Detailed Action
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Top Bottom Keno, as evidenced by Youtube.com and TBK.pdf (“TBK”).
Regarding claim 1, TBK discloses a gaming system comprising a processor, and a memory device storing a plurality of instructions (p. 1) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by a display device, of a keno card comprising a first quantity of spots (p. 2: spots 1-80), cause a display, by the display device, of indications of each of a second quantity of player spots selected from the plurality of spots of the keno card (p.2: spots 41-80), cause a display, by the display device, of indications of a plurality of spot sub-groups, wherein each of spot sub-groups comprises a plurality but not all of the first quantity of spots of the keno card (p. 2: top and bottom groups), cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of one of the plurality of spot sub-groups being associated with a player (p.2: spots 1-40 checked), cause a display, by the display device, of indications of each of a third quantity of drawn spots selected from the first quantity of spots of the keno card (p. 3: 20 numbered balls), cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a fourth quantity of matches between the player spots and the drawn spots (p. 3: Hit 12), and cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a determination that one of the spot sub-groups is a winning spot sub-group (p.4: Win 1), wherein the determination is based on respective quantities of the drawn spots in each of the spot sub-groups, and regardless of the player spots and regardless of the quantity of matches between the player spot and the drawn spots (p. 4: player wins $5 (1 credit) for top matching 12 numbered balls while bottom only matched 8).
Regarding claim 2, TBK discloses wherein each of the spot sub-groups has a same quantity of the first quantity of keno spots (p. 2: top and bottom each has 40 spots).
Regarding claim 3, TBK discloses wherein the spot sub-groups do not have any of the same keno spots of the first quantity of keno spots (p. 2: top includes spots 1-40, bottom includes spots 41-80).
Regarding claim 4, TBK discloses wherein each of the first quantity of keno spots are in one of the spot sub-groups (p. 2: top includes spots 1-40, bottom includes spots 41-80).
Regarding claim 5, TBK discloses wherein the determination of the spot sub-group that is the winning spot sub-group is based on the spot sub-group that has more of the drawn spots than each of the other spot sub-groups (p. 3: top has 12 hits, bottom has 8 hits).
Regarding claim 6, TBK discloses wherein the determination of the spot sub-group that is the winning spot sub-group is based on the spot sub-group that has less drawn spots than each of the other spot sub-groups (p. 2: paytable shows 20000 credits for 0 hits).
Regarding claim 7, TBK discloses causing the processor to select, for each electronic gaming machine, the spot sub-group associated with that electronic gaming machine (p. 5: game machine defaults to top group for the house).
Regarding claim 8, TBK discloses associating the spot sub-group with the player based on an input by the player (pp. 6-7: player can choose to play top or bottom).
Regarding claim 9, TBK discloses associating the spot sub-group with the player based on an input selection of that spot sub-group by the player (pp. 6-7: player can choose to play top or bottom).
Regarding claim 10, TBK discloses displaying, by the display device, of an award amount responsive to the determination that the spot sub-group that is the winning spot sub-group is associated with the player (p. 4: player wins $5 (1 credit) for top matching 12 numbered balls while bottom only matched 8).
Regarding claim 11, TBK discloses wherein the award amount is based on a quantity of drawn spots in the winning spot sub-group (p. 2: paytable shows number of won credits corresponding to number of hits).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TBK in view of Humphrey et al (US 2015/0287276 A1).
Regarding claim 12, TBK discloses a gaming system comprising a first electronic gaming machine displaying a keno card comprising a first quantity of spots, wherein the keno card is part of a play of a keno game displayed by a display device of the first electronic gaming machine (p. 2), cause a display of indications of a plurality of spot sub-groups, wherein each of spot sub-groups comprises a plurality of the first quantity of spots of the keno card (p. 2: top and bottom groups), displaying one of the plurality of spot sub-groups associated with the first electronic gaming machine (p. 2), cause a display, by the display device of the second electronic gaming machine, of indications of each of a second quantity of drawn spots selected from the first quantity of spots of the keno card by the first electronic gaming machine (p. 3), and cause a display of an indication of a determination that one of the spot sub-groups is a winning spot sub-group (p. 4), wherein the determination is based on respective quantities of the drawn spots in each of the spot sub-groups (p. 3: Hit 12), and regardless of player spots for the play of the keno game displayed by the first electronic gaming machine and regardless of a quantity of matches between the player spots and the drawn spots for the play of the keno game displayed by the first electronic gaming machine (p. 4: player wins $5 (1 credit) for top matching 12 numbered balls while bottom only matched 8). Humphrey suggests—where TBK does not disclose—a second electronic gaming machine (Fig. 3A) and a keno side game server comprising a processor, and a memory device storing a plurality of instructions (Fig. 3A), causing a display, by a display device of the second electronic gaming machine of a keno card comprising a first quantity of spots (Fig. 2L), wherein the keno card is part of a play of a keno game displayed by a display device of the first electronic gaming machine (Fig. 2M) and displaying by the display device of the electronic gaming machine, of an indication of one of the plurality of spot sub-groups being associated the second electronic gaming machine (Fig. 2M). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of TBK and Humphrey in order to make the game more interesting and competitive.
Regarding claim 13, Humphrey suggests—where TBK does not disclose—wherein the display, by the display device of the second electronic gaming machine, of the keno card is in a service window (Fig. 2P). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of TBK and Humphrey in order to make the game more interesting and competitive.
Regarding claim 14, TBK discloses wherein the quantity of the spot sub-groups is two (p. 2: top and bottom groups).
Regarding claim 15, TBK discloses selecting, for the first electronic gaming machine, the spot sub-group associated with that electronic gaming machine (p. 5: game machine defaults to top group for the house). Humphrey suggests—where TBK does not disclose—a second electronic gaming machine (Fig. 3A). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of TBK and Humphrey in order to make the game more interesting and competitive.
Regarding claim 16, TBK discloses selecting select, for the first electronic gaming machine, the spot sub-group associated with that electronic gaming machine based on a player input at one of the first electronic gaming machine and the second electronic gaming machine pp. 6-7: player can choose to play top or bottom). Humphrey suggests—where TBK does not disclose—a second electronic gaming machine (Fig. 3A). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of TBK and Humphrey in order to make the game more interesting and competitive
Regarding claim 17, TBK discloses displaying, by the display device of the electronic gaming machine associated with the winning spot sub-group, of an award amount associated with that spot sub-group (p. 4: player wins $5 (1 credit) for top matching 12 numbered balls while bottom only matched 8).
Regarding claim 18, TBK discloses displaying, by the display device of the electronic gaming machine associated with the winning spot sub-group, of a point amount associated with that spot sub-group, wherein the point amount is based on the quantity of drawn spots in the winning spot sub-group (p. 3: Hit 12).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TBK in view of Arezina et al (US 2009/0117989 A1).
Claim 19 subsumes the limitations of claim 1 above and is accordingly rejected for the same reasons given supra. Further regarding claim 19, Arezina suggests—where TBK does not disclose—a keno side game server (¶ [0054]) operable to communicate with a first quantity of electronic gaming machines (¶ [0066]), the keno side game server comprising a processor, and a memory device storing a plurality of instructions (¶ [0066]), selecting a second quantity of electronic gaming machines, the second quantity being less than the first quantity (¶ [0080]: bonus-game options available only to club members), wherein the keno card is part of a play of a keno game displayed by a display device of one of the first quantity of electronic gaming machines (Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of TBK and Arezina in order to make the secondary game exclusive to certain valuable patrons, thus creating a retention incentive.
Regarding claim 20, Arezina suggests—where TBK does not disclose—wherein one of the second quantity of electronic gaming machines is the electronic gaming machine that displays the play of the keno game (¶ [0080]: bonus-game options available only to club members). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of TBK and Arezina in order to make the secondary game exclusive to certain valuable patrons, thus creating a retention incentive.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Moody (US 20010003098 A1) discloses a numerical high/low lottery game.
Moody (US 20020198037 A1) discloses a numerical total keno game.
Conti (US 20080108407 A1) discloses a four-card keno game.
Brown (US 20190188965 A1) discloses a multi-board keno game.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steve Rowland whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, alternate Fridays, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm, Eastern Time. 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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights