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 .
Prior Art
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-20.
The closest prior art of record includes: Cautley et al., US 2009/0143128 A1 (hereinafter Cautley); Platis, US 2006/0258438 A1 (hereinafter Platis); Sotiriou et al., US 2016/0110953 A1 (hereinafter Sotiriou); and Zavlos et al, US 2008/0220870 A1 (hereinafter Zavlos).
Cautley discloses a set of channel devices that may provide a set of content frameworks that allow content to be downloaded to an end user device (or centrally accessed) without needing to change any code in the device itself to support a new game (Cautley [0041]). This applies to both the wager interface and reveal presentation portions of content (Cautley [0041]). The game developer may be shielded from the need to deal with security, reliability, and performance concerns by a set of frameworks and APIs provided in a shared host system (Cautley [0041]). A Game Development Kit (GDK), tools, test environments and documentation may be provided to enable consistent implementation and minimize the testing required to deploy and go live with a game with least risk to the game developer, the game operator, and the game players (Cautley [0041]). Shared content may be developed by individual developers, software publishing companies or retailers (e.g., a lottery or other game operator) (Cautley [0115]). Generally, the process of developing new content takes place in a controlled development environment where the developer can test and debug the content or demonstrate game concepts to potential customers or focus groups before deploying it to a shared host (Cautley [0115]). In order to comply with the specifications of the shared host, the developers may be provided with a Game Development Kit (GDK) (Cautley [0115]). The GDK may include software tools to aid the developer in writing, testing and debugging the new content (Cautley [0115]). The new content may be published to a local content repository (Cautley [0115]). Once published, the content may be assembled in a test or demo environment, which may include other related content such as, for example, software libraries, input files and other data required for testing purposes (Cautley [0115]). After the new content is deployed, game operators or individual retailers may then subscribe to access the content based on a licensing agreement (Cautley [0115]). Access may be configured to the needs of the subscriber and the content may be activated and ready for delivery to authorized channel devices (Cautley [0115]). The game may be configured on the shared host according to game operator specifications (Cautley [0167]). This may involve selecting usage restrictions (e.g., who can access the game and under what circumstances) and game features (e.g., wager limits, disabling or enabling certain in-game options) (Cautley [0167]). The operator may also be given an opportunity to perform customization of the game itself (e.g., branding) (Cautley [0167]). This may be performed by the operator himself (e.g., using a game development kit) or by another person on behalf of the operator (Cautley [0167]).
Platis discloses a system and method to providing a series of wagering events (Platis [Abstract]). A wagering application has a backend application interface and a front and application interface (Platis [0022]). The backend application interface allows the individuals hosting the wagering application to customize it for varying sizes of poker playing tournaments (Platis [0022]). A front end application is designed for individuals wishing to pari-mutuelly wager on players within a poker tournament (Platis [0023]). While using the wagering system, individuals will need to set up accounts to receive and to transfer funds during the wagering process (Platis [0065]). To support such activity, a series of banking objects are provided which reside within the baking database and which are enabled in the banking application (Platis [0065]). Generally, the banking application has a front end and a back end, meaning that the front end deals with the interface for account users and general public, and the back end enables the individuals maintaining the wagering system to implement various configurable portions so that the wagering system can provide accurate information (Platis [0065]).
Sotiriou discloses a wagering gaming system comprising: a game supplier server configured to provide game content software providing wagering game play; a back-end events analysis server; and a wagering gaming operator server, different from the game supplier server, configured to: receive from a client device a request for the game content software to provide wagering game play to a user of the client device; in response to the request, enable the client device to download the requested game content software from the game supplier server; and transmit to the client device, from the wagering gaming operator server, an events agent core library of software functions and a set of front-end software functions; wherein the events agent core library, when executed by the client device, performs functionality comprising: receiving notifications of in-game events from the downloaded game content software executing on the client device; and based on the notifications, reporting at least some of the in-game events to the front-end software functions, and reporting at least some of the in-game events to the back-end analysis server; wherein the front-end software functions, when executed by the client device, perform functionality comprising implementing an out-of-game response based on at least one of the reported in-game events; wherein the back-end events analysis server is configured to: aggregate the reported in-game events from a plurality of wagering games at the back-end events analysis server; and provide to the game supplier server, from the back-end events analysis server, analytics based on the aggregated in-game events; and wherein the game supplier server is configured to perform alterations on the game content software for transmission to the client device in response to the analytics from the back-end events analysis server (Sotiriou [0004]).
Zavlos discloses an interactive gaming system is described that comprises a host gaming server comprising memory and a processor; said host gaming server being capable of remotely communicating with at least two client consoles that are capable of running application software; an SDK capable of being integrated with the application software running on the at least two client consoles wherein said SDK will facilitate communication with said host gaming server; a tournament management program stored in said memory and capable of being run on said processor; wherein said tournament management program will manage the operation of a tournament involving games to be played by players on the at least two client consoles; wherein said games are hosted on one of the at least two client consoles involved in said game and said SDK will communicate information regarding said game after said game has ended (Zavlos [Abstract]).
The prior art, alone or in combination, absent hindsight, does not fairly teach or suggest the claimed invention.
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. 12,154,408 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present application is broader.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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.
/WERNER G GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights