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 communication is responsive to application no. 18/936,236 filed on 11/04/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and has been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 02/24/2025 is considered.
The drawings filed on 11/04/2024 are noted.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application No. 17/844,813 filed on 06/21/2022 now U.S Patent 12,165,472 See MPEP 201.07. In accordance with MPEP 609.02 A.2 and MPEP 2001.06 (b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP 2001.06 (b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Patent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP 609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Patent Application is relevant in this application.
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.
8. Claims 1, 8, 15, and all dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitation of: “receiving, by a processor of a centralized gaming server, from a gaming device, an electronic play request message associated with a game of skill being played at the gaming device”.
The limitation of receiving, by a processor of a centralized gaming server, from a gaming device, an electronic play request message associated with a game of skill being played at the gaming device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claims preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using a processor to determine the prize value to award the player for the game skill; and information for managing the game of skill to perform both receiving and determining steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer configured to determine a game outcome) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In the instant case, the claims do 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 element of transmitting, to the gaming device, through the communications interface, an electronic message comprising information indicating the prize value to award the player for the game of skill and the information for managing the game of skill. Thus, taken alone, the additional element fails to ensure the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Double Patenting
9. 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. See 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);and, 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Pat. No.12,165,472. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to those in possession of the invention defined by claims 1-20 to observe that the limitations described in claims 1-20 are already incorporated in claims 1-17 of U.S. Pat. No.12,165,472. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized the addition of:” transmit, to the gaming device, through the communications interface, an electronic message comprising information indicating the prize value to award the player for the game of skill and the information for managing the game of skill” is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 5:30PM. Hoteler.
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, Hu Kang can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights