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 .
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.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-12, 15, and 24-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,238,705 (hereinafter ‘705) in view of Robinson et al., US 2007/0185599, Kellerman et al., US 2006/0148567, Mahaffey et al., US 2008/0113816, and Katz et al., US 2006/0287051 (Hereinafter Katz ‘051). Claim 1 of ‘705 teaches substantially all of the limitations of claim 1, with the exception of where the graphical information displays for the game are regarding graphical images of sports personalities, where the system receives input via selection of the graphical images of sports personalities, transmitting a game application program to the first and second communications devices in response to a player initiated action to request the game application, generating sequential timed displayed based upon the multiple units of game play data, and game play interaction with virtual money.
Robinson et al. teaches a gaming system which includes where the graphical information displays for the game are regarding graphical images of sports personalities and where the system receives input via selection of the graphical images of sports personalities (Fig. 3 and Par. 41). It would be desirable to modify the system of ‘705 to include the graphical images of sports personalities in the graphical information display as taught by Robinson et al. in order to allow the player to more easily recognize the player they wish to select with the assistance of the graphical image of the player.
Kellerman et al. teaches a game system which includes transmitting a game application program to the first and second communications devices in response to a player initiated action to request the game application (Fig. 1 and Par. 30 as described below). It would be desirable to modify the system of ‘705 to include game application downloads for similar reasons as described below.
Mahaffey et al. teaches generating sequential timed displayed based upon multiple units of gameplay data (Par. 82-83 as described below).
It would be desirable to modify the system of ‘705 to include sequential displayed based on gameplay data in order to progress through gameplay rules where players are given particular amounts of time for gameplay actions, such as wagers, in order to keep the gameplay for players in a multiplayer game in sync and fair.
Katz ‘051 teaches a gaming system which provides game play interaction using virtual currency (Par. 54). It would be desirable to modify the system of ‘705 to include virtual currency in order to encourage players to fully play with any money they input into the system as well as more easily allow promotional offers and bonuses by providing improved purchasing of virtual currency from real money.
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 system of ‘705 to include the graphical images of sports personalities in the graphical information display as taught by Robinson et al, to include game application downloads as taught by Kellerman et al., to include sequential timed displays of gameplay as taught by Mahaffey et al., and virtual currency as taught by Katz ‘051.
Claims 2-4 of the present application are taught by claims 2-4 of ‘705.
Claims 6 and 8 of the present application are taught by Claims 6 and 7 of ‘705.
Claims 10-12 of the present application are taught by claims 9-11 of ‘705.
Claim 14 of the present application is taught by claim 12 of ‘705.
Claims 15 of the present application is taught by claims 15 of ‘705.
Claims 16-18 of the present application are taught by claim 24-26 of ‘705.
Regarding Claim 7, Katz ‘051 teaches a gaming system where virtual currency numeric value varies (Par. 54).
Regarding Claim 9, Katz ‘051 teaches a gaming system where virtual currency is obtained at least in part by a non-cash purchase (Par. 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of ‘705 and Robinson et al., Kellerman et al., Mahaffey et al., and Katz ‘051 to include non-cash purchase of virtual currency as taught by Katz ‘051 in order to encourage the user to begin acquiring virtual currency for the system by allowing them to acquire it as part of a promotion.
Regarding Claim 13, Mahaffey et al. teaches a sports wagering communication system which utilizes live sports date from baseball for wagering (Par. 50 “baseball”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of ‘705, Robinson et al., Kellerman et al., Mahaffey et al., and Katz ‘051 to include baseball data in order to allow the gaming system to be used on baseball for player who prefer the sport of baseball.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent No. 11,238,705 (hereinafter ‘705), Robinson et al., US 2007/0185599, Kellerman et al., US 2006/0148567, Mahaffey et al., US 2008/0113816, Katz ‘051, further in view of Rowe et al., US 2007/0060274. ‘705, Robinson et al., Kellerman et al., Mahaffey et al., and Katz ‘051 do not explicitly teach providing an interface for a player’s club. Rowe et al. teaches a gaming system with a player management server (Fig. 4B) where it provides an interface for a player’s club (Par. 39 which teaches an interface for loyalty accounts and other player information. See Par. 12 which teaches that the system can be used for sports betting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of ‘705, Robinson et al., Kellerman et al., Mahaffey et al., and Katz ‘051 to include an interface for player’s club data in order to provide loyalty promotional features to the game system to encourage additional play and to allow the user to access and manage their player loyalty account.
Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent No. 11,238,705 (hereinafter ‘705), Robinson et al., US 2007/0185599, Kellerman et al., US 2006/0148567, Mahaffey et al., US 2008/0113816, Katz ‘051, further in view of Katz et al., US 2006/0129144 (hereinafter Katz ‘144). ‘705, Robinson et al., Kellerman et al., Mahaffey et al., and Katz ‘051 do not explicitly teach weighting to equalize probability of winning between players. Katz ‘144 teaches a wagering system which includes weighting to equalize probability of winning between players (Par. 219). Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of ‘705, Robinson et al., Kellerman et al., Mahaffey et al. and Katz ‘051 to include weighting to equalize probability of winning between players as taught by Katz ‘144, such as by using a points spread in the predictions to be made by players, in order to reduce the amount of skill necessary to successfully play the game and make it more of a game of chance thus increasing the enjoyment of players less knowledgeable about the sports being wagered on.
Claim 1-4, 6-8 and 10-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,568,714 (hereinafter ‘714), in view of Mahaffey et al., US 2008/0113816, and, Choe, US 2001/0016519. The limitations of Claim 1 of the present application are taught by Claim 1 of ‘714, with the exception of generating displays of information about variable duration game rooms, where player control is regarding a plurality of variable duration game rooms having different durations, permitting one or more players to join in play for at least some of the variable duration game rooms, receiving an input for determining the expiration of live game play in the variable duration game rooms, and generating sequential timed displays based upon the multiple units of game play data.
Choe teaches the limitations directed to the variable duration game rooms (Fig. 2 and Par. 8 and 24-32 as described below). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify ‘714 to include variable duration game rooms for similar reasons as described below.
Mahaffey et al. teaches the sequential timed gameplay displays (Par. 82-83 as described below) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify ‘714 to include the variable timed gameplay displays in order to progress through gameplay rules where players are given particular amounts of time for gameplay actions, such as wagers, in order to keep the gameplay for players in a multiplayer game in sync and fair.
Claims 2-4 of the present application are taught by claims 2-4 of ‘714.
Claims 6 and 8 of the present application are taught by Claims 5 and 6 of ‘714.
Claims 10-20 of the present application are taught by Claims 7-17 of ‘714.
Claims 7 and 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent No. 11,568,714 (hereinafter ‘714), Mahaffey et al., US 2008/0113816, and, Choe, US 2001/0016519, further in view of Katz, US 2006/0287051 (hereinafter Katz ‘051). ‘714 does not explicitly teach where the virtual money multiplier varies or it is acquired at least in part via a non-cash purchase. Katz ‘051 teaches a gaming system where a virtual currency multiplier varies and is obtained at least in part by a non-cash purchase (Par. 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of ‘714 to include variable multipliers and non-cash purchase of virtual currency as taught by Katz ‘051 in order to encourage the user to begin acquiring virtual currency for the system by allowing them to acquire it as part of a promotion and to allow the operator to tune the virtual currency to reward more engaged or valuable players.
Claims 1-4, 6-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,861,989 (hereinafter ‘989). in view of Mahaffey et al., US 2008/0113816, and, Choe, US 2001/0016519, and Kellerman et al., US 2006/0148567. The limitations of Claim 1 of the present application are taught by Claim 1 of ‘714 with the exception of generating displays of information about variable duration game rooms, where player control is regarding a plurality of variable duration game rooms having different durations, permitting one or more players to join in play for at least some of the variable duration game rooms, receiving an input for determining the expiration of live game play in the variable duration game rooms, and generating sequential timed displays based upon the multiple units of game play data.
Choe teaches the limitations directed to the variable duration game rooms (Fig. 2 and Par. 8 and 24-32 as described below). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify ‘714 to include variable duration game rooms for similar reasons as described below.
Mahaffey et al. teaches the sequential timed gameplay displays (Par. 82-83 as described below) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify ‘714 to include the variable timed gameplay displays in order to progress through gameplay rules where players are given particular amounts of time for gameplay actions, such as wagers, in order to keep the gameplay for players in a multiplayer game in sync and fair.
Kellerman et al. teaches where it is well known in the art to transmit a game application program to the first and second communication devices in response to a player initiated action to request the game application (Fig. 1 and Par. 30 where the game application is transmitted to the player in response to registering to play). 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 Mahaffey et al. to include download of a game application upon user request as taught by Kellerman et al., in order to allow home users to utilize the game software while allowing the software to be managed and implemented server side, while still allowing the game to be implemented via a client- side application with more advanced features rather than simply a web browser.
Claims 2-4 of the present application are taught by claims 2-4 of ‘989.
Claim 6 of the present application is taught by claim 7 of ‘989.
Claims 8-20 of the present application are taught by claims 8-20 of ‘989.
Claims 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent No. 11,568,714 (hereinafter ‘714), Mahaffey et al., US 2008/0113816, and, Choe, US 2001/0016519, Kellerman et al., US 2006/0148567, further in view of Katz, US 2006/0287051 (hereinafter Katz ‘051). ‘714 does not explicitly teach where the virtual money multiplier varies. Katz ‘051 teaches a gaming system where a virtual currency multiplier varies (Par. 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of ‘714 to include variable multipliers for virtual currency as taught by Katz ‘051 in order to allow the operator to tune the virtual currency to reward more engaged or valuable players.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is 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.
In Reference to Claim 14
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the probabilities of outcomes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahaffey et al., US 2008/0113816, in view of Graham et al., US 2008/0009344, Robinson et al., US 2007/0185599, Weiss et al., US 2007/0041626, Choe, US 2001/0016519, Kellerman et al., US 2006/0148567, Walker et al., US 2006/0211470, and Katz et al., US 2006/0287051 (Hereinafter Katz ‘051).
In Reference to Claim 1
Mahaffey et al. teaches a method for electronic interaction between multiple players, utilizing a system including a graphical information display generator, a control processor and a play server (Fig. 1 and Par. 30 “servers 12” “clients 18” and Par. 31, Par. 37 and 39 which teach displays with video generation capability and processors for operating the gaming system), interfacing with first and second electronic communications devices through a communications system (Fig. 1 and Par. 29-30 “network 14”), the first and second electronic communications devices including displays for presentation of live sports game play data to the players (Par. 37 which teaches displays and Par. 44 which teaches a live feed of sports data displayed on the client devices) with input devices for receiving player generated input at (Par. 38), the first and second electronic communications devices having storage to store a game application program (Par. 39), the first and second electronic communications devices having graphical display capability (Par. 37 and 44), the graphical display capability of the first electronic communications devices being different than the graphical display capability of the second electronic communications devices (See Fig. 1 and Par. 36 which teaches different types of clients such as desktop computers, laptop computers, PDAs and cellular telephones. Where examiner considers different devices to have different graphical display capability as broadly claimed by virtue of having different displays associated with the device. The phone display being much smaller than the desktop or laptop display for example), utilizing live sports game play data from a live event (Par. 30, and 44-48, which teaches a wagering game utilizing a live feed of sports game play data), generating displays of information with the graphical information display generator regarding the game play data (Par. 43. See also Par. 39 which teaches methods for generating the game content in the system and Par. 30 and 44-48 which teaches the graphical displays of information to the users for playing the game such as via selecting icons for predictions and wagers in relation to the real time feed), controlling communications by providing the first displays to the first communications devices and the second displays to the second communications devices via the control processor (Par. 30, 39, and 43-48 as described above. And Par. 36 which teaches the first and second devices for playing the game.), transmitting multiple units of game play data in a communication from the system to the devices(Par. 13, 15, 30 and 53), inputting live sports game play data (Par. 30 and 44), inputting game control input from the plurality of input devices (Par. 38), the game control input including player input regarding a selection associated with the live sports game play data (Par. 46 “The gamblers enter their predictions in real-time using the clients”), permitting play by one or more players to join in play regarding the live sports game play data (Par. 45), analyzing game play interaction, including tracking player specific actions (Par. 47 where, lacking further definition in the claims, examiner considers the system which aggregates each users player predictions to constitute “analyzing game play interaction”), generating sequential timed displays based upon the multiple units of game play data (Par. 82-83 which teaches multiple game display to allow players to participate in the games and where at least some displays are timed in our to control periods for wagering by the players), tallying points for ranking the players score relative to one another based at least in part on the input regarding the live sports game play data (Par. 47), and a memory for storing the information, providing ranking information to the displays, selecting at least the player with the highest score as at least one winner (Par. 46-47 which teaches a scoreboard which shows relative placement of the gamblers based on the aggregation of points earned by each player for a number predictions based on the live sports data. Par. 48 which teaches determining a player with the highest score and receives the largest or only prize), and providing winnings to the winner (Par. 48).
Further, Mahaffey et al. teaches where the software can operate if various modes on either the client device or server (Par. 39), and where selection of predictions in relation to the live sports gameplay data can include selection of particular players (Par. 46 “the name of the player”) and communication with first and second communication devices (Fig. 1 and Par. 29-30) where a play server links the communications between the player communication devices (Fig. 1, Par. 31 “The server 12 is any of a number of servers known to those skilled in the art that are intended to be operably connected to a network so as to operably link to the plurality of clients 18 via the distributed computing network 14.”). However, Mahaffey et al. does not explicitly teach where the displays of game information are regarding graphical images of sports personalities and selection of the graphical images of sports personalities, generating first displays for the first electronic communications devices and second displays for the second communications devices, selectively providing the first displays to the first communications devices and the second displays to the second communications devices, generating displays of information about variable duration game rooms, where player control is regarding a plurality of variable duration game rooms having different durations, permitting one or more players to join in play for at least some of the variable duration game rooms, receiving an input for determining the expiration of live game play in the variable duration game rooms, transmitting a game application program to the first and second communication devices in response to a player initiated action to request the game application, limiting the amount of game play interaction by the players, where the system allows player to player communication, providing a chat function to permit one player to communicate with a second player, including provision of a mini-competition between one player challenging another player, or play with virtual money.
Robinson et al. teaches a sports prediction game where the displays of information for the game are regarding graphical images of sports personalities and selection of the graphical images of sports personalities (Fig. 3 and Par. 41).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Mahaffey et al. to include graphical images of sports personalities and selections of the graphical images for making live sports game predictions as taught by Robinson et al. in order to allow the player to more easily recognize the player they wish to select with the assistance of the graphical image of the player.
Weiss teaches an online server system for communication over the internet with user devices where is it well-known to generate first displays for the first electronic communications devices and second displays for the second electronic communications devices wherein the first displays and second displays are of different degrees of resolution and selectively providing the first displays to the first communications devices and the second displays to the second communications devices via the control processor (Par. 38 which teaches the well-known methods of providing data to communications devices over the network, where different devices such as a computer and a PDA have different graphical capabilities and the graphical displays are different including in resolution in order to display the transmitted information in a more appealing manner).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Mahaffey et al. to include different user communications devices and displaying graphical information in different resolution on the communications devices as taught by Weiss et al. in order to provide a more appealing visual display of the game information better suited to each device.
Choe teaches a gaming system which includes generating displays of information about variable duration game rooms, where player control is regarding a plurality of variable duration game rooms having different durations, permitting one or more players to join in play for at least some of the variable duration game rooms, receiving an input for determining the expiration of live game play in the variable duration game rooms (Fig. 2 and Par. 8 and 24-32 which teach an online gaming system for setting up and joining game rooms in which players can provide inputs to communicate about and launch games. See in particular Fig. 2 and Par. 32 where the game rooms exist for an arbitrary amount of time until a player provides an input to close the game room. As such examiner considers these to be variable duration game rooms with different durations since the duration is player determined).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Mahaffey et al. to include creation and management of variable duration game rooms in order to organize players who are participating in games with each other allowing for easier management of entry into particular games by having players join a room for a particular game, and allowing players to more easily recognize and communicate with the particular players they are playing with during the progress of play.
Kellerman et al. teaches where it is well known in the art to transmit a game application program to the first and second communication devices in response to a player initiated action to request the game application (Fig. 1 and Par. 30 where the game application is transmitted to the player in response to registering to play).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Mahaffey et al. to include download of a game application upon user request as taught by Kellerman et al., in order to allow home users to utilize the game software while allowing the software to be managed and implemented server side, while still allowing the game to be implemented via a client- side application with more advanced features rather than simply a web browser.
Graham et al. teaches a wagering game system where the system limits the amount of game play by the players (Par. 599 “responsible gaming widget”).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Mahaffey et al. to include a responsible gaming controls as taught by Graham et al. so that players can be prevented from excessive gambling or other activities that may be detrimental to the players’ livelihood, or as required by a particular gaming jurisdiction.
Walker et al. teaches a gaming system which includes programs that allow player to player communication, providing a chat function to permit one player to communicate with a second player, including provision of a mini-competition between one player challenging another player (Par. 655 “In other embodiments, players utilizing such personal computers may interact or communicate with one another via such programs. For example, players may chat with one another, place side bets, view each other's game result indications, and so on.”).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Mahaffey et al., to include a player chat and side-betting functionality for gaming as taught by Walker et al. operated by the play server which connects the player devices as described in Par. 31 of Mahaffey et al., in order to increase the enjoyment of the players by allowing them to talk with other players and place side-bets with each other in order to pass the time and increase engagement while playing games.
Katz ‘051 teaches a wagering game system where at least some of the games are played with virtual money (Par. 54 “vCoins”).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Mahaffey et al. to include virtual currency for play with multipliers for playing the game as taught by Katz ‘051, in order to encourage players to fully play with any money they input into the system as well as more easily allow promotional offers and bonuses by providing improved purchasing of virtual currency from real money.
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 Mahaffey et al. to include graphical images of sports personalities and selections of the graphical images for making live sports game predictions as taught by Robinson et al., to include different user communications devices and displaying graphical information in different resolution on the communications devices as taught by Weiss et al., to include variable duration game rooms as taught by Choe, to include player requested game downloads as taught by Kellerman et al., to include responsible gaming controls as taught by Graham et al., to include a player chat and side-betting functionality for gaming as taught by Walker et al., and to include a virtual currency for playing the game as taught by Katz ‘051
In Reference to Claim 2
Mahaffey et al. teaches where winnings are provided in a non-cash form (Par. 62).
In Reference to Claims 3-4
Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Walker et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 teach a system as described above in reference to Claims 1. Further Mahaffey et al. teaches where the system can award prizes (Par. 62) However, Kellerman et al. does not explicitly teach where the non-cash winnings are free play, or advancement to a higher level in the game.
Katz ‘051 teaches a gaming system where prizes can be awarded including free play, or advancement to a higher level in the game. (Par. 98 and 15 and 43).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Walker et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 to include free play or advancement to a next level of play as prizes as taught by Katz ‘051 in order to increase the enjoyment of the users by offering additional types of prizes for play including small prizes for players low in prize pool rankings or larger prizes for continuously successful players for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Walker et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 to include free play or advancement to a next level of play as prizes as taught by Katz ‘051
In Reference to Claims 6-9
Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Walker et al., Robinson et al., and Weiss et al.., Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 teaches a wagering game system where at least some of the games are played with virtual money, where the virtual money corresponds to a multiplier times the corresponding numeric monetary value and where the multiplier varies, or where the virtual money is acquired at least in part via cash purchase and acquired at least in part via non-cash purchase (Par. 54 “vCoins” and “The multiplier is typically an integer number, and is usually an amount of 100, 500 or 1000, though any amount may be used. The multiplier may be fixed over time and over games, or it may vary based on factors, such as time, game or player status.” And “vCoins may be acquired by purchase, or may be awarded in a non-cash purchase manner”).
In Reference to Claim 10
Mahaffey et al. does not teach where game play is enabled between multiple players via one or more association groupings.
Katz ‘051 teaches a gaming system where game play is enabled between multiple players via one or more association groupings (Par. 177).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Walker et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 to include association groupings for forming competitive pairings as taught by Katz '051. in order to increase the enjoyment of players by allowing players who know each other to play together.
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 Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Walker et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 to include association groupings for forming competitive pairings as taught by Katz ‘051
In Reference to Claim 11-13
Mahaffey et al. teaches wherein the live sports game play data relates to sports betting, and where the live sports game play data is football data, and baseball data (Par. 41 “football” and Par. 50 “baseball”).
In Reference to Claim 14
Mahaffey et al. teaches a gaming system played via generated display of game information as described above. However, Mahaffey et al. does not explicitly teach where the game information includes information regarding the probabilities of outcomes in the game play.
Katz ‘051 teaches where the system advises the players of the probabilities of outcomes in the game play (Par. 40).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Walker et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al, Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 to advise the players of the probabilities of outcomes as taught by Katz ‘051 in order to reduce the amount of skill necessary to successfully play the game and make play more of a game of chance, thus increasing the enjoyment of players less knowledgeable about the sport being wagered on.
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 to modify the method of Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Walker et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., and Katz ‘051 to advise the players of the probabilities of outcomes as taught by Katz ‘051
In Reference to Claim 15
Mahaffey et al. teaches where the game analytics system optimizes a prizing structure (Par. 47-48 where examiner considers the point aggregation and player ranking system dividing up the payout according to player ranking to constitute “optimizing a prizing structure” for the participants as broadly claimed).
In Reference to Claims 16-17
Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Walker et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 teach where the limit on the amount of game play by the player is based on time and wherein the limit on the amount of game play is based on a monetary amount (Graham et al. Par. 599 “of time or money”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahaffey et al., US 2008/0113816, in view of Graham et al., US 2008/0009344, Robinson et al., US 2007/0185599, Weiss et al., US 2007/0041626, Choe, US 2001/0016519, Kellerman et al., US 2006/0148567, Walker et al., US 2006/0211470, and Katz et al., US 2006/0287051 (Hereinafter Katz ‘051), further in view of Nguyen et al., US 2005/0181870.
In Reference to Claim 18
Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Walker et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 teaches a method as described above in reference to Claim 1. However, they do not explicitly teach controlling communications by limiting game play to a given area.
Nguyen et al. teaches a gaming system which includes controlling communications by limiting game play to a given area (Par. 50 where examiner considers restricting or permitting a player to play games or permit certain games and/or betting limits or actions to by “controlling communications”).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Walker et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 to include geographic gaming restrictions as taught by Nguyen et al. in order to restrict gaming activities to those that are legal to a players current gaming jurisdiction.
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 Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Walker et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 to include geographic gaming restrictions as taught by Nguyen et al.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahaffey et al., US 2008/0113816, in view of Graham et al., US 2008/0009344, Robinson et al., US 2007/0185599, Weiss et al., US 2007/0041626, Walker et al., US 2006/0211470, Choe, US 2001/0016519, Kellerman et al., US 2006/0148567 and Katz et al., US 2006/0287051 (Hereinafter Katz ‘051), further in view of Rowe et al., US 2007/0060274.
In Reference to Claim 19
Mahaffey et al. teaches a gaming method where a server which provides gaming information as described above. However, Mahaffey et al. does not teach where it provides an interface for a player’s club.
Rowe et al. teaches a gaming system with a player management server (Fig. 4B) which teaches where it provides an interface for a player’s club (Par. 39 which teaches an interface for loyalty account and other player information regarding the player. See Par. 12 which teaches that the system can be used for sports betting games).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Wang et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., Katz ‘051 to include a player’s club interface as taught by Rowe et al. in order to provide player loyalty promotional features to the game system to encourage additional play, and allow the user to access and manage their player loyalty account.
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 Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Wang et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., Katz ‘051 to include a player’s club interface as taught by Rowe et al.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahaffey et al., US 2008/0113816, in view of Graham et al., US 2008/0009344, Robinson et al., US 2007/0185599, Weiss et al., US 2007/0041626, Walker et al., US 2006/0211470, Choe, US 2001/0016519, Kellerman et al., US 2006/0148567 and Katz et al., US 2006/0287051 (Hereinafter Katz ‘051), further in view of Katz et al., US 2006/0129144 (hereinafter Katz ‘144).
In Reference to Claim 20
Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Wang et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 teaches a system as described above in claim 1. Further Mahaffey et al. teaches where betting options can involve a spread (Par. 58). However, Mahaffey et al. does not explicitly teach weighting to equalize probability of winning between players.
Katz ‘144 teaches a wagering game system which includes weighting to equalize probability of winning between players (Par. 219).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Mahaffey et al., Graham et al., Wang et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 to include weighting to equalize probability of winning between players as taught by Katz ‘144, such as by utilizing a points spread in the predictions to be made by players in order to reduce the amount of skill necessary to successfully play the game and may play more of a game of chance thus increasing the enjoyment of players less knowledgeable about the sport being wagered on.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Mahaffey et al., Kellerman et al., Graham et al., Wang et al., Robinson et al., Weiss et al., Choe, Kellerman et al., and Katz ‘051 to include weighting to equalize probability of winning between players as taught by Katz ‘144.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
Prosecution Insights