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 .
DETAILED ACTION
.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/23/25 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant's claim for domestic priority benefit of Provisional Application no 62/905278, filed 9/24/19, is acknowledged.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application no 17/701955, filed 3/23/22, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes a continuation.
Double Patenting
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. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
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 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12183163. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recited elements share the same scope. See below for a comparison example.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12183163
1. A system for facilitating a hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournament, comprising: at least one game server having a memory and a processor, the memory storing a program for directing the processor to perform a method, the method comprising: receiving, from an electronic table game component and at a first time, an indication that a tournament entry token has been received at an electronic table game in a casino from a first player of the electronic table game; identifying a hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournament indicated by the tournament entry token, thereby determining that the first player is a participant in the hybrid online and in- casino wagering game tournament; receiving, from the electronic table game, first game data, the first game data indicating the first player's results from participating in a first gaming session of a first wagering game at the electronic table game; storing, in association with the first player, the first game data; receiving, from a device facilitating an online game and at a second time, an indication that the first player is playing an online game as part of the hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournament; receiving, from the device, second game data, the second game data indicating the first player's results from participating in a second gaming session of the online wagering game; storing, in association with the first player, the second game data; combining the first game data and the second game data into combined data to use in determining results of the hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournament; and computing, based at least in part on the combined data, an outcome of the player for the hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournament
1. A method for conducting a hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournament, comprising: receiving, at an electronic table game in a casino, a tournament entry token from a first player of a first player position; automatically detecting, by a sensor of the electronic table game, the tournament entry token; identifying, by the electronic table game, a wagering game tournament indicated by the tournament entry token; conducting, by the electronic table game, a first gaming session of a first wagering game; transmitting, by the electronic table game and to a tournament management server, data descriptive of the participation of the first player in the first gaming session of the first wagering game; receiving, by an online game server, and from the first player, an indication of the wagering game tournament for which the first player is a participant; conducting, by the online game server, a second gaming session of a second wagering game; combining, by the tournament management server, the results of the first player in each of the first and second gaming sessions; and computing, by the tournament management server and based at least in part on the combined results of the first player, an outcome for the wagering game tournament for which the first player is a participant.
9. A system for conducting a combined online and in-casino wagering game tournament, comprising: at least one game server having a memory and a processor, the memory storing a program for directing the processor to perform a method, the method comprising: receiving, from an electronic table game component and at a first time, an indication that a tournament entry token has been received at an electronic table game in a casino from a first player of the electronic table game, wherein the tournament entry token has been automatically detected by a sensor of the electronic table game; identifying a combined online and in-casino wagering game tournament indicated by the tournament entry token, thereby determining that the first player is a participant in the combined online and in-casino wagering game tournament; receiving, from the electronic table game, first game data, the first game data indicating the first player's results from participating in a first gaming session of a first wagering game at the electronic table game; storing, in association with the first player, the first game data; receiving, from a device facilitating an online game and at a second time, an indication that a second player is playing an online game as part of the combined online and in-casino wagering game tournament; receiving, from the device, second game data, the second game data indicating the second player's results from participating in a second gaming session of the online wagering game; storing, in association with the second player, the second game data; and computing, based at least in part on the first game data and the second game data, an outcome for the combined online and in-casino wagering game tournament
8. A method for conducting a combined online and in-casino wagering game tournament, comprising: receiving, at an electronic table game in a casino, a tournament entry token from a first player of a first player position; automatically detecting, by a sensor of the electronic table game, the tournament entry token; identifying, by the electronic table game, a wagering game tournament indicated by the tournament entry token; conducting, by the electronic table game, a first gaming session of a first wagering game; transmitting, by the electronic table game and to a tournament management server, data descriptive of the participation of the first player in the first gaming session of the first wagering game; receiving, by an online game server, and from a second player, an indication of the wagering game tournament for which the second player is a participant; conducting, by the online game server, a second gaming session of a second wagering game; retrieving, by the tournament management server, the results of the first player and the second player in the respective first and second gaming sessions; and computing, based at least in part on the retrieved results of the first player and the second player, an outcome for the wagering game tournament.
16. A system for conducting a gaming session of a wagering game at an electronic table game in a casino in coordination with a combined online and in-casino wagering game tournament, comprising: at least one game server having a memory and a processor, the memory storing a program for directing the processor to perform a method, the method comprising: identifying, at an electronic table game, a plurality of players at a plurality of respective player positions of a wagering game; automatically detecting, by a sensor of the electronic table game and with respect to a first player from the plurality of players, a tournament entry token; identifying a wagering game tournament indicated by the tournament entry token; receiving, from each player of the plurality of players, at least one wager for the gaming session of the wagering game, thereby defining a plurality of wagers; identifying, as part of the gaming session of the wagering game at the electronic table game, a random gaming session input; computing, as part of the gaming session of the wagering game at the electronic table game and, and utilizing the random gaming session input, a gaming session outcome; computing, by the electronic table game and utilizing the gaming session outcome, a gaming session result; and transmitting, by the electronic table game and to a tournament server, data descriptive of the participation of the first player in the gaming session.
14. A method for conducting a gaming session of a wagering game at an electronic table game in a casino in coordination with a combined online and in-casino wagering game tournament, comprising: identifying, by the electronic table game, a plurality of players at a plurality of respective player positions of the wagering game; automatically detecting, by a sensor of the electronic table game and with respect to a first player from the plurality of players, a tournament entry token; identifying, by the electronic table game, a wagering game tournament indicated by the tournament entry token; receiving, from each player of the plurality of players, at least one wager for the gaming session of the wagering game, thereby defining a plurality of wagers; identifying, by the electronic table game and as part of the gaming session of the wagering game, a random gaming session input; computing, by the electronic table game and as part of the gaming session of the wagering game, and utilizing the random gaming session input, a gaming session outcome; computing, by the electronic table game and utilizing the gaming session outcome, a gaming session result; and transmitting, by the electronic table game and to a tournament server, data descriptive of the participation of the first player in the gaming session.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 9, 16,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “receiving, from an electronic table game component and at a first time, an indication that a tournament entry token has been received at an electronic table game in a casino from a first player of the electronic table game; identifying a hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournament indicated by the tournament entry token, thereby determining that the first player is a participant in the hybrid online and in- casino wagering game tournament; receiving, from the electronic table game, first game data, the first game data indicating the first player's results from participating in a first gaming session of a first wagering game at the electronic table game; storing, in association with the first player, the first game data; receiving, from a device facilitating an online game and at a second time, an indication that the first player is playing an online game as part of the hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournament; receiving, from the device, second game data, the second game data indicating the first player's results from participating in a second gaming session of the online wagering game; storing, in association with the first player, the second game data; combining the first game data and the second game data into combined data to use in determining results of the hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournament; and computing, based at least in part on the combined data, an outcome of the player for the hybrid online and in-casino wagering game tournament” (claims 1, 9), “identifying, at an electronic table game, a plurality of players at a plurality of respective player positions of a wagering game; automatically detecting, with respect to a first player from the plurality of players, a tournament entry token; identifying a wagering game tournament indicated by the tournament entry token; receiving, from each player of the plurality of players, at least one wager for the gaming session of the wagering game, thereby defining a plurality of wagers; identifying, as part of the gaming session of the wagering game at the electronic table game, a random gaming session input; computing, as part of the gaming session of the wagering game at the electronic table game and, and utilizing the random gaming session input, a gaming session outcome; computing, by the electronic table game and utilizing the gaming session outcome, a gaming session result; and transmitting, by the electronic table game and to a tournament server, data descriptive of the participation of the first player in the gaming session” (claim 16) are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, rules). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-22 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “at least one game server having a memory and a processor, the memory storing a program for directing the processor to perform, a sensor of the electronic table game”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Abbott (2007/0173318) teaches the recited additional elements (Fig 1-3, ¶¶0001, 0031, 0048-0052).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-22, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, rules in In re Smith.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-22 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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) 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abbott (2007/0173318).
Re Claim 16,
Abbott discloses a system for conducting a gaming session of a wagering game at an electronic table game in a casino in coordination with a combined online and in-casino wagering game tournament, comprising: at least one game server having a memory and a processor, the memory storing a program for directing the processor to perform a method (Fig 1-3, ¶¶0031, 0048-0052), the method comprising:
identifying, at an electronic table game, a plurality of players at a plurality of respective player positions of a wagering game; automatically detecting, by a sensor of the electronic table game and with respect to a first player from the plurality of players, a tournament entry token; identifying a wagering game tournament indicated by the tournament entry token; receiving, from each player of the plurality of players, at least one wager for the gaming session of the wagering game, thereby defining a plurality of wagers; identifying, as part of the gaming session of the wagering game at the electronic table game, a random gaming session input; computing, as part of the gaming session of the wagering game at the electronic table game and, and utilizing the random gaming session input, a gaming session outcome; computing, by the electronic table game and utilizing the gaming session outcome, a gaming session result; and transmitting, by the electronic table game and to a tournament server, data descriptive of the participation of the first player in the gaming session (¶¶0026, 0028, 0036, 0048, 0058, 0069-0073, 0089, 0093-0094, 0096, 0099, 0101, 0105; a player DID token is used to enter the tournament, the reader system detects the tokens in each player's zone and communicates wagering information regarding tokens and tokens' entry time into the wager zone to each network interface, further, each player places a wager to start the game session, moreover, the system may compute a player’s ranking based on the time and the date stamps).
Re Claim 17,
Abbott discloses data descriptive of the participation of the other players from the plurality of players in the gaming session is not transmitted to the tournament server (¶¶0098, 0100).
Re Claim 18,
Abbott discloses identifying at least one outcome rule for the gaming session; and applying the at least one outcome rule to the random gaming session input (¶¶0073, 0104).
Re Claim 19,
Abbott discloses identifying a rule for the wagering game tournament; and modifying the gaming session outcome by applying the rule for the wagering game tournament (¶¶0073, 0104).
Re Claim 20,
Abbott discloses identifying a set of result rules for the gaming session; and applying, for each player of the plurality of players, the set of result rules to the gaming session outcome, thereby defining a gaming session result for each player (¶¶0073, 0104).
Re Claim 21,
Abbott discloses identifying a rule for the wagering game tournament; and modifying a first gaming session result for the first player by applying the rule for the wagering game tournament (¶¶0073, 0104).
Re Claim 22,
Abbott discloses identifying a set of result rules for the gaming session; identifying a rule for the wagering game tournament; applying, for each of the other players of the plurality of players, the set of result rules to the gaming session outcome, thereby defining a gaming session result for each of the other players; and applying, for the first player, the rule for the wagering game tournament to the gaming session outcome, thereby defining a first gaming session result for the first players (¶¶0073, 0104).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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 on 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 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights