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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has written “incudes.” Presumably, Applicant intended to write “includes,” which is assumed for the purposes of this Office Action. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 18-19 recites the limitation "the adjusted limit setting". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Currently, claims 18-19 are dependent on claim 13. The adjusted limit setting limitation is present in independent claim 17. For the purposes of examination, claims 18-19 are considered to be dependent on independent claim 17.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2011/0183748 A1 to Wilson et al. (hereinafter Wilson).
Concerning claim 1,
Wilson discloses method for multi-factor cross platform transaction identification, comprising: communicating, via a data bridge, with a plurality of gaming platforms (0034-0035, 0041, wherein the wagering game network is considered to be the data bridge, and system A and B are considered to be gaming platforms);
communicating, via the data bridge, with a data analysis subsystem (0039-0040, 0068, 0075, Figure 3, Figure 8, wherein the gaming facilities’ servers and systems, including the trusted third party system S and the back-end server, are considered to be the data analysis subsystem);
receiving, via the data bridge, gaming session data from at least one gaming platform of the plurality of gaming platforms, the gaming session data including identity information of a user associated with the gaming session data (0025, 0032);
transmitting, via the data analysis subsystem, a first security string to the data bridge (element 803) (0039, 0068, 0075, Figure 6, Figure 8, wherein the wagering game device public key is considered to be the first security string);
safeguarding the identity information of the user of the gaming session data, via the data bridge, using the first security string to create safeguarded identity information (0032, 0037-0038, Figure 2-3, wherein splitting the message and encrypting the communication is considered to be safeguarding the identity, and the safeguarded identity information is considered to be the combined message);
transmitting, via the data bridge, the safeguarded identity information and the gaming session data to the data analysis subsystem (element 302) (0032, 0039-0040, Figure 3); and
further safeguarding, via the data analysis subsystem, the safeguarded identity information of the gaming session data using a second security string to create a unique identifier (element 303) (0032, 0039-0040, Figure 3, wherein the second security string is considered to be Wilson’s identifier, and Applicant’s unique identifier is considered be the signature S sends to B, confirming the identifier).
Concerning claim 2,
Wilson discloses safeguarding comprises: obfuscating the identity information (0032, 0037-0038, Figure 2-3, wherein encryption is considered to be obfuscation).
Concerning claim 3,
Wilson discloses safeguarding comprises: encrypting the identity information (0032, 0037-0038, Figure 2-3).
Concerning claim 13,
Wilson discloses the plurality of gaming platforms includes online gambling platforms (0021-0022).
Concerning claim 14,
Wilson discloses system for providing multi-factor cross platform transaction identification protection and transaction analysis, comprising: a data bridge configured to communicate with a plurality of gaming platforms (0034-0035, 0041, wherein the wagering game network is considered to be the data bridge, and system A and B are considered to be gaming platforms);
a data analysis subsystem configured to communicate with the data bridge (0039-0040, 0068, 0075, Figure 3, Figure 8, wherein the gaming facilities’ servers and systems, including the trusted third party system S and the back-end server, are considered to be the data analysis subsystem);
at least one memory (0023-0024, 0039); and
at least one processing unit for executing computer-executable instructions stored in the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed, instruct the at least one processing unit (0023-0024, 0039) to:
transmit, via the data analysis subsystem, a first security string to the data bridge (element 803) (0039, 0068, 0075, Figure 6, Figure 8, wherein the wagering game device public key is considered to be the first security string);
safeguard, via the data bridge, the identity information of the gaming session data with the first security string to create safeguarded identity information (0032, 0037-0038, Figure 2-3, wherein splitting the message and encrypting the communication is considered to be safeguarding the identity, and the safeguarded identity information is considered to be the combined message);
transmit, via the data bridge, the safeguarded identity information, and the gaming session data to the data analysis subsystem (element 302) (0032, 0039-0040, Figure 3); and
further safeguard, via the data analysis subsystem, the safeguarded identity information of the gaming session data with a second security string to create a unique identifier (element 303) (0032, 0039-0040, Figure 3, wherein the second security string is considered to be Wilson’s identifier, and Applicant’s unique identifier is considered be the signature S sends to B, confirming the identifier).
Concerning claim 15,
Wilson discloses the processing unit, when safeguarding the identity information, is operable to: obfuscate the identity information (0032, 0037-0038, Figure 2-3, wherein encryption is considered to be obfuscation).
Concerning claim 16,
Wilson discloses the processing unit, when safeguarding the identity information, is operable to: encrypt the identity information (0032, 0037-0038, Figure 2-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2011/0183748 A1 to Wilson et al. in view of US Publication 2002/0095589 A1 to Keech (hereinafter Keech).
Concerning claim 4,
Wilson discloses the first security string is different from the second security string (0039, 0075, Figure 3, Figure 6).
Wilson does not clearly disclose the first security string is a random security string and the second security string is a random security string.
Keech teaches the first security string is a random security string and the second security string is a random security string (0028-0029, 0042).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the strings as described in Wilson with a randomized variants as described in Keech as both concern key and identity information in the context of digital security. Allowing the strings of Wilson to be randomized as described in Cole would make the strings harder to guess, making them more secure.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2011/0183748 A1 to Wilson et al. in view of US Publication 2020/0092107 A1 to Cole (hereinafter Cole).
Concerning claim 5,
Wilson discloses the first security string is a first secret key, and the first security string is different from the second security string (0039, 0068, 0075, Figure 6, Figure 8).
Wilson does not clearly disclose the second security string is a second security key.
Cole teaches the second security string is a second security key (0099).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the identifier as described in Wilson with a security key as described in Cole as both the identifier and the key incorporate identity information. Allowing the identifier of Wilson to also be a key as described in Cole would make the identifier more varied in its form, allowing for greater flexibility.
Claim(s) 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2011/0183748 A1 to Wilson et al. in view of US Publication 2001/0031663 A1 to Johnson (hereinafter Johnson).
Concerning claim 6,
Wilson discloses analyzing, via the data analysis subsystem, the gaming session data associated with the unique identifier (0024-0025, 0032, wherein the tracking of players to perform functions is considered analysis).
Wilson does not disclose determining, via the data analysis subsystem, at least one limit setting for the unique identifier.
Johnson teaches determining, via the data analysis subsystem, at least one limit setting for the unique identifier (0018, 0026, wherein the data analysis subsystem is considered to be the back end systems).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the gambler assistance mechanism of Johnson with the gaming security system of Wilson as both concern gaming systems which require identification. Modifying the gaming data that is being securely transmitted as described by Wilson to include a gambler assistance mechanism as described by Johnson would allow for additional security benefits to the players, and mitigate addiction.
Concerning claim 7,
Johnson teaches transmitting the at least one limit setting to at least one gaming platform of the plurality of gaming platforms (0013, 0018, 0026, wherein video terminals and gaming tables are examples of gaming platforms).
Concerning claim 8,
Johnson teaches transmitting the at least one limit setting to each gaming platform of the plurality of gaming platforms (0013, 0018, 0026, wherein video terminals and gaming tables are examples of gaming platforms).
Concerning claim 9,
Johnson teaches the at least one limit setting includes a deposit limit, a spend limit, a loss limit, a time limit, a cool-off period, or any combination thereof for gaming platform accounts of the user associated with the unique identifier (0013, 0018, 0026, demonstrates a loss limit and time limit).
Concerning claim 10,
Johnson teaches analyzing the gaming session data associated with the unique identifier includes evaluating the gaming session data to prior gaming session data associated with the unique identifier to identify trends, anomalies, and/or increased risk taking (0013, 0018, 0026, demonstrates trend tracking).
Concerning claim 11,
Johnson teaches analyzing the gaming session data associated with the unique identifier includes detecting a behavioral pattern associated with the unique identifier (0013, 0018, 0026, wherein trend tracking, pointing out issues, and making recommendations regarding gambling behavior is considered detecting a behavioral pattern).
Concerning claim 12,
Johnson teaches analyzing the gaming session data associated with the unique identifier includes comparing at least a portion of the gaming session data to at least one threshold (0013, 0018, 0026, wherein a loss limit is considered to be a threshold).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2001/0031663 A1 to Johnson in view of US Publication 2013/0184061 A1 to Meunier et al. (hereinafter Meunier).
Concerning claim 17,
Johnson discloses a method for providing cross platform transaction limit settings, comprising: receiving gaming session data from at least one gaming platform of a plurality of gaming platforms, the gaming session data including identity information of a user associated with the gaming session data (0013, 0018);
retrieving a universal limit setting associated with the user based on the identity information (0018, 0026).
Johnson does not disclose comparing the gaming session data to the universal limit setting; and
determining an adjusted limit setting based on at least one result of the comparison.
Bjornebark teaches comparing the gaming session data to the universal limit setting (0080-0081); and
determining an adjusted limit setting based on at least one result of the comparison (0080-0081).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the adjusted limitation mechanism of Bjornebark with the gambler assistance mechanism of Johnson as both provide limits to those in a gambling context. Modifying the limitation mechanism of Johnson to include the dynamically adjusting limitation of Bjornebark would allow for quicker adjustment for credit risk for the gaming establishment, allowing for greater profitability.
Concerning claim 18,
Bjornebark teaches the adjusted limit setting corresponds to a difference between the universal limit setting and at least one amount included in the gaming session data (0080-0081, wherein the account balance is considered to be the at least one amount included in the gaming session data).
Concerning claim 19,
Johnson discloses providing the limit setting to each gaming platform of the plurality of gaming platforms (0013, 0018, 0026, wherein video terminals and gaming tables are examples of gaming platforms).
Johnson does not disclose an adjusted limit setting.
Bjornebark teaches an adjusted limit setting (0080-0081).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights