-138) and a static minimum reward (772)(¶ 120, 136-138).
Claims 8 and 18: Fulton teaches, wherein the first processing system is configured to extract a predetermined commission value from at least one of a wager value of the gameplay request, the first pool, and the reward value (¶ 22, 106, 108-109).
Claims 9 and 19: Fulton teaches wherein the first pool is partitioned into a plurality of tier levels (Fig. 7, ¶ 136-140).
Claims 10 and 20: Fulton teaches, wherein each award level includes a plurality of award rates corresponding to each of the plurality of tier levels, such that the determination of the reward value includes a value from each of the plurality of tier levels determined by the plurality of award rates for the award level (Fig. 7, ¶ 136-143).
Claim 22: Fulton teaches the wager parameter includes a wager denomination, wager values, and/or specified gameplay results (¶ 130, 37, 143).
Claim 23: Fulton teaches the first pool is a progressive pool and the pool processing system is a progressive pool processing system (¶ 24, 44, 94, 98, 135-136).
Claim 24: Fulton teaches the gaming server is further configured to maintain a second pool or two or more additional pools (¶ 106, 109).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulton (US 2021/0158660) in view of Cahill (US 2006/0052159).
Claims 5 and 15: Fulton teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting, wherein the pool processing system provides a seed reserve in addition to the first pool. Fulton at least teaches that various modifications can be provided without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 59, 155). Furthermore, an analogous scope of Cahill teaches a progressive pool processing system provides a seed reserve in addition to the progressive pool (¶ 160). 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 pool processing system of Fulton the seed reserve means of Cahill because such a modification would have yielded predictable results namely a means of funding a progressive pool (Cahill - ¶ 160). Such a modification would allow players to continue playing without interruption (Cahill - ¶ 160).
Claims 7 and 17: Fulton in view of Cahill teaches wherein the seed reserve is capped at a predetermined value (Cahill - ¶ 160).
Claims 6 and 16: Fulton teaches the above, in addition to a provider commission is removed from a wager value of the gameplay request and a remaining value of the wager value is applied to the first pool(s)(¶ 22, 106, 108-109), but lacks explicitly suggesting a seed rake is removed from the wager value. Fulton at least teaches that various modifications can be provided without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 59, 155). Furthermore, an analogous scope of Cahill teaches a progressive pool processing system provides a seed reserve in addition to the progressive pool, wherein a seed rake is removed from wagers made on the progressive games (¶ 160). 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 pool processing system of Fulton the seed rake means of Cahill because such a modification would have yielded predictable results namely a means of funding a progressive pool (Cahill - ¶ 160). Such a modification would allow players to continue playing without interruption (Cahill - ¶ 160).
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulton (US 2021/0158660) in view of Marks (US 2006/0183535).
Claim 25: Fulton teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the second pool is independent from the first pool or the two or more additional pools are independent from the first pool. Fulton at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the claimed invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Marks teaches maintaining a first and second progressive award/pool wherein the pools are independent of each other (¶ 84, Claims 10, 22, Figs. 3a-b). 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 gaming system, particularly, the first and/or second pool of Fulton such that the pools are independent of each other as taught by Marks because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of maintaining and/or providing progressive pools in which at least Fulton is intended (see above). Such a modification would give users multiple opportunities to win progressive pools independent of each other e.g. improve the chances of winning progressive awards (Marks - ¶ 9).
Claim 26: Fulton in view of Marks teaches the above, but fails to teach wherein the second pool or at least one of the two or more additional pools is partitioned into a plurality of partitioned levels, wherein the partitioned levels of the second pool or the at least one of the two or more additional pools are different than the partitioned levels of the first pool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have partitioned the second pool or at least one of the two or more additional pools into a plurality of partitioned levels, wherein the partitioned levels of the second pool or the at least one of the two or more additional pools are different than the partitioned levels of the first pool since it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Additionally, in regards to the partitioned levels of the second pool or the at least one of the two or more additional pools are different than the partitioned levels of the first pool it is understood given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation that if the first pool is independent of the second pool or at least one of the two or more additional pools the corresponding partitioned levels are independent of each other e.g. different from each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in part.
Rejection of Claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant is arguing that the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest or otherwise make obvious the feature of claims 1, 11, or 21 as a whole and thus, cannot be maintained that such features are known, well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art. This argument has been rejected by the Federal Circuit and by the Supreme Court. In Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012) at 1303-1304, the US Government (i.e., the Patent Office) filed an amicus brief arguing that novelty should equate to patentability. The Supreme Court stated:
This approach, however, would make the "law of nature" exception to § 101 patentability a dead letter. The approach is therefore not consistent with prior law. The relevant cases rest their holdings upon section 101, not later sections. Bilski,561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 177 L.Ed.2d 792; Diehr, supra; Flook, supra; Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273. See also H.R.Rep. No. 1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1952) ("A person may have `invented' a machine or a manufacture, which may include anything under the sun that is made by man, but it is not necessarily patentable under section 101 unless the conditions of the title are fulfilled" (emphasis added)).
In Ultramercial, Inc., et al. v. Hulu, Inc. and WildTangent, Inc. 2010-1544 (Fed. Cir., 2014), Ultramercial made the same argument. The court rejected that argument out of hand:
“According to Ultramercial, abstract ideas remain patent-eligible under § 101 as long as they are new ideas, not previously well known, and not routine activity… We do not agree with Ultramercial that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete. In any event, any novelty in implementation of the idea is a factor to be considered only in the second step of the Alice analysis.”
“A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’ Those “additional features” must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity… That some of the eleven steps were not previously employed in this art is not enough—standing alone—to confer patent eligibility upon the claims at issue.”
The above court decisions suggest novelty and non-obviousness of the claims does not equate to “patentability" and does not necessarily suggest such claims amount to “significantly more”.
The applicant argues that the limitations are integrated into a practical application that provides improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Improvements defined by:
“[0010] Despite the popularity and success of current gaming methods,
continued innovation has been hampered by financial and regulatory
restrictions. Providers face several challenges in efforts to develop new and
innovative ways to represent games and gameplay, with respect to both
prevailing regulations and the need to ensure financial feasibility.
[0011] In view of the foregoing, there is a need for improved gaming systems
and methods that improve gameplay and management of wagering games while easing compliance with existing regulations and providing a stable
financial return. There is further a need for gaming systems and methods that
enable the creation of new forms of gameplay, without increasing the
processing requirements of a gaming terminal or gaming systems.
[0007] Within the gambling or gaming industry, including sports betting,
esports betting, games of chance, etc., traditional gaming machines include
slot machines, poker machines, video lottery terminals, gaming consoles, and similar devices. These traditional gaming machines are configured to provide
an interface for wagering on game events and have proven popularity.
However, players quickly become tired of various adaptations of existing
gaming machines, requiring the development of new and inventive ways to
represent or play games on such gaming machines. For this reason, game
creators must continually invent new and innovative ways to represent games
and gameplay to stimulate players and encourage further interest.. “
and
“As described by Applicant's originally-filed disclsoure, the use of one or more pools with multiple partitioned sections enables several additional advantages over the prior art in view of the regulatory constraints that exist for such progressive pools. For example, common regulations require close monitoring and reporting of pool fund records, including preparation of an at least weekly progressive summary recording the amount of the progressive pool and a daily accounting calculation of the amount that should be displayed to players. These reports must be prepared by designated individuals, be signed and verified, and properly submitted to regulatory agencies. Where multiple pools are used in conventional systems, with a distinct pool for each possible award, the labor costs of preparing these thousands to hundreds of thousands of reporting values is extremely burdensome. However, this burden is dramatically reduced by a system, such as required by amended claim 1, having a partitioned pool, meaning only a single value for the pool must be reported while multiple awards are enabled by the use of a nearly limitless number of sections being partitioned in the same pool. (Applicant's originally-filed specification, para. [0061]).”
Such discloses the claimed invention pertains to developing new games and game play, management of wagering games under existing regulations that promote financial returns, stimulate players, encourage interest, not increasing processing requirements, and reducing labor cost due to the use of one pool. However, such features pertaining to providing new games and game play that promote financial returns, stimulate players, encourage interest, not increasing processing requirements, and reducing labor cost due to the use of one pool is not an improvement of the technology itself. The examiner understands that any form of game rules or instructions requires processing power, wherein some instructions require more than others; however, such a feature is a standard when it relates to processing in general and not an improvement to the processor e.g. nothing changes with respect to the processor or processing system that clearly amounts to an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). Furthermore, the applicant introduces the use of multiple pools (new Claims 24-25) which requires more processing which contradicts not requiring more processing. At least based on the above, the rejection has been clarified and maintained.
Rejection of Claims 6, 8, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The rejection has been withdrawn in view of the arguments/amendments filed 7/21/26.
Rejection of Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. §112(d)
The rejection has been withdrawn in view of the arguments/amendments filed 7/21/26.
Rejection of Claims 1-4, 8-14, and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1)
The applicant argues that the prior art of Fulton fails to teach at least “maintain a first pool, wherein said first pool is partitioned into a plurality of partitioned levels, each of the plurality of partitioned levels of the first pool correlating to a predetermined wager parameter and to a predetermined award level or rate, and each of the plurality of partitioned levels having a size defined as a percent of the first pool allocated to the
respective portioned level” found in Claim 1 and similarly found in Claims 11 and 21.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Fulton teaches maintaining a first pool (750), wherein said first pool is partitioned into a plurality of partitioned levels (770), each of the plurality of partitioned levels of the first pool correlating to a predetermined wager parameter (¶ 130- “The payout snapshot 800 may present the scorecards 810 available for a wager level, as well as the associated reward values based on a current value of the pari-mutuel pool.”, ¶ 137 – “the scorecards … scorecards are available for comparison to the predicted rankings based on the wager level provided by the player”, ¶ 143 “multiple wagers may correspond to different scorecards or award levels”) and to a predetermined award level or rate (¶ 24-25, 40, 137-143) and each of the plurality of partitioned levels having a size defined as a percent of the first pool allocated to the respective portioned level (¶ 134-144, emphasis on ¶ 136-139).
As such the rejection has been clarified and maintained.
Rejection of Claims 5-7 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. §103
The response to arguments with respect to Claim 1 are incorporated herein and therefore the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
