DETAILED ACTION
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process which describes “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” specifically either fundamental economic principles or practices or alternatively commercial or legal interactions, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 recites:
An automated process of providing wager gaming credit through a computing network to wager game players playing wager games, which wager games are provided by a third party wager gaming system provider including:
by the computing network, automated processing of at least a first wager gaming player's application for a first player grant of first player credit to the first wager gaming player for use in playing at least a first wager game, which first wager game is provided by the third party wager gaming system provider;
by the computing network, automated charging of a transaction fee to the first wager gaming player in exchange for the first player grant of first player credit to the first wager gaming player;
by the computing network, automated supporting of the third party wager gaming system provider providing the first wager game to be played by the first wager gaming player in exchange for at least a portion of the first player credit;
by the computing network, automated supporting of displaying to the first wager gaming player of a first player balance available to the first wager gaming player of the first player credit; and
by the computing network, automated acquisition from the third party wager gaming system provider of at least a portion of the first player credit used by the first wager game player for use in playing the first wager game.
The underlined steps above describe a process for requesting, approving, processing, and/or managing of credit associated with wagering activity for a player, which is fundamental economic principle or practices or alternatively commercial or legal interactions in the examiner’s opinion. Further, examiner notes that Par. 3 of applicant’s specification teaches where the invention is directed towards “a credit wager system and method of use, and more particularly in varying embodiments to a credit wager system and method of use with loan and/or warrantying for the warrantying, settling, requesting, approving, processing, and/or managing of credit provided for use in wager gaming and related activities” which again describe a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial or legal interactions regarding loan management for wagering games.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “automated processing” the steps and performing them “through a computer network” are little more than recitation of a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The “computer network” is claimed only generically at the highest level with no additional detail or structure outside of the abstract idea, and as such seems to be recitation of generic computing hardware using a generic computer network connection. Thus, this is likewise considered simply instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or generally linking the use of the judicial exception of the wagering loan management to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). As such, the claims do not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims 2-3, and 7-16 recite additional abstract elements of the abstract idea. Dependent Claims 4-6 recite a series of abstract steps similar to those found in Claim 1, along with similar recitation of “automated processing” which considered by the examiner to be mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, as described above in reference to Claim 1. As such none of these limitations are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation of “a computing network” and “automated processing” when claimed generically at such a high level are simply recitation of well-understood and routine computer activity well known in the art. Further, although the additional elements appear to be simply instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use, the courts have held that “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” (See Symantec; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC; OIP Techs., v. Amazon.com, Inc.; buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc.), represents routine and conventional computer activity, well known in the art. As claimed, the additional elements simply provide implementation on a generic computer in a networked computer environment of the fundamental economic practice and/or commercial or legal interaction of loan management for wagering games. As such, even when considered with the claims as a whole, these elements fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent Claims 2-3, and 7-16 recite additional abstract elements of the abstract idea. Dependent Claims 4-6 recite a series of abstract steps similar to those found in Claim 1, along with similar recitation of “automated processing” which considered by the examiner to be mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, as described above in reference to Claim 1. As such none of these limitations add significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arezina et al., US 2009/0318220, in view of Bjornebark et al., US 2015/0126273, and Allen et al., US 2014/0206438.
In Reference to Claim 1
Arezina et al. teaches an automated process of providing wager gaming credit through a computing network to wager game players playing wager games (Abstract, Fig. 3, and Par. 39 “gaming network”), including: A. by the computing network, automated processing of at least a first wager gaming player's application for a first player grant of first player credit to the first wager gaming player for use in playing at least a first wager game (Fig. 5 and Par. 42-43, and 40 “As noted above, the kiosk 310 may be further utilized in accord with the present concepts to establish a line of credit 355 for a player in association with the player's wagering account 350 to thereby enable a player to draw upon such line of credit, as needed, during wagering game play, such as on the gaming establishment's gaming machines 10 or handheld gaming machine 110. The kiosk 310 is still further advantageously configured to permit a player to conduct transactions involving an established line of credit 355 and a player's wagering account 350 and to conduct transactions therebetween.” See also “Such functionality is not, however, limited to the kiosk 310 and may be provided in association with different devices such as, but not limited to, gaming machines 10, handheld gaming machine 110, electronic devices and portable electronic devices provided by a gaming establishment, and/or other player-accessible electronic devices having a display (e.g., a home PC, PDA, Blackberry, cell phone, portable electronic device with a display, etc.).” See also Par. 51 “Still further, an individual may be permitted to establish a wagering account and/or line of credit before even arriving at the gaming establishment, such as by using the individual's personal computer to connect to the gaming establishment's secure network and to enter the required data.” And Par. 59 which teaches any mechanics including a player’s personal computers or any authorized remote computer can be utilized for establishing the line of credit for the player.), B. by the computing network, automated charging of a transaction fee to the first wager gaming player in exchange for the first player grant of first player credit to the first wager gaming player (Par. 79 “a tiered fee may be charged to open a line of credit for a player”); C. by the computing network, automated supporting of the wager gaming system providing the first wager game to be played by the first wager gaming player in exchange for a fee (Fig. 4a-4b, 5 and Par. 61, 65, and 68. See also Par. 79 which teaches charging various fees for the line of credit, such as interest); D. by the computing network, automated supporting of displaying to the first wager gaming player of a first player balance available to the first wager gaming player of the first player credit (Par. 60 “To facilitate a clear distinction between available funds and available line of credit, the available funds and available line of credit are, in some aspects, displayed in different colors, locations, fonts, sizes, and/or formats to accentuate the use of the line of credit.”); and E. by the computing network, automated acquisition from the third party wager gaming system provider of at least a portion of the first player credit used by the first wager game player for use in playing the first wager game (Fig. 4e-4f and Par. 67 which teaches that the advance of credit is paid back automatically after the player has sufficient funds on their wagering credit meter. See also Par. 79 which teaches charging a time based usage fee to the player. See Fig. 3, and Par. 39-40 which teaches the computing network).
Further, Arezina et al. teaches that the line of credit is accessed over a network (Fig. 3) and that various devices can be used to establish the line of credit (Par. 51 and 59) and further that the line of credit can be obtained from various sources, such as “financial institutions” and “third party loan providers” (Par. 59), and also teaches that various fees can be assessed to the line of credit including ongoing fees (Par. 79). However, Arezina et al. does not teach where the wager games are provided by a third party wager gaming system provider, or explicitly where wagering game support is provided in exchange for at least a portion of the first player credit.
Bjornebark et al. teaches a wagering game system where the wagering game accounts are provided by a gaming entity and where the wager games are provided by a third party wager gaming system provider (Fig. 1-3 and Par. 40 “The third-party server can be associated with a first entity that provides access to a wagering game website, such as an online casino. The first entity is separate from a second entity (e.g., a wagering game provider) associated with the wagering game server. Users can access the online casino via a website on the Internet. The website can indicate branding for the online casino. In some embodiments, a user can log on to the online casino using credentials for the player account. The third-party server may subscribe to a service provided by the wagering game server. For example, the wagering game server may be associated with a wagering game provider that provides wagering game content for placement on the third-party's website, or to be presented in connection with the website (e.g., as a webpage that includes branding of the online casino and which maintains a session connection with the player account associated the online casino). The wagering game provider can serve the third party entity (i.e., serve the online casino) a library of wagering games for presentation in connection with the online casino. The third-party server, on the other hand, manages the player account and the online casino.” See also Par. 19 which teach where the system uses a network).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Arezina et al. to have a gaming establishment use a third party wagering game provider as taught by Bjornebark et al. in order to allow the wagering line of credit taught by Arezina et al. to also be used for online gaming establishments such as online casinos and to increase player convenience and enjoyment by better facilitate gaming on a player’s home PC.
Allen et al. teaches a system for providing loans for wagering game activity where wagering game support is provided in exchange for at least a portion of the first player credit (Fig. 5 and Par. 45 which teach a system for lending wagering funds to a player either via interest on the loan from a player’s credit or through an “investment” fee where the lender keeps a percentage of the player’s winnings).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Arezina et al. to include where wagering game support is provided in exchange for at least a portion of the first player credit as taught by Allen in order to offset any losses arising from the line of credit program and/or to help fund any underwriting of the line of credit program, similar to charging interest, as taught by Arezina et al. Par. 79.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of Arezina et al. . to have a gaming establishment use a third party wagering game provider as taught by Bjornebark et al. and to include where wagering game support is provided in exchange for at least a portion of the first player credit as taught by Allen.
In Reference to Claims 2
Arezina et al. teaches F. by the computing network, automated predetermined control of the first wager gaming player use of the first player credit (Par. 58 which teaches incremental access to the line of credit).
In Reference to Claim 3
Arezina et al. teaches wherein Step F includes, by the computing network, preventing the first wager game player from cashing out at least a portion of the first player credit (Par. 58 which teaches dividing the line of credit into smaller portions and only permitting access to additional portions of the line of credit after the player has depleted a first portion through wagering. “In embodiments permitting automatic access, a player's wager or loss exceeding one of the lines of credit will automatically make available in the player's WA credit corresponding to the next available line of credit.”).
In Reference to Claims 4-6
Arezina et al. as modified by Bjornebark et al. and Allen et al. teaches the automated processing Step A includes automated processing of at least a second wager gaming player's application for a second player grant of second player credit to the second wager gaming player for use in playing at least a first or second wager game, which first or second wager game is provided by the third party wager gaming system provider; the automated charging Step B includes charging a second transaction fee to the second wager gaming player in exchange for the second player grant of second player credit to the second wager gaming player; the automated supporting Step C includes supporting of the third party wager gaming system provider providing the first or second wager game to be played by the second wager gaming player in exchange for at least a portion of the second player credit; the automated supporting Step D includes automated supporting of displaying to the second wager gaming player of a second balance available to the second wager gaming player of the second player credit; and the automated acquisition Step E includes acquisition from the third party wager gaming system provider of at least a portion of the second player credit used by the second wager game player for use in playing the first or second wager game (See Claim 1 as described above which teaches the steps A-E for a player. See Par. 47 which teaches multiple “players” with multiple gaming devices that can each use the system to access their line of credit for wagering. See also Par. 49, 51, and 59 which teaches establishing a line of credit for each particular player. See Bjornebark et al. which teaches the third party wagering game system provider, and Allen which teaches wagering support in exchange for at least a portion of the second player credit as described above).
In Reference to Claim 7-9
Arezina et al. teaches also including, with the computing system, automatically procuring electronic payment of a remaining balance of the first player credit (Par. 56 “The player may then use the line of credit as a virtual fund source until such time as the player either depletes his or her line of credit or attempts to cash out, at which time any deficit is automatically billed to his or her credit card or is charged to the appropriate source of the credit and/or insurer.”).
In Reference to Claim 10-12
Arezina et al. teaches including, with the computing system, automatically procuring electronic payment of a first remaining balance of the first player credit and a second remaining balance of the second player credit (Par. 56 “The player may then use the line of credit as a virtual fund source until such time as the player either depletes his or her line of credit or attempts to cash out, at which time any deficit is automatically billed to his or her credit card or is charged to the appropriate source of the credit and/or insurer.” See also Par. 47 which teaches multiple players accessing a line of credit as described above).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arezina et al., US 2009/0318220, Bjornebark et al., US 2015/0126273, Allen et al., US 2014/0206438, further in view of Van Luchene et al., US 2007/0087819.
In Reference to Claim 13-16
Arezina et al., Bjornebark et al. and Allen et al. teaches a method as described above in reference to Claims 1, 3, 9, and 12. Further Arezina et al. teaches a time-based usage fee (“e.g. interest”) (Par. 79) and teaches automatic loan repayment (See Par. 65). However, they do not explicitly teach where the acquisition step E takes place at least daily.
Van Luchene et al. teaches a system for providing loans in a game environment where acquiring a loan payment takes place at least daily (Par. 213 “The terms of the loan may include various types of payment options including equal payments, in which equal payments are made within specified terms such as daily, weekly, monthly, yearly or any fraction thereof.“).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Arezina et al., Bjornebark et al. and Allen et al. to acquire loan repayments at least daily as taught by Van Luchene et al. in order to mitigate the financial risks from loaning out the line of credit for wagering by recouping at least a portion of the outstanding line of credit and/or fees on a frequent basis such as daily.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of Arezina et al., Bjornebark et al. and Allen et al. to acquire loan repayments at least daily as taught by Van Luchene et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patterson, US 2008/0139303 and 2011/0065497, teaches an electronic system for applying for a marker for use in a casino. Abouchar et al., US 2014/0094278 teaches a system for providing loans in a gaming environment. Higgins et al., US 2019/0043307 teaches an electronic system for extending a line of credit to a wagering game player.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL V LARSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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.
/CARL V LARSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
