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 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 non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are drawn to a method (process).
Claims 8-14 are drawn to one or more non-transitory computer readable media (machine).
Claims 15-20 are drawn to an apparatus (machine).
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
However, under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.
Let us begin by considering the requirements of each independent claim:
Thus, let us take Claim 1 as exemplary:
A method comprising:
receiving, from an electronic casino gaming device, a signal comprising a player identifier;
determining, based on the player identifier received from the electronic casino gaming device, a wagering history associated with the player identifier and a mobile device associated with the player identifier (mental process: concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; an observation could include visually observing a wagering history);
determining, based on the wagering history associated with the player identifier, a quantity of electronic tickets (mental process: concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; an evaluation could include using the prior observation to determine or calculate a number of tickets to award); and
sending, to a mobile device associated with the player identifier, the quantity of electronic tickets.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a mental process, aside from the reference to generic gaming or computer components (e.g. an electronic casino gaming device, one or more processors, memory, a mobile device).
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of an electronic casino gaming device, one or more processors, a memory, a mobile device, receiving a signal, and sending the quantity of electronic tickets. The electronic casino gaming device, one or more processors, memory, and mobile device are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. generic gaming or computer components performing generic functions like storing and processing data) and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply invoking a computer or generic gaming technology as a tool to perform an existing process in their ordinary capacity and/or generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment. In other words, the claims invoke the electronic casino gaming device, one or more processors, memory, and mobile device merely as tools to execute the abstract idea without adding any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. Further, the steps of receiving a signal and sending the quantity of electronic tickets are considered insignificant extra-solution activities related to receiving and transmitting data and do not add any meaningful limitation to the mental process steps.
Step 2B:
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the electronic casino gaming device, one or more processors, memory, and mobile device are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic components performing generic functions like storing and processing data) and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer or generic gaming technology. The additional elements that were considered insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d), Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result--a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink AND Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
The combination of additional elements adds nothing that is not already present when considered separately. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 inherit the same abstract idea as claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite further additional element limitations related to mental processes and/or extra-solution activities (i.e. receiving signals, sending/receiving data to and from a database, determining a loyalty status, displaying symbols, etc). These additional elements, under their BRI, fall within the mental processes grouping(s) of abstract ideas and/or are considered extra-solution activities and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional, as would flow naturally from the similar recitations discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silvestro (US 2009/0069074 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Silvestro discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from an electronic casino gaming device, a signal comprising a player identifier (see par. [0026], Patron identifying step 105 may, by example, be performed by passing an identification card by or into a card reader, such as an optical card reader, by visually identifying the patron, by proximity emitter and/or identity sensor, such as a biometric sensor, or any other direct or indirect method that reasonably identifies and/or associates a patron with a game, gaming apparatus, and/or gaming system);
determining, based on the player identifier received from the electronic casino gaming device, a wagering history associated with the player identifier and a mobile device associated with the player identifier (see par. [0027], Once a patron has been identified, that person's player information may be retrieved from the operator's player database, then an operator may track the wagering and/or spending habits of the patron… The player information may contain personal information such as birthday, address, etc.; personal information could include a mobile/cell phone number; also see par. [0123], For example, such rewards can be…used with mobile devices or any other form of electronic communications);
determining, based on the wagering history associated with the player identifier, a quantity of electronic tickets (see par. [0029], For instance, award availability step 110 may include a determination of whether one or more pre-determined criteria have been met by the patron, thereby making the patron eligible to receive an award, such as cash, a sweepstake entry, and/or a sweepstake award; also see par. [0104], In this example, the Bally Power Sweepstakes Rewards program is active, so that an eligible patron may accumulate a Count during the patron's gaming session or sessions and when the Count matches the Count Limit, the patron may obtain a reward, such as a sweepstakes entry); and
sending, to a mobile device associated with the player identifier, the quantity of electronic tickets (see par. [0044], a patron may receive an award indirectly by crediting the player's account; also see par. [0123], such rewards can be…used with mobile devices or any other form of electronic communications).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Silvestro discloses wherein the player identifier is determined by the electronic casino gaming device based on or more of: receipt of a physical object or a digital signal comprising the player identifier (see par. [0026], Patron identifying step 105 may, by example, be performed by passing an identification card by or into a card reader, such as an optical card reader, by visually identifying the patron, by proximity emitter and/or identity sensor, such as a biometric sensor, or any other direct or indirect method that reasonably identifies and/or associates a patron with a game, gaming apparatus, and/or gaming system).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Silvestro discloses wherein determining the wagering history comprises sending, to a database, one or more queries comprising the player identifier; and receiving, from the database, one or more digital signals indicating the wagering history (see par. [0028], As the program is executed by the processor, steps in the program may include querying a player database to request the player information associated with the identification obtained from the player card. Upon receipt of the player information or selected portions thereof, such as player level or rating, the program may include conditional portions of code which may operate depending upon the player level or rating).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Silvestro discloses wherein determining the quantity of electronic tickets comprises determining a player loyalty status (see par. [0030], For example, player ratings for a facility may be platinum, gold and silver where the ratings may be determined from various criteria associable with a player, such as the amounts wagered, frequency, and type of game played).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Silvestro discloses receiving a digital signal indicating at least one electronic ticket of the quantity of electronic tickets has been accessed (see par. [0060], In the event that gaming machine 300 is connected to a network, then the rewards software and hardware may be implemented wholly or partly externally and may be communicatively connected to the user interface unit for notifying patrons of rewards and receiving patron communications, such as award acceptances).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. 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. 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.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvestro (US 2009/0069074 A1) in view of Marks et al. (US 7,722,457 B1).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Silvestro discloses the method as discussed above. However, Silvestro does not explicitly disclose generating a quantity of symbols configured for display on the electronic casino gaming device, wherein the quantity of symbols is a function of the quantity of electronic tickets.
Marks teaches a method of playing a slot machine including generating a quantity of symbols configured for display on the electronic casino gaming device, wherein the quantity of symbols is a function of a quantity of an award (see col. 5, lines 18-24, the quantity of FS symbols are correlated to a quantity of free spins to be awarded; spins are considered analogous to tickets as they are both awards given to the player). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Silvestro with the symbol display of Marks as this is merely substituting one type of award notification (see Silvestro, par. [0037], The current Count Limit for a patron may be displayed for a patron so that the patron may view as the Count Limit decrements towards zero. When the Count Limit reaches zero, then an award may be initiated for the patron) for another type of award notification (Marks’s symbols) to produce the similar result of informing the player that they received a game award.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvestro (US 2009/0069074 A1) in view of Midkiff et al. (US 2005/0003837 A1).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Silvestro discloses the method as discussed above. However, Silvestro does not explicitly disclose determining, in one or more communications from the mobile device associated with the player identifier, unidentified text.
Midkiff teaches a system and method for SMS text routing including determining, in one or more communications from the mobile device associated with the player identifier, unidentified text (see fig. 5 and par. [0068], FIG. 5 depicts a message flow diagram for the case where the SGTR receives a MO message for a text routing service that contains an unrecognized keyword; also see par. [0076], Text routing service at SGTR is configured to send help text message to originating subscriber when an unrecognized keyword is received). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Silvestro with the text routing of Midkiff in order to send a help text message when receiving unrecognized text (see Midkiff, par. [0121]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Luciano, Jr. et al. (US 2010/0144418 A1)- teaches gaming systems with lottery ticket prize component
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM 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, 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.
/ALLEN CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights