DETAILED ACTIO
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 .
Claim Status
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 a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recite limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. A security support system comprising at least one memory and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory and with at least one electronic gaming device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
analyze data transmitted between a game controller of the at least one electronic gaming device and a player tracking interface of the at least one electronic gaming device to identify operational data, the operational data is associated with operation of the at least one electronic gaming device; - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
identify suspected fraudulent player conduct by comparing the operational data to predefined profiles stored within the at least one memory; and - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
in response to identifying the suspected fraudulent player conduct, cause a mitigating action to be performed. - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites a certain method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic activity and/or commercial or legal transaction for mitigating risk such as identifying suspected fraudulent activity. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “data transmitted between a game controller of the at least one electronic gaming device and a player tracking interface of the at least one electronic gaming device” “the operational data is associated with operation of the at least one electronic gaming device;” and “stored within the at least one memory;” recite steps to invoke highly-generalized computer components to be invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea utilizing the computer components in their ordinary function, insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., data-gathering, pre-solution and/or post solution activity), and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: “at least one memory”, “at least one processor”, “a game controller” and “ a player tracking interface” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are similar to Alice v. CLS because they recite well-known and conventional components in the gaming arts that are directed to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). Moreover, the Specification references a gaming system as being a computer such as commercially available and general purpose computer, microprocessors and/or a particular technological environment (e.g., a gaming environment or defined by regulatory requirements) which when viewed individually and/or as a collection do not amount to significantly more (see Specification, 0023-0024, 0046, 0085-0086). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more under Step 2B.
With respect to independent claims 11 and 18, the independent Claims recites substantially the same subject matter as analyzed above but are directed to the method embodiment and the non-transitory computer-readable storage media. However, these differences does not alter the analysis above because they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, independent Claims 11 and 18 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
With respect to dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20, the additional limitations have been reviewed and analyzed and were found to recite at least one of: a further limitations of a grouping of abstract idea, invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
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 on the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,189,130 B2.
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of US Patent 11,741,782, claims 1-20 of 11,741,783, and claims 1-20 of US 12,469,362.
The claims of the respective patents have been analyzed and are not patentably distinct as shown in the claim chart below.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 17 of the instant application
Claim 1-2, 9-10, and 17 of US Patent 12,469,362
Claims 1-2, and 4 of US Patent 11,741,782
Claims 1, 3, and 17 of US Patent 11,189,130
Claims 1, 8, and 11, of US Patent 11,741,783
Similarities and Differences
A security support system comprising at least one memory and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory and with at least one electronic gaming device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
A security support device for an electronic gaming device, the security support device comprising:
A security support device installed within or affixed to a cabinet of an electronic gaming machine (EGM), the security support device comprising:
A security support device installed within or affixed to a cabinet of an electronic gaming machine, the security support device comprising:
A security support device installed within or affixed to a cabinet of an electronic gaming machine (EGM), the security support device comprising:
Claim of instant application and the claims of Patent ‘130; ‘782; and ‘783 recite substantially the same subject matter.
Differences – Claim 1 of the instant application does not include (EGM) as an acronym for electronic gaming machine.
a network interface configured to inspect network traffic, and
a first network interface configured to inspect network traffic being generated by one or more components of the electronic gaming machine;
a network interface configured to inspect network traffic; and
Claim 1 of the instant application recites a broader embodiment of ‘130; ‘782; ‘783.
a second network interface configured to communicatively couple with a local area network; and
analyze data transmitted between a game controller of the at least one electronic gaming device and a player tracking interface of the at least one electronic gaming device to identify operational data, the operational data is associated with operation of the at least one electronic gaming device;
a security support component comprising at least one processor communicatively coupled with a communication port of a network communication path located within the electronic gaming device and communicatively coupled between a game controller of the electronic gaming device and a player tracking interface of the electronic gaming device, the communication port configured to enable the at least one processor to inspect data sent between the game controller and the player tracking interface without interfering with data transmission between the game controller and the player tracking interface, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
a security support component communicatively coupled to a network communications path via the network interface and between a game controller of the EGM and a player tracking interface of the EGM, the communicative coupled allowing the network interface to inspect data packets sent between the game controller and the player tracking interface without interfering with packet transmission between the game controller and the player tracking interface, wherein the security support component is configured to:
a security support components communicatively coupled, via the first network interface, to a network communications path between a game controller of the electronic gaming machine and a player tracking interface of the electronic gaming machine, the communicative coupling allows the first network interface to inspect packets sent between the game controller and the player tracking interface without interfering with packet transmission between the game controller and the player tracking interface, the security support component is configured to:
a security support component communicatively coupled to a network communications path via the network interface and between a game controller of the EGM and a player tracking interface of the EGM, wherein the security support component is configured to:
Claim 1 of the instant application recites a broader embodiment of the invention recites by Claims 1 of the ‘130; ‘782; and ‘783. Each of the claims are directed to a security support component comprising at least a processor that is in communicatively coupled with a game controller and a player tracking interface and configuring the security component to perform operations.
Differences – Claim 1 does not recite the narrower embodiment directed to the particular physical configuration of the security support device and recites the obvious variant of the processor of the security support component.
detect data transmitted between the game controller and the player tracking interface, wherein the data is addressed to at least one of the game controller or the player tracking interface;
read, via the network interface, network packets from the network interface, wherein the network packets are transmitted between the game controller and the player tracking interface and are addressed to at least one of the game controller and the player tracking interface;
read, via the first network interface, network packets from the first network interface, the network packets are transmitted between the game controller of the electronic gaming machine and the player tracking interface and are addressed to one of the game controller and the player tracking interface;
read network packets from the network interface, wherein the network packets are transmitted between the game controller and the player tracking interface;
Claim recites substantially the same data transmitted operational data directed to the game controller and the player tracking interface.
Differences – Claim of the instant application use obvious substitutes to recite the steps of reading the data as opposed to detecting the data.
identify operational data in the data, wherein the operational data is associated with operation of the electronic gaming device;
extract operational data from the network packets, wherein the operational data is related to the operation of the EGM;
extract one or more components of operation data from the network packets, the operation data related to the operation of the electronic gaming machine;
Claim 1 of the instant application recites substantially the same subject matter.
Claim 1 of the instant application is different that it recites an obvious variant term to identify the data as oppose to extra the data to be used.
input operational data from the network packets to a machine-learning model, wherein the operational data is related to the operation of the EGM;
identify suspected fraudulent player conduct by comparing the operational data;
identify suspected fraudulent player conduct based on the operational data;
detect fraudulent player conduct based on the operational data;
detect fraudulent player conduct based on the one or more components of operational data; and
detect fraudulent player conduct based on an output from the machine-learning model;
Claim 1 of the instant application recites substantially the same subject matter for identify/detect suspected fraudulent player conduct and are not patentably distinct.
Claims differ in that the instant application recites the obvious variant of identify vs detect.
transmit a security alert on the local area network via the second network interface in response to the detected fraudulent player conduct.
in response to identifying the suspected fraudulent player conduct, cause a mitigating action to be performed.
in response to identifying the suspected fraudulent player conduct, cause a mitigating action to be performed, wherein the mitigating action comprises at least one of i) disabling the electronic gaming device, ii) generating a security alert, or iii) removing the electronic gaming device from participation in a multiplayer electronic game.
in response to detecting fraudulent player conduct, performing a mitigating action, wherein the mitigating action comprises at least one of i) automatically disabling the EGM or ii) automatically removing the EGM from participation in a multiplayer electronic game.
(Claim 17) The security support device of claim 1, wherein transmission of the security alert causes a mitigating action to be automatically in response to the detected fraudulent player conduct.
in response to detecting fraudulent player conduct, performing a mitigating action, wherein the mitigating action comprises at least one of i) automatically disabling the EGM; or ii) automatically removing the EGM from participation in a multiplayer electronic game.
The claims recite substantially the same subject matter to cause a mitigating action to cause an alert, automatically disabling and/or removing the player from the multiplayer game as recited in ‘782 and ‘783.
(Claim 2) The security support device of Claim 1, wherein the security support device further comprises a second network interface configured to communicatively couple with a local area network, and wherein the security support component is further configured to, in response to detecting fraudulent player conduct, transmit a security alert on the local area network via the second network interface.
(Claim 3) The security support device of claim 1, wherein detecting fraudulent player conduct includes applying the one or more components of operational data as inputs to a machine learned model, the output of the machine learned model identifies fraudulent player conduct.
(Claim 11) The EGM of Claim 8, wherein the security support device further comprises a second network interface configured to communicatively couple with a local area network, and wherein the security support device is further configured to, in response to detecting fraudulent player conduct, transmit a security alert on the local area network via the second network interface.
(Claim 4) The security support device of Claim 1, wherein detecting fraudulent player conduct includes applying the operational data as an input to a machine learned model, wherein an output of the of the machine learned model identifies fraudulent player conduct.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims under the obviousness analysis provide an “unjustified timewise extension” of the security support device and are obvious variations of the invention claimed in the US Patent 11,189,130, US Patent 11,741,782, US Patent 11,741,783, and US Patent 12,469,362 because they are merely re-arranging the corresponding subject matter of the security system device. The claims each recite substantially the same subject matter directed to the security support device communicatively coupled with the game controller and the player tracking interface of the gaming machine to detect fraud and provide alerts and mitigating actions. For at least these reasons, the Applicant is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the later issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/914,959 (US 2025/0037542 A1) and US Patent 12,475,763 B2 in view of Kaizerman (US 2020/0211325 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patentably claims under the obviousness analysis provide an “unjustified timewise extension” of the security support system and recites obvious variations of the invention claims in co-pending application 18/914,959 and US 12,475,763 B2). The claims recite substantially the same subject matter as being directed to a security support system to identify suspected fraudulent behavior based on the operational data of the electronic gaming device. The differences in the claim amount to inputting information into a machine-learning model that are used to identify the suspected fraudulent behavior as opposed to the broader embodiment claimed in the instant application of inputting operational data. However, the prior art of Kaizerman teaches a machine-learning models that uses operational data of electronic gaming machines to identify suspected fraud to yield the predictable result to improve the user experience and increase user satisfaction (see Kaizerman, 0004, 00335-0037). It follows that the differences in the subject matter between the Claims 1-20 of the instant application incorporate obvious uses of the security support system that would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 1-20 of copending Application 18/351,965 in view of Kaizerman and claims 1-20 of US 12,475,763 B2 in view of Kaizerman.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaizerman (US 2020/0211325 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaizerman discloses a security support system comprising at least one memory and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory and with at least one electronic gaming device (see Kaizerman, Fig 1-2, 5, 9, 12, 0039, 0075, 0077), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
analyze data transmitted between a game controller of the at least one electronic gaming device and a player tracking interface of the at least one electronic gaming device to identify operational data (see Kaizerman,210, 230, 250 of Fig. 2, 0039-0043, wherein to method for detecting, flagging, or categorizing anomalies or other error conditions in activities or data include gaming activities of players and/or received outcomes, such as bets and wins, log in times, levels, scores, bonus amounts, and other gaming related player actions and received outcomes (e.g., data transmitted between a game controller of at least one electronic device and the server 110 of system 100)); 0044-0047, Data may be collected or obtained from various data sources such as game databases (e.g., as database 130 as presented in Fig. 1) storing the different game related actions and from a client module running on user devices (e.g., user devices 120) which may record actions taken by the player client module and related outcomes; data describing various events which may arrive asynchronously from the various databases and use devices, may be arranged according to player identity number (ID) and sorted by time of occurrence; the time series data may include, for each player ID, a plurality of channels including event values of a particular event type over time; 0066-0068), the operational data is associated with operation of the at least one electronic gaming device (see Kaizerman, Fig. 2, 0039-0047, 0050, wherein the operational data is data associated with the outlier event which is associated with operation of at least one player of the at least one electronic gaming device of system 100);
identify suspected fraudulent player conduct by comparing the operational data to predefined profiles stored within the at least one memory (see Kaizerman, Fig. 5, 0051, 0058-0060, 0066, 0071, wherein the detecting, flagging, or categorizing anomalies of fraud or operational problems are detected by gaming activity and patterns detected by a machine learning model; Fig. 9, 0066-0070) and
in response to identifying the suspected fraudulent player conduct, cause a mitigating action to be performed (see Kaizerman, 0069-0072, wherein the mitigating action is a notification, alarm to attract the attention of the operator to the possible fraud; generate a report; revert to last version of software that did not result in outlier).
Regarding claim 2, Kaizerman discloses the security support system of Claim 1, wherein the identified operational data is addressed to at least one of the game controller or the player tracking interface (see Kaizerman, Fig. 1-2, 5, 0039, 0042-0045, wherein the system 100 identified operational data includes data of gaming activities of players using from a database storing time series data of gaming patterns that are addressed to at least one of a game controller of the gaming device performing the gaming activity and/or associated with the player id on different channels such as in a multi-channel time series data format; 0068, a relation between players may be determined based on player features or attributes, IP addresses, same or similar timing of outlier events, geographic location and other statistics; 0070 – wherein the report of the outlier events includes the gamer details (e.g., user ID and IP address) which indicates that the operational data is addressed to at least one of a game controller of a user device or a player tracking interface).
Regarding claim 3, Kaizerman discloses the security support system of Claim 1, wherein the processor is communicatively coupled with the game controller and the player tracking interface (see Kaizerman, Fig. 1-2, 5, 0039, 0042-0044).
Regarding claim 4, Kaizerman discloses the security support system of Claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is communicatively coupled with the game controller and the player tracking interface via a first network interface (see Kaizerman, Fig. 1, 0039-0047, system 100 is configured to conduct to use ML model to detect outliers in a multi-channel time series; connected to database 130 for used for retrieving information of the time series data, model parameters, and other data as may be required; wherein the system 100 is connected to one or more user devices over network 140; Data may be collected or obtained from various data sources such as game databases (e.g., as database 130 as presented in Fig. 1) storing the different game related actions and from a client module running on user devices (e.g., user devices 120) which may record actions taken by the player client module and related outcomes.).
Regarding claim 5, Kaizerman discloses the security support system of Claim 1, wherein the mitigating actions comprises generating a security alert, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the security alert via a second network interface (see Kaizerman, Fig. 12, 0039-0044; 0070-0072, wherein in block 950, a notification may be provided to a user or operator, as indicated in block 952. The notification may be provided in the form of a report describing the timing of the outlier events, the gamer details (e.g., user ID and IP address) of the suspected players, and any other relative data.. The notification may also include generating an alarm to attract the attention of the operator to the possible fraud); 0075-0078, 0080-0083 – input devices and output devices may be connected to computing devices such as a wired or wireless network interface card; These elements in combination are found to indicate a second network output interface that generates a notification/alert/alarm).
Regarding claim 6, Kaizerman discloses the security support system of Claim 1, wherein the mitigating action comprises at least one of i) disabling the at least one electronic gaming device, ii) generating a security alert, or iii) removing the at least one electronic gaming device from participation in a multiplayer electronic game (see Kaizerman, 0070-0072).
Regarding claim 7, Kaizerman discloses the security support system of Claim 1, wherein the operational data includes wager timing data regarding when a player presses a player input device to place a wager at the at least one electronic gaming device, and wherein identifying the suspected fraudulent player conduct includes evaluating the wager timing data to determine inconsistent wagering by the player (see Kaizerman, 0039, 0043-0044, 0046-0047, 0069-0072, wherein the time series data related to gaming patterns of players, such as bets and wins, log in times, levels, scores, bonus amounts, and other gaming related player actions and received outcomes over time such as wager timing which is data related to bets associated with gaming related player actions – bets over time).
Regarding claim 8, Kaizerman discloses the security support system of Claim 1, wherein the operational data includes game outcome data over a play session of a player, wherein identifying the suspected fraudulent player conduct includes determining that the game outcome data for the play session has generated a negative outcome for the at least one electronic gaming device over the play session (see Kaizerman, Fig. 4-5, 0051-0053, wherein the outlier events are analogous to negative outcomes associated with the wins and bets that is indicative of an outlier event of fraud or operational problems over the time series data associated with the play session).
Regarding claim 11, Kaizerman discloses a method for detecting fraudulent player conduct on at least one electronic gaming device (see Kaizerman, Fig 1-2, 5, 9, 12, 0039, 0042, 0075, 0077), the method comprising:
analyzing data transmitted between a game controller of the at least one electronic gaming device and a player tracking interface of the at least one electronic gaming device to identify operational data (see Kaizerman,210, 230, 250 of Fig. 2, 0039-0043, 0044-0047, 0068-0072), the operational data is associated with operation of the at least one electronic gaming device (see Kaizerman, Fig. 2, 0039-0047, 0050);
identifying suspected fraudulent player conduct by comparing the operational data to predefined profiles stored within at least one memory (see Kaizerman, 210, 230, 250 of Fig. 2, 5; 0039-0046, wherein the outliers in gaming patterns are analyzed by a ML model and analyzed by comparing to profiles associated with average bets, average sessions, average win ratios and average bets; 0051, 0058-0060, 0066, 0069-0072, 0080); and
in response to identifying the suspected fraudulent player conduct, causing a mitigating action to be performed (see Kaizerman, 0069-0072).
Regarding claim 12, Kaizerman discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein the identified operational data is addressed to at least one of the game controller or the player tracking interface (see Kaizerman, Fig. 1-2, 5, 0039, 0042-0045, 0070).
Regarding claim 13, Kaizerman discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein the operational data is received via a first network interface (see Kaizerman, Fig. 1, 0040-0042).
Regarding claim 5, Kaizerman discloses the method of Claim 13, wherein the mitigating action comprises generating a security alert, and wherein the method further comprises transmitting the security alert via a second network interface (see Kaizerman, Fig. 12, 0039-0044; 0070-0072, wherein in block 950, a notification may be provided to a user or operator, as indicated in block 952. The notification may be provided in the form of a report describing the timing of the outlier events, the gamer details (e.g., user ID and IP address) of the suspected players, and any other relative data.. The notification may also include generating an alarm to attract the attention of the operator to the possible fraud); 0075-0078,, 0080-0083 – input devices and output devices may be connected to computing devices such as a wired or wireless network interface card; These elements in combination are found to indicate a second network output interface that generates a notification/alert/alarm).
Regarding claim 15, Kaizerman discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein the mitigating action comprises at least one of i) disabling the at least one electronic gaming device, ii) generating a security alert, or iii) removing the at least one electronic gaming device from participation in a multiplayer electronic game (see Kaizerman, 0070-0072).
Regarding claim 16, Kaizerman discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein the operational data includes wager timing data regarding when a player presses a player input device to place a wager at the at least one electronic gaming device, and wherein identifying the suspected fraudulent player conduct includes evaluating the wager timing data to determine inconsistent wagering by the player see Kaizerman, 0039, 0043-0044, 0046-0047, 0069-0072).
Regarding claim 17, Kaizerman discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein the operational data includes game outcome data over a play session of a player, wherein identifying the suspected fraudulent player conduct includes determining that the game outcome data for the play session has generated a negative outcome for the at least one electronic gaming device over the play session (see Kaizerman, 0070-0072).
Regarding claim 18, Kaizerman discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media with instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor communicatively coupled with at least one electronic gaming device, cause the at least one processor to (see Kaizerman, Fig 1-2, 5, 9, 12, 0039, 0042, 0075, 0077):
analyze data transmitted between a game controller of the at least one electronic gaming device and a player tracking interface of the at least one electronic gaming device to identify operational data, the operational data is associated with operation of the at least one electronic gaming device (see Kaizerman,210, 230, 250 of Fig. 2, 0039-0043, 0044-0047, 0068-0072);
identify suspected fraudulent player conduct by comparing the operational data to predefined profiles stored within at least one memory (see Kaizerman, 210, 230, 250 of Fig. 2, 5; 0039-0046, 0051, 0058-0060, 0066, 0069-0072, 0080) ; and
in response to identifying the suspected fraudulent player conduct, cause a mitigating action to be performed (see Kaizerman, 0069-0072).
Regarding claim 19, Kaizerman discloses the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 18, wherein the identified operational data is addressed to at least one of the game controller or the player tracking interface (see Kaizerman, Fig. 1-2, 5, 0039, 0042-0045, 0070).
Regarding claim 20, Kaizerman discloses the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 18, wherein the processor is communicatively coupled with the game controller and the player tracking interface (see Kaizerman, Fig. 1-2, 5, 0039, 0042-0044).
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over obvious over Kaizerman as applied to Claims 1 above, in further view of Gururajan et al. (US 2006/0252554 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kaizerman discloses the security support system of Claim 1. Although, Kaizerman discloses receiving operational data associated with the at least one electronic gaming device and identify the suspected fraudulent player conduct based on the operation data it is silent with respect to receive video data associated with the at least one electronic device and identify the suspected fraudulent player conduct and further based on the video data.
Gururajan et al. teach a security system for identifying and tracking game objects and game states by intelligent position analysis and tracking for tracking game events, game states and general game progressions for improving game tracking and monitoring (see Garurajan, abstract, 0003-0004, 0068, 0165). Specifically, Gururajan teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive video data associated with the at least one gaming device and identify the suspected fraudulent player conduct based on the operational data and the further based on the video data (see Gururajan, Fig. 3, 0061- wherein the system utilizes periodic imaging to capturing a video stream at specific frames over a specific period of time, a specific event, and optical chip detection utilizing the overhead imaging system; 0068, wherein the module records video data from imaging system and links game event data to recorded video for analysis and reporting for violation alerts or fraud alerts; 0165). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gururajan to use known fraud detection techniques to yield expected results of improving robustness in game tracking (see Garurajan, Fig. 6, abstract, 0004, 0068). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing the application to include video data into the operational data and identify the suspected fraudulent player conduct and further based on the video data.
Regarding claim 10, Kaizerman discloses the security support system of Claim 1. Although, Kaizerman discloses receiving operational data associated with the at least one electronic gaming device and identify the suspected fraudulent player conduct based on the operation data it is silent with respect to receive audio data associated with the at least one electronic device and identify the suspected fraudulent player conduct and further based on the audio data.
Gururajan et al. teach a security system for identifying and tracking game objects and game states by intelligent position analysis and tracking for tracking game events, game states and general game progressions for reporting and analysis (see Garurajan, abstract, 0068, 0163-0165). Specifically, Gururajan teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive audio data associated with the at least one gaming device and identify the suspected fraudulent player conduct based on the operational data and the further based on the video data (see Gururajan, Fig. 3, 33, 0061- wherein the system utilizes periodic imaging to capturing sound via microphones to associated with the collected video at specific frames over a specific period of time, a specific event; 0068, wherein the module records video data from imaging system and links game event data to recorded video for analysis and reporting for violation alerts or fraud alerts; 0163-0165, sound recording may be incorporated into the surveillance module in order to capture the sounds happening at the gaming environment). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gururajan to use known techniques with similar devices to reach the expected result of improving robustness of game tracking (see Garurajan, Fig. 6, abstract, 0004, 0068, 0163-0164). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing the application to: receive audio data associated with the at least one electronic device and identify the suspected fraudulent player conduct and further based on the audio data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights