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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements filed through at least a cursory review thereof, as disclosure statements identify greater than 600 distinct citations, majority of which are foreign references and non-patent literature that appears to have no discernable relevance to the specificity of the invention(s) as claimed in the present application. The Examiner respectfully requests that if Applicant believes any reference or references cited in these disclosure statements are particularly relevant to the claims of the present application, to point out such specificity for further review. Applicant is reminded that only information material to patentability must be submitted. Many of these references appear cumulative or immaterial, nonetheless, they have been considered in said cursory review.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,798,356 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,118,848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because these patents maturing from the parent applications of the present application claim systems and methods in which a gaming server and EGM determine player eligibility based on player activity and eligibility criteria, store eligibility data, and unlock higher RTP wagering games and additional systems for eligible player accounts. The presently claimed invention recites an electronic gaming system that displays a GUI at a computing device with input fields for defining player account eligibility requirements for electronic games, stores those eligibility requirements, receives player account data from an electronic gaming device, determines that the player account satisfies the eligibility requirements, and causes electronic games, including higher RTP games with additional symbols, to be provided based on that determination. In view of the patent’s teachings of eligibility criteria, player identifiers, server-side eligibility determinations, and unlocking higher RTP games, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement an operator-facing GUI for configuring such eligibility requirements and to use stored player indicators and thresholds to determine which games to provide at an electronic gaming device. Therefore, the present claims are not patentably distinct from the patent claims for at least substantial overlap in scope combined with an obvious modification thereof.
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 judicial exception (an abstract idea) and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1 – Statutory category?
The claims are directed to gaming systems, computer-readable storage mediums, and methods, each of which fall within one of the statutory categories of invention, therefore satisfying Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One – Abstract idea?
The independent claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to:
displaying a GUI with input fields so a gaming operator can define eligibility requirements for one or more electronic games;
storing the requirements;
receiving player account data from an electronic gaming device;
determining whether the player account satisfies the eligibility requirements; and
providing particular electronic games at the EGM based on that determination.
Essentially, this is a process of (i) configuring business rules (e.g. eligibility requirements) via a GUI, (ii) applying those rules to customer account data, and (iii) using the result to control which product/services (e.g. games or variants, in this case) are offered to that customer.
Such subject matter falls within recognized abstract idea categories, including:
“certain methods of organizing human activity” or “fundamental economic practices” such as customer segmentation, access control, and tailored offers based on account status/activity;
“mental processes” and “data evaluation” such as defining conditions, comparing indicators, and deciding whether criteria are met; and
“presentation of information” such as configuring eligibility via a GUI and using it to select available games.
The claims do not focus on an improvement to computer technology, GUI technology, or internal operations of EGMs. Instead, they implement a rule-based eligibility and offer-selection scheme for games using conventional computing tools. This is analogous to other ineligible claims where generic software and GUIs are used to implement business rules and user-segmentation logic. E.g. see IBM vs Zillow Group, Inc.
The dependent claims further refine the eligibility and offer rules, such as: (i) using player account levels as eligibility requirements (claims 2, 11, 20), (ii) providing higher-RTP games or games with additional symbols compared to default games (claims 3, 4, 12, 13), (iii) using specific types of player account data (claims 5-7, 14-16), and (iv) using player account indicators and updating those indicators based on play (claims 8-9).
These limitations simply add detail to how the eligibility scheme is parameterized and applied, but remain within the same abstract idea of defining criteria based on player status and using that criteria to decide what games to offer. They do not change the nature of the claimed invention to a technical improvement in computing
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Integration into a practical application?
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include: at least one processor, at least one memory, non-transitory computer-readable storage media, an electronic gaming device, a computing device associated with a gaming establishment, and a GUI with input fields.
These are all recited at a high level of generality and are used only for their conventional functions of executing instructions, storing data, displaying a GUI, receiving user inputs, and exchanging player account data with an EGM. The claims do not recite, for example, (i) any particular data structure, algorithm, or architecture that improves processor/memory performance, (ii) any improvement to GUI technology (e.g. new interaction techniques, rendering methods, etc.), or (iii) any technical change to the EGM’s gaming engine or operation itself beyond selecting which game or RTP variant to offer based on eligibility.
Moreover, providing higher RTP games or those with additional symbols when certain criteria are met is a business and marketing rule about game configuration, not a technical enhancement to the EGM, such that it simply changes the content and/or payout parameters according to player tier or behavior. Similarly, using account levels, spend amounts, indicators, and IDs are routine aspects of player tracking systems and loyalty programs.
Also, limiting the abstract to the gaming-establishment context, or to eligibility for “electronic games” (e.g. with different RTP), is a field-of-use limitation and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Significantly more? (i.e. inventive concept?)
The hardware and software elements of a processor, memory, storage medium, GUI, EGM, and establishment computing device are generic and perform conventional functions of modern computing systems and EGMs. The operations recited, such as “cause display of a GUI”, “receive input”, “store”, “receive player account data”, “determine”, “cause games to be provided”, etc. are expressed at a high level of abstraction as functional results, not as specific, unconventional technical operations. The generic computing here only performs generic functionality. Moreover, the dependent claims’ use of particular eligibility criteria and game variants are variations on business rules and loyalty/offer schemes, not technical features of the computing system(s). These are well-understood, routine, and conventional ways of tailoring offers and game configurations based on player data (see prior art of record).
Taken individually and as an ordered combination, the claim elements do no more than use standard computer/EGM components as tools and implement a rule-based eligibility and game selection scheme for player accounts via a conventional GUI and player data.
This is analogous to other subject matter found ineligible where generic computers implement business logic for eligibility, pricing, or content selection. There is no additional element or combination of elements that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application or that amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, & 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0207525; hereinafter “Allen”) in view of Gauselmann (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0216182).
Claims 1, 10, & 19: Allen discloses a gaming system having virtual assets and achievements in which player accounts identified by an identifier (e.g. a played or club card) are associated with virtual assets and status, and the system determines which games are available (unlocked) or locked based on the player’s assets/status (figures 7A-8 and paragraphs 0053-0056). Allen, therefore teaches receiving player account data from a gaming device, determining that the player account data satisfies access criteria, and causing certain electronic games to be provided or unlocked based on that determination.
Allen however does not explicitly disclose an operator GUI being displayed at a computing device associated with a gaming establishment to perform steps pertaining to configuring the access criteria. Gauselmann discloses a configuration technique for gaming machines in which operator interface terminals and a configuration server are used to configure electronic gaming machines (EGMs) via menus and a GUI. The system displays configuration menus on an EGM or operator interface, receives operator selections of configuration parameters, stores the selected configuration settings in memory, and downloads these settings to designated EGMs so that they are configured with the desired configuration (figures 4-7 and paragraphs 0036-0057).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Allen and Gauselmann into a single gaming system by implementing Allen’s player-account based access criteria and game locking/unlocking using the operator configuration infrastructure of Gauselmann, such that the GUI at a computing device associated with a gaming establishment includes input fields (e.g. menus) for defining player account eligibility requirements for electronic games, those eligibility requirements being stored in memory, and enabling those requirements to be made available to EGMs, thereby enabling the EGM to receive player account data (e.g. identifiers or the like) to compare player account data to the configured eligibility requirements to determine whether the account satisfies the requirements. Such that, upon satisfying the requirements, the system then causes the corresponding electronic games to be provided or unlocked at the EGM. Defining eligibility rules via GUI input fields and applying them to player account data in this manner is a straightforward and predictable use of Gauselmann’ s configuration menu teachings with Allen’s access-control logic, and thus represents no more than the combination of known elements performing their expected functions. According, the functionality as set forth in at least claims 1, 10, & 19 is deemed obvious and unpatentable over Allen in view of Gauselmann, where the combination produces the gaming system of claim 1 that performs the method of claim 19 by executing instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10.
Claims 2, 11, & 20: Allen discloses that the players are associated with assets and status (e.g. virtual asset status information, see paragraphs 0053-0056) and that certain game are locked or unlocked based on such, which is interpreted as the eligibility requirements including a “player account level”.
Claims 5 & 14: Allen discloses that the player account data comprises a player identifier (paragraph 0008).
Claims 6, 7, 15, & 16: Allen disclose that the player assets and achieves are based on play and performance over time including points and other value accrued during gaming sessions, which is interpreted as reasonably including “one or more input amounts during a gaming session” and/or “one or more expenditures at one or more properties associated with the gaming establishment” as the player’s continued play over time requires input amounts (e.g. wagers) amounting to expenditure. Based on Gauselmann’s teachings of configuration based on the desired settings, in such a gaming system of the Allen and Gauselmann combination, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have explicitly defined the eligibility requirements in terms of such “input amounts” or “expenditure” and to expose those thresholds as configurable parameters in the configuration menus, given that Gauselmann already allows a variety of similar configurations such as denominations, bet per payline, average paybacks, and others which are tied to wagering and expenditure.
Claims 8 & 17: As discussed above, the Allen and Gauselmann combination reasonably teaches that determination of whether the player account satisfies the eligibility requirements would include identifying a player account identifier associated with the player account and compare the player account indicator to the eligibility requirements (e.g. Allen, paragraphs 0008, 0053-0056). Claims 9 & 18: Allen discloses that virtual assets and the player accounts associated therewith are continuously updated to reflect gaming activity, such that the player account indicator or identifier is updated based on play of one or more electronic games at the EGM (paragraph 0057).
Claims 3, 4, 12, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Gauselmann, as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-11, & 14-20, where applicable, in further view of Fox et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0019373; hereinafter “Fox”).
Claims 3 & 12: The combination of Allen and Gauselmann as detailed above discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly disclosing that at least one of the one or more electronic games to be provided at the EGM comprises a higher return to player (RTP) than a default game previously provided at the EGM. Firstly, it appears that those having ordinary skill in the art would have found it an obvious design consideration to offer loyal players who achieve more and more virtual assets and status in Allen to unlock games that are more advantageous, such as having a higher RTP as a common metric in the gaming arts. Allen even suggests that player achievements and continued gaming activity that increase the player’s rank or level may in turn allow the player to receive features that improve their gaming experience (paragraph 0058). Fox provides such a teaching of offering wagering games of improved or better RTP when players have achieved higher statuses, such as a player having a VIP status being provided wagering games of improved RTP versus a player not having a VIP status playing basic of default games (paragraphs 0093-0095). Applying the Fox teaching to the Allen/ Gauselmann combination would result in a prima facie obvious invention incorporating Allen’s teachings of providing a plurality of games that are unlockable by increasing a player’s status through gaming activity to achieve access to wagering games offering improvements to the gaming experience, such as improved RTP in conjunction with higher player status as taught by Fox as player’s improve their eligibility to games with higher or better RTP compared to default games for non-status or low-status players. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the Fox teachings to the Allen/ Gauselmann combination to provide one such manner of improved gaming experiences for higher status players.
Claims 4 & 13: The combination of Allen, Gauselmann, and Fox discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly disclosing that additional symbols are in at least one game versus the default game. Without further specificity, the Examiner positions it is notoriously well established in the art to provide games of varying symbol sets, themes and the like, such that it would have required mere routine skill in the art, such as via a design consideration, theme consideration, gameplay consideration, or a combination thereof to have provided at least one of the electronic games with an additional symbol or symbols not found in a default electronic game, such as when a player unlocks a new game in the Allen/Gauselmann/Fox combination that could have an entirely different theme than any “default game” including different symbols, more symbols, or the like. For at least these reasons, the Examiner respectfully positions that it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have specifically provided at least one game having symbols not found in a default game allowing higher status players to unlock and then play games with better or different gaming experiences.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights