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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 21-40 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on May 21, 2025 and April 29, 2026 have been acknowledged.
Priority
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. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 16/205,119 and 62/740,352, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application Nos. 16/205,119 and 62/740,352 at least does not disclose triggering, after authenticating the one or more credentials, a gaming process comprising an interactive game.
Therefore, as the present application is a continuation in part and nonprovisional of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 16/205,119 and 62/740,352; and the claims are not supported by the disclosure of the applications, the current claims, 21-40 of present application do not receive priority to the filing date of Application Nos. 16/205,119 and 62/740,352.
Claim Objections
Claims 34-35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 34-35, “memeory” should be “memory”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 24-27, 32, 37 and 39 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 24, 27, 32 and 37 recite the limitation “the group” in lines 2, 3, 2, 3 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims. Claim 25 by being dependent on claim 24 is also rejected.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the one or more user preferences” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “the one or more tickets” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 21-40 are directed toward at least abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below.
Representative claim 21 is directed towards a non-transitory medium, claim 33 is directed towards a system and claim 38 is directed towards a method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 21 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea recites: receiving, after one or more entries of a contactless card into a communication field, one or more credentials from the contactless card; authenticating the one or more credentials; and triggering, after authenticating the one or more credentials, a gaming process comprising an interactive game. These limitations, entail; commercial interactions including, sales activities and business relations, as well as managing personal behavior. As such, the limitations are directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In particular the claim recites the additional element: execution by a processor, which is recited at a high level of generality and is the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply applying the abstract idea by a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a processor and a memory (claim 33), do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the exception using a generic computer system, executing basic functions of a computer. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept). Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 22-32, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above. The claims only further add to the abstract idea, with no elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. Thus, while they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 33-40 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 21-32 and are also rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections set forth 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.
Claims 21-22, 33, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griswold (US Publication 2011/0230259).
Regarding Claims 21, 33 and 38, Griswold teaches medium, system and method, comprising:
a processor; Griswold [0034];
memory containing an application comprising instructions for execution on a receiving device, wherein the application is configured to: Griswold [0034]
receiving, after one or more entries of a contactless card into a communication field, one or more credentials from the contactless card; Griswold [0015: customers may receive a highly individualized treatment from each of the gaming machines that they frequent through the use of the contact-free cards; 0027: machine reader senses the card and the indicia thereon; Claim 30: gaming machine to accept noncontact electronic data transmission from user identification device];
authenticating the one or more credentials; Griswold [
0031: upon authentication of a card the machine may be ready for play; utilization of an electronic card may also be used in this circumstance, for noncontact validation and authentication of a player;
0015: server computer makes determination which offer is best for the transaction];
and triggering, after authenticating the one or more credentials, a gaming process comprising an interactive game. Griswold [0035: when the player steps up to a certain specific machine and actuates it with the card, the database in the machine or in central computer may recognize the person as having certain favorite games. It can greet him by name and ask if he or she wishes to play one of his or her favorites;].
Regarding Claim 22, Griswold discloses, wherein: the interactive game is associated with a user account, [0033: winnings from gaming machine might be transmitted to the [player] account in central computer];
and the user account is associated with the contactless card. Griswold [0017: (smart) cards may also carry and manage separate accounts].
Regarding Claim 36, Griswold discloses, wherein the memory is contained within a server. Griswold [Claim 35: network further communicatively coupled to at least one of a network server].
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 23-25 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold (US Publication 2011/0230259) in view of Brooks (US Publication 2015/0032519).
A. In regards to Claim 23, Griswold does not specifically disclose, further comprising retrieving one or more redeemable points associated with a user account via the interactive game. This is disclosed by Brooks [0035: users can be awarded achievement points in response to reaching certain goals within the game].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Griswold with the teachings from Brooks with the motivation to provide points as an incentive for users to perform activities for which rewards that are redeemable for legal tender or other valuable consideration are not available. Grigg [0064].
B. In regards to Claim 24, Griswold does not specifically disclose, wherein the redeemable points are redeemable in connection with at least one selected from the group of the user account or a banking account. This is disclosed by Brooks [0050: game play necessarily involves the deduction of a predetermined quantity of game points from the user account]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 23.
C. In regards to Claim 25, Griswold does not specifically disclose, further comprising apportioning the redeemable points between the user account and the banking account based on one or more user preferences. This is disclosed by Brooks [0066: the user can manually enter the portion of the balance the user desires to redeem for game points; exchange rate for redeeming rewards in the user account in exchange for game points can optionally be equivalent to the exchange rate at which the rewards can be redeemed for legal tender]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 23.
D. In regards to Claim 34, Griswold does not specifically disclose, further comprising apportioning the redeemable points between the user account and the banking account based on one or more user preferences. This is disclosed by Brooks [0030: customer terminals are described herein as general purpose computers programmed to operate as described herein, but the present disclosure encompasses other types of electronic devices such as portable terminals]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 23.
E. In regards to Claim 35, Griswold does not specifically disclose, further comprising apportioning the redeemable points between the user account and the banking account based on one or more user preferences. This is disclosed by Brooks FIG.1, [0031: one or more point of sale ("POS") terminals 30 can also be located at the site to allow users to purchase a product and/or service, thereby obtaining credits (Game Points) that can be utilized at the site]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 23.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold (US Publication 2011/0230259) in view of DiCarlo (US Publication 2017/0213417).
A. In regards to Claim 26, Griswold does not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more user preferences comprise:
a first preference is to attribute a first portion of the redeemable points to the banking account for a purchase, this is disclosed by DiCarlo [0174: all points or credits awarded with regard to all side games are win credits; 0226: wins on the machine are paid in win credits; the player can also be paid by requesting an electronic funds transfer of the cash value of the win credits into the player's bank account];
and a second preference is to attribute a second portion of the redeemable points to a balance of the user account. This is disclosed by DiCarlo [0242: card can be a player loyalty card; the player can also request that the machine electronically transfer any credits on the machine (e.g., win credits) to the player's account associated with the card].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Griswold with the teachings from DiCarlo with the motivation to provide customers the option to allocate game reward credits to use for purchase or add to their account. See DiCarlo [0101].
Claim 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold (US Publication 2011/0230259) in view of Bjontegard (US Publication 2014/0171039).
A. In regards to Claim 27, Griswold does not specifically disclose, wherein the interactive game permits a user to win one or more tickets, and the one or more tickets comprise at least one selected from the group of lottery tickets, concert tickets, sports tickets, conference tickets, event tickets, and restaurant tickets. This is disclosed by Bjontegard [0079: contests can be presented and offered, at the right time and location with relevant prizes and offers, to the user; one such game can be a scavenger hunt; final prize can be, for example, a ticket to an event].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Griswold with the teachings from Bjontegardwith the motivation to provide a system adapted to entertain visitors while they are waiting in lines, and to entice them to remain as long as possible by providing time enticements, such as restricted treasure hunts and scavenger hunt games. Bjontegard [0055].
B. In regards to Claims 28 and 39, Griswold does not specifically disclose, wherein the interactive game requires a user interaction in order to win the one or more tickets. This is disclosed by Bjontegard [0079: user travels through the environment and solves puzzles, riddles and quizzes]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 27.
C. In regards to Claims 29 and 40, Griswold discloses, wherein the user interaction comprises a gesture of the contactless card within the communication field. Griswold [0004: the player merely needs to move the card in front of the machine without any contact].
D. In regards to Claim 30, Griswold does not specifically disclose, wherein the interactive game comprises a scavenger hunt. This is disclosed by Bjontegard [0079: game can be a scavenger hunt or treasure hunt]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 27.
E. In regards to Claim 31, Griswold does not specifically disclose, wherein the scavenger hunt comprises one or more visits to one or more locations. This is disclosed by Bjontegard [0079: new clues are revealed based on such criteria as location; sequence repeats until the user ends at the final location]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 27.
F. In regards to Claim 32, Griswold does not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more locations comprise at least one selected from the group of a specified site, a monument, and a famous place. This is disclosed by Bjontegard [0086: visitors to locations, venues or events where there is a long line waiting to enter--such as at a theme park. In such a context, a location based game can be triggered]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 27.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold (US Publication 2011/0230259) in view of Onorato (US Publication 2016/0189467).
A. In regards to Claim 37, Griswold discloses authenticating the one or more credentials of a user associated with the contactless card, but does not specifically disclose, wherein the application is further configured to, trigger a lottery process comprising entry of a user into at least one selected from the group of a lottery and a sweepstakes. This is disclosed by Onorato [0070: virtual lottery application includes various data (e.g., lottery ticket information, type of a lottery game, input for a lottery game, date and time of ticket or entry purchase, and the like) (user account information, device that lottery ticket was purchased from, user data (e.g., physical address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, account information, account credentials))].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Griswold with the teachings from Onorato with the motivation to provide an interactive video game on a user device, wherein purchase of a lottery ticket is an entry to enter a game of chance of the interactive video game, enabling the user to cash out his/her winnings or money. Onorato [0045].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The
Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571- 270-7537. 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.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
Prosecution Insights