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 . This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 7/20/26. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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. Claim 1 recites a gaming system, comprising: a first player station of a plurality of player stations comprising a processor and a memory. The limitation of display, at a first portion of the first player station, an interactive gaming interface, wherein the interactive gaming interface is configured to accept one or more first actions associated with the first player station, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “memory”, and “processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “memory”, and “processor,” language, “display” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally visualizing an interactive game in their mind. Similarly, the limitations of: display and update are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 1. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a couple additional elements –processor and memory. The processor and memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using processor and memory amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 2-20.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2018/0268656 A1 to Czyzewski et al. (hereinafter “Czyzewski”).
Concerning claim 1, Czyzewski discloses a gaming system, comprising: a first player station of a plurality of player stations comprising a processor and a memory, the memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor (Figs. 1, 10, 12, paragraphs [0046], [0191]-[0192]), cause the first player station to:
display, at a first portion of the first player station, an interactive gaming interface, wherein the interactive gaming interface is configured to accept one or more first actions associated with the first player station (Figs. 1, 9, 10, paragraph [0046]);
display, at a second portion of the first player station, a gaming interface associated with a second player station of the plurality of player stations (Figs. 1, 9, 10, paragraph [0161]);
update, based on at least one first action received at the interactive gaming interface, the display of the first portion of the first player station (Fig. 1, paragraph [0102]); and
update, based on at least one second action received at the second player station, the display of the second portion of the first player station (Fig. 1, paragraph [0102]); and
the second player station of the plurality of player stations, wherein the first player station and the second player station are configured to participate in the same gaming event (Figs. 9-11, paragraph [0174]).
Concerning claims 2 and 13, Czyzewski discloses wherein the one or more first actions and the at least one second action comprise a bet associated with the gaming event (Fig. 1, paragraph [0046]).
Concerning claims 3 and 14, Czyzewski discloses wherein the bet comprises at least one of a main bet and a side bet (paragraph [0048]).
Concerning claims 4 and 15, Czyzewski discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the first player station to: receive, at the interactive gaming interface, an indication of a first bet associated with the first player station; deduct, from a betting reserve, a first value equal to the first bet; receive an indication of a second bet associated with the second player station; and deduct, from the betting reserve, a second value equal to the second bet (Figs. 2, 9, paragraphs [0076], [0128]).
Concerning claims 5 and 16, Czyzewski discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the first player station to: determine, based on the at least one first action, a win associated with a first bet and a first wager associated with the first bet; add, to a betting reserve, a first value equal to the first bet; determine, based on the at least one second action, a loss associated with a second bet and a second wager associated with the second bet; and deduct, from the betting reserve, a second value equal to the second bet (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0049], [0120]).
Concerning claims 6 and 17, Czyzewski discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the first player station to: determine, based on the at least one first action, a win associated with a first bet and a first wager associated with the second bet; add, to a betting reserve, a first value equal to the first bet; determine, based on the at least one second action, a win associated with a second bet and a second wager associated with the second bet; and add, to the betting reserve, a second value equal to the second bet (Figs. 1, 4, 6, paragraphs [0049], [0112], [0120]).
Concerning claims 7 and 18, Czyzewski discloses further comprising a third player station of the plurality of player stations, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the first player station to: display, at a third portion of the first player station, another gaming interface associated with the third player station of the plurality of player stations; and update, based on at least one third action received at the third player station, the display of the third portion of the first player station, wherein the first player station, the second player station, and the third player station are configured to participate in the same gaming event (Figs. 4, 6, 9, 10, paragraphs [0046], [0112], [0174]).
Concerning claim 8, Czyzewski discloses wherein the second portion of the first player station is updated in near real-time based on the at least one second action (paragraph [0118]).
Concerning claims 9 and 19, Czyzewski discloses wherein each player station of the plurality of player stations is physically connected to a community device (Figs. 9, 10, paragraph [0116]).
Concerning claims 10 and 20, Czyzewski discloses wherein the community device comprises at least one of a community video screen, an overhead display feature, and a community gaming device (Figs. 9, 10, paragraph [0116]).
Concerning claim 12, Czyzewski discloses a player station configured to operate an interactive gaming event, the player station further comprising a processor and a memory, the memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor (Figs. 1, 10, 12, paragraphs [0046], [0191]-[0192]), cause the player station to:
display, at a first portion of the player station, a first interactive gaming interface associated with a first user, wherein the first interactive gaming interface is configured to accept one or more first actions associated with the first user (Figs. 1, 9, 10, paragraph [0046]);
display, at a second portion of the player station, a second interactive gaming interface associated with a second user, wherein the second interactive gaming interface is configured to accept one or more second actions associated with the second user (Figs. 1, 9, 10, paragraph [0161]);
update, based on receiving at least one of the one or more first actions at the first interactive gaming interface, the display of the first interactive gaming interface (Fig. 1, paragraph [0102]);
update, based on receiving at least one of the one or more second actions at the second interactive gaming interface, the display of the second interactive gaming interface (Fig. 1, paragraph [0102]); and
display an outcome of the interactive gaming event based at least in part on the first interactive gaming interface and the second interactive gaming interface (Figs. 1, 9, 10, paragraphs [0102], [0174]);
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.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czyzewski in view of US Publication No. 2020/0302744 A1 to Lutnick et al. (hereinafter “Lutnick”).
Concerning claim 11, Czyzewski discloses wherein causing the first player station and the second player station to participate in the same gaming event further comprises at least one of: the first player station competing against the second player station (paragraph [0120]), however, lacks specifically disclosing and Lutnick discloses and the first player station competing on a same team as the second player station (paragraph [0387]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Czyzewski to allow players to compete on a same team again other teams in order to make the game more interesting for the user, thereby increasing player gambling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claimed invention amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Other than reciting “memory”, and “processor,” nothing in the claims precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “memory”, and “processor,” language, “display” in the context of these claims encompasses the user mentally visualizing an interactive game in their mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The processor and memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections, Applicant argues that Czyzewski does not disclose “update…based on at least one second action received at the second player station”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Czyzewski discloses players playing an individual game at each station and a joint progressive game which is updated based on each individual adding to a progressive jackpot. In other words, each gaming machine has an individual wagering game, and if the player chooses to participate, a secondary game with a progressive jackpot that is updated every time a different player contributes. Therefore, in at least paragraphs [0046], [0102], [0161], and [0174], and Figs. 1, 9-11 and corresponding descriptions, Czyzewski discloses “update…based on at least one second action received at the second player station”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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 at 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights