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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement entered January 17th, 2025 has been considered. A copy of the cited statement(s) including the notation indicating its respective consideration is attached for the Applicant's records.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,340. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant invention and the patented invention are substantially similar to one another with the exception that Patented claims recite the use of a messaging application Programing Interface (API) that is not presented in the instant claimed invention. The Examiner gives Official Notice the use of APIs is extremely old and well known before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized an API in the instant claimed invention because such would have provided the predictable and expected result of providing a standardized interface for tracking player wagers and notifying parties of a winning outcome.
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 1-2, 4-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al (US 2007/0060237) in view of (Nguyen et al (US 2007/0298873) in yet further view of Gura (Us 2017/0357354)
Claim 1: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches a bonusing system for gaming devices, the bonusing system comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute instructions stored in a memory device, which when executed (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0025], [0033], [0042]-[044]; Figure 4), cause the at least one processor to:
register a plurality of table gaming devices to participate in a first bonus award (Rowe 237’ Figures 3, 4; Elements 208, 216);
register a plurality of electronic gaming machines (EGMs) to participate in the first bonus award (Rowe 237’ Figures 3, 4; Elements 208, 216) in response to receiving a unique device identifier for each of the plurality of gaming devices (Gura Abstract; Paragraph [0019]; Figure 1);
receive, from a first EGM, a first wager event message indicating a first wager being performed by a first player at the first EGM (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0049]; Figures 3, 4);
receive, from a first table gaming device, a second wager event message indicating a second wager being performed by a second player at a first position of a plurality of positions of the first table gaming device(Rowe 237’ Abstract; Paragraphs [0008]-[0011]; Figure 3), wherein the second wager event message is received after a second wager event is detected by the first table gaming device based on input from at least one radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor detecting at least one RFID-enabled chip in a wager area on a table surface of the first gaming table (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0037], [0038], [0049]);
determine that one of the first wager event or the second wager event results in an award of the first bonus award based on a random output (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0033], [0056]; Figure 4; Element 214 & Nguyen Paragraph [0053]-[0056]); and
award the first bonus award based on the determination (Rowe 237’ Figure 4: Element 214, 216; Paragraph [0056]).
The prior art of Rowe 237’ teaches the invention as presented above including determination of a winner (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0033], [0056]; Figure 4; Element 214) and the use of random number generator (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0033]). While the prior art of Rowe 237’ does not explicitly teach that the random number generator is utilized to select a winner, in a related invention Nguyen teaches that this arrangement was known in progressive gaming system (Nguyen Paragraph [0053]-[0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s earliest effective filing date to have utilized the random number generator of Rowe 237’ to select the winner in Rowe 237’ as taught by Nguyen in order to provide the predictable and expected result of selecting winners in a consistent and fair manner to the participants regardless of the underlying game device they are utilizing.
The combination of Rowe 237’ & Nguyen does not explicitly teach the registering of the gaming devices associated with game however, in a related invention Gura teaches that it was known to register various types of gaming devices including EGMs, gaming tables, and portable devices in order to assist with the location of the same during events including jackpot wins (Gura Abstract; Paragraph [0019]; Figure 1). It accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s earliest effective filing date to have utilized the unique registration feature of Gura of gaming devices as taught by Gura in the combination of Rowe 237’ & Nguyen because such would have provided the benefit of assisting with the location of the same during events including jackpot wins as taught by Gura (Gura Abstract; Paragraph [0019]; Figure 1).
Claim 2: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the bonusing system of claim 1, wherein the random output is generated via a random number generator (RNG) (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0033] & Nguyen Paragraph [0053]-[0056]).
Claim 4: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the bonusing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
receive, from one or more of the first EGM and the first table gaming device, a session start event message indicating a beginning of a gaming session at an active gaming device (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0053], [0054]; Figure 4; Element 202, 204); and
configure the active gaming device to participate in the first bonus award, making the gaming session eligible to potentially win the first bonus award during the determining (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0055], [0056]; Figure 4; Element 206, 208, 210, 212, 214).
Claim 5: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the bonusing system of claim 1, wherein the first bonus award is a progressive jackpot, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
determine a first progressive jackpot contribution amount for the first wager event based on a wager amount provided in the first wager event message (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0002] & Nguyen Paragraphs [0042], [0067]);
determining a second progressive jackpot contribution amount for the second wager event based on a wager amount automatically detected at the first table gaming device based on the detection of at least one RFID-enabled chip in the wager area on the table surface of the first gaming table (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0037], [0038], [0049] & Nguyen Paragraphs [0042], [0067]); and
increment a progressive jackpot total by the first and second progressive jackpot contribution amounts (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0002] & Nguyen Paragraphs [0017], [0042], [0043], [0067]).
Claim 6: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the bonusing system of claim 1, wherein the first bonus award is configured as a temporal award that is pre-configured to be awarded at one or more of a predetermined award time and during a predetermined award window of time (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0056]).
Claim 7: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the bonusing system of claim 6, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
identify a pool of eligible participants that are eligible to participate in the first bonus award when determining to award the first bonus award, wherein the first EGM and the first table gaming device are included in the pool of eligible participants (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0055], [0056]; Figure 4; Element 206, 208, 210, 212, 214),
wherein the determining further comprises selecting a winning participant from the pool of eligible participants based on the random output (Nguyen Paragraph [0053]-[0056]).
Claim 8: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the bonusing system of claim 7, wherein identifying the pool of eligible participants includes identifying eligibility of gaming sessions at participating devices based on at least a currently active gaming session at the participating devices and one or more of loyalty level of an active player at the participating device, a most recent wager amount provided during the currently active gaming session at the participating device, and recent wager history during the currently active gaming session at the participating device (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0049], [0051], [0055]).
Claim 9: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches a method of providing bonusing for gaming devices, the method comprising:
registering a plurality of table gaming devices to participate in a first bonus award (Rowe 237’ Figures 3, 4; Elements 208, 216);
registering a plurality of electronic gaming machines (EGMs) to participate in the first bonus award (Rowe 237’ Figures 3, 4; Elements 208, 216) in response to receiving a unique device identifier for each of the plurality of gaming devices (Gura Abstract; Paragraph [0019]; Figure 1);
receiving, from a first EGM, a first wager event message indicating a first wager being performed by a first player at the first EGM (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0049]; Figures 3, 4);
receiving, from a first table gaming device, a second wager event message indicating a second wager being performed by a second player at a first position of a plurality of positions of the first table gaming device (Rowe 237’ Abstract; Paragraphs [0008]-[0011]; Figure 3), wherein the second wager event message is received after a second wager event is detected by the first table gaming device based on input from at least one radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor detecting at least one RFID-enabled chip in a wager area on a table surface of the first gaming table (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0037], [0038], [0049]);
determining that one of the first wager event or the second wager event results in an award of the first bonus award based on a random output (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0033], [0056]; Figure 4; Element 214 & Nguyen Paragraph [0053]-[0056]); and
awarding the first bonus award based on the determination (Rowe 237’ Figure 4: Element 214, 216; Paragraph [0056]).
The prior art of Rowe 237’ teaches the invention as presented above including determination of a winner (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0033], [0056]; Figure 4; Element 214) and the use of random number generator (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0033]). While the prior art of Rowe 237’ does not explicitly teach that the random number generator is utilized to select a winner, in a related invention Nguyen teaches that this arrangement was known in progressive gaming system (Nguyen Paragraph [0053]-[0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s earliest effective filing date to have utilized the random number generator of Rowe 237’ to select the winner in Rowe 237’ as taught by Nguyen in order to provide the predictable and expected result of selecting winners in a consistent and fair manner to the participants regardless of the underlying game device they are utilizing.
The combination of Rowe 237’ & Nguyen does not explicitly teach the registering of the gaming devices associated with game however, in a related invention Gura teaches that it was known to register various types of gaming devices including EGMs, gaming tables, and portable devices in order to assist with the location of the same during events including jackpot wins (Gura Abstract; Paragraph [0019]; Figure 1). It accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s earliest effective filing date to have utilized the unique registration feature of Gura of gaming devices as taught by Gura in the combination of Rowe 237’ & Nguyen because such would have provided the benefit of assisting with the location of the same during events including jackpot wins as taught by Gura (Gura Abstract; Paragraph [0019]; Figure 1).
Claim 10: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the random output is generated via a random number generator (RNG) (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0033] & Nguyen Paragraph [0053]-[0056]).
Claim 12: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising:
receiving, from one or more of the first EGM and the first table gaming device, a session start event message indicating a beginning of a gaming session at an active gaming device (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0053], [0054]; Figure 4; Element 202, 204); and
configuring the active gaming device to participate in the first bonus award, making the gaming session eligible to potentially win the first bonus award during the determining (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0055], [0056]; Figure 4; Element 206, 208, 210, 212, 214).
Claim 13: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the first bonus award is a progressive jackpot, the method further comprising:
determining a first progressive jackpot contribution amount for the first wager event based on a wager amount provided by the first EGM in the first wager event message (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0002] & Nguyen Paragraphs [0042], [0067]);
determining a second progressive jackpot contribution amount for the second wager event based on a wager amount automatically detected at the first table gaming device based on the detection of at least one RFID-enabled chip in the wager area on the table surface of the first gaming table (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0037], [0038], [0049] & Nguyen Paragraphs [0042], [0067]); and
incrementing a progressive jackpot total by the first and second progressive jackpot contribution amounts (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0002] & Nguyen Paragraphs [0017], [0042], [0043], [0067]).
Claim 14: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the first bonus award is configured as a temporal award that is pre-configured to be awarded at one or more of a predetermined award time and during a predetermined award window of time (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0056]).
Claim 15: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising:
identifying a pool of eligible participants that are eligible to participate in the first bonus award when determining to award the first bonus award, wherein the first EGM and the first table gaming device are included in the pool of eligible participants (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0055], [0056]; Figure 4; Element 206, 208, 210, 212, 214),
wherein the determining further comprises selecting a winning participant from the pool of eligible participants based on the random output (Nguyen Paragraph [0053]-[0056]).
Claim 16: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the method of claim 15, wherein identifying the pool of eligible participants includes identifying eligibility of gaming sessions at participating devices based on at least a currently active gaming session at the participating devices and one or more of loyalty level of an active player at the participating device, a most recent wager amount provided during the currently active gaming session at the participating device, and recent wager history during the currently active gaming session at the participating device (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0049], [0051], [0055]).
Claim 17: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0025], [0033], [0042]-[044]), causes the at least one processor to:
register a plurality of table gaming devices to participate in a first bonus award (Rowe 237’ Figures 3, 4; Elements 208, 216);
register a plurality of electronic gaming machines (EGMs) to participate in the first bonus award(Rowe 237’ Figures 3, 4; Elements 208, 216) in response to receiving a unique device identifier for each of the plurality of gaming devices (Gura Abstract; Paragraph [0019]; Figure 1);
receive, from a first EGM, a first wager event message indicating a first wager being performed by a first player at the first EGM (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0049]; Figures 3, 4);
receive, from a first table gaming device, a second wager event message indicating a second wager being performed by a second player at a first position of a plurality of positions of the first table gaming device (Rowe 237’ Abstract; Paragraphs [0008]-[0011]; Figure 3), wherein the second wager event message is received after a second wager event is detected by the first table gaming device based on input from at least one radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor detecting at least one RFID-enabled chip in a wager area on a table surface of the first gaming table (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0037], [0038], [0049]);
determine that one of the first wager event or the second wager event results in an award of the first bonus award based on a random output (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0033], [0056]; Figure 4; Element 214 & Nguyen Paragraph [0053]-[0056]); and
award the first bonus award based on the determination (Rowe 237’ Figure 4: Element 214, 216; Paragraph [0056]).
The prior art of Rowe 237’ teaches the invention as presented above including determination of a winner (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0033], [0056]; Figure 4; Element 214) and the use of random number generator (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0033]). While the prior art of Rowe 237’ does not explicitly teach that the random number generator is utilized to select a winner, in a related invention Nguyen teaches that this arrangement was known in progressive gaming system (Nguyen Paragraph [0053]-[0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s earliest effective filing date to have utilized the random number generator of Rowe 237’ to select the winner in Rowe 237’ as taught by Nguyen in order to provide the predictable and expected result of selecting winners in a consistent and fair manner to the participants regardless of the underlying game device they are utilizing.
The combination of Rowe 237’ & Nguyen does not explicitly teach the registering of the gaming devices associated with game however, in a related invention Gura teaches that it was known to register various types of gaming devices including EGMs, gaming tables, and portable devices in order to assist with the location of the same during events including jackpot wins (Gura Abstract; Paragraph [0019]; Figure 1). It accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s earliest effective filing date to have utilized the unique registration feature of Gura of gaming devices as taught by Gura in the combination of Rowe 237’ & Nguyen because such would have provided the benefit of assisting with the location of the same during events including jackpot wins as taught by Gura (Gura Abstract; Paragraph [0019]; Figure 1).
Claim 18: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the first bonus award is configured as a temporal award that is pre-configured to be awarded at one or more of a predetermined award time and during a predetermined award window of time (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0056]).
Claim 19: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to:
identify a pool of eligible participants that are eligible to participate in the first bonus award when determining to award the first bonus award, wherein the first EGM and the first table gaming device are included in the pool of eligible participants (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0055], [0056]; Figure 4; Element 206, 208, 210, 212, 214),
wherein the determining further comprises selecting a winning participant from the pool of eligible participants based on the random output (Nguyen Paragraph [0053]-[0056]).
Claim 20: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen & Gura teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein identifying the pool of eligible participants includes identifying eligibility of gaming sessions at participating devices based on at least a currently active gaming session at the participating devices and one or more of loyalty level of an active player at the participating device, a most recent wager amount provided during the currently active gaming session at the participating device, and recent wager history during the currently active gaming session at the participating device (Rowe 237’ Paragraphs [0049], [0051], [0055]).
.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al (US 2007/0060237) in view of (Nguyen et al (US 2007/0298873) in yet further view of Gura (Us 2017/0357354), as applied to at least claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-20 above, further in view of Rowe et al (US 2006/0247035).
Claim 3: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen, Gura, & Rowe 035’ teaches the bonusing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
register a plurality of mobile gaming devices to participate in the first bonus award (Rowe 237’ Figures 3, 4; Elements 208, 216 & Rowe 035’ Paragraph [0047], [0172]); and
receive, from a first mobile gaming device, a third wager event message indicating a third wager being performed by a third player at the first mobile gaming device (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0049]; Figures 3, 4),
wherein the determining further includes determining that one of the first wagering event, the second wagering event, or the third wagering event results in an award of the first bonus award based on the random output (Nguyen Paragraph [0053]-[0056]).
Claim 11: The combination of Rowe 237’, Nguyen, Gura, & Rowe 035’ teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising:
registering a plurality of mobile gaming devices to participate in the first bonus award (Rowe 237’ Figures 3, 4; Elements 208, 216 & Rowe 035’ Paragraph [0047], [0172]); and
receiving, from a first mobile gaming device, a third wager event message indicating a third wager being performed by a third player at the first mobile gaming device (Rowe 237’ Paragraph [0049]; Figures 3, 4),
wherein the determining further includes determining that one of the first wagering event, the second wagering event, or the third wagering event results in an award of the first bonus award based on the random output (Nguyen Paragraph [0053]-[0056]).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and though not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rowe et al (US 7,997,981) teaches universal casino bonusing systems and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights