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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 12/17/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 12/17/2024 are noted.
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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory (obviousness-type) double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of commonly-assigned U.S. Patent No. 11,257,319, U.S. Patent No. 11,954,965, and U.S. Patent No. 12,205,434. The reference patents claim a casino player-session system in which a wireless connection is established between a player's mobile device and a logic device having a predetermined position; identifying information of the player (including a seating position at a table) is determined and provided to a management system; application-level messages are exchanged with the management system during a player session; the position of the mobile device is monitored to ensure that the mobile device remains within a predetermined range of the logic device as part of maintaining the player session; and a time-based data synchronization algorithm is employed such that the data exchanged during the player session changes as a function of time. The reference claims further recite a Bluetooth or Near Field Communication (NFC) protocol and the transfer of a virtual ticket representing wagering funds.
5. The conflicting claims are not patentably distinct. Independent claims 1, 9, and 18 recite the same player-session architecture (wireless connection between a mobile device and a logic device to begin a session; exchange of application-level messages; monitoring to keep the mobile device within a predetermined range; and a time-based data synchronization algorithm causing the exchanged data to change as a function of time) recited in the reference independent claims; the present claims differ only by reciting these limitations at a comparable or broader level of generality (omitting, e.g., the “seating position” and “management system” details present in certain reference claims), which is not a patentable distinction. The present dependent claims read directly on the reference claims: claims 2–3/10–11 (logic device associated with an EGM cabinet or with a table) and claims 4/12 (seating position) correspond to the reference claims' EGM and gaming-table/seating-position limitations; claims 5,13–14 (NFC or proximity-based protocol) correspond to the reference Bluetooth/NFC limitation; claims 6–7/15–16/19–20 (signal-strength threshold and disconnect algorithm) are obvious variants of the reference range-monitoring limitation; and claims 8/17 (virtual ticket) correspond to the reference virtual-ticket limitation. Claims 1–20 are therefore not patentably distinct from the reference claims and are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “employ a time-based data synchronization algorithm for the data such that the data exchanged during the player session changes during the player session.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the data”; no “data” is previously recited (claim 1 earlier recites only “application-level messages”). It is therefore unclear what “the data” refers to and what data is required to change. Dependent claims 2-8 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, the limitation “the data … changes during the player session” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires the content of the exchanged data to change, the synchronization state to change, or merely that data be exchanged over time; the metes and bounds cannot be determined.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1. Dependent claims 10-17 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites “data exchanged during the player session”. The first instance of a claim element should generally subsequently be followed by referring to the element using “the” or “said”. The preamble/body does not previously establish that data is exchanged during the session in this claim (the “facilitate an exchange” step of claim 1 is omitted), rendering “the data exchanged during the player session” indefinite for lack of antecedent basis. Dependent claims 19-20 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 4th paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) below, because it is an apparent grammatical error: claim 17 depends from method claim 9 yet recites “transfer, via the wireless connection, information …” in the infinitive rather than as a positively recited method step (“transferring”), making the scope of the added step unclear.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a system, a method, and a server in claims 1-20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Here, each of Claims 1-20 recite steps, instructions or rules for providing a game involving managing interactions between people, namely, following rules, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-20 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, independent Claim 1 recites, “1. A system for managing player sessions, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device coupled with the processor, wherein the memory device comprises instructions stored thereon that, when processed by the processor, enables the processor to:
receive identifying information of a player; determine, based on a wireless connection between a mobile device of the player and a logic device, that the player has begun a player session;
facilitate an exchange of application-level messages during the player session;
monitor the wireless connection to ensure that the mobile device remains within a predetermined range of the logic device as part of maintaining the player session; and
employ a time-based data synchronization algorithm for the data such that the data exchanged during the player session changes during the player session.”
The claims recite an abstract idea in the form of a method of organizing human activity — managing a commercial/gaming interaction (managing a player's session, including beginning the session, exchanging information during the session, keeping the player within a defined area, and ending the session). Administering a patron session and tracking a patron's presence and activity is a fundamental commercial and managerial practice. The recited steps of “receiv[ing] identifying information,” “determin[ing] … that the player has begun a player session,” “facilitat[ing] an exchange of … messages,” “monitor[ing] … to ensure that the mobile device remains within a predetermined range,” and “employ[ing] a time-based data synchronization algorithm” set forth the managerial concept at a functional level. Further, the dependent Claims include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1, 9 and 18 (and their respective dependent Claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed system, method, and server implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. Additionally the additional elements of: a processor, memory device, mobile device, logic device, server and generic wireless connection are recited at a high level of generality and the elements in the claims that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. For example, applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent Claims is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements recite a processor, memory device, mobile device, logic device, server and generic wireless connection. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
Furthermore, the recitation of the above-identified generic computer limitations in Claims 1 to 20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, none of the Claims 1 to 20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1 to 20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and the 2019 PEG.
AIA Notice
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 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.
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 under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0023339 (“Davis”).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly Claim 9, Davis recites a system for managing player sessions, the system comprising:
a processor (¶¶ [0122]); and
a memory device coupled with the processor (¶¶ [0122]), wherein the memory device comprises instructions stored thereon that, when processed by the processor, enables the processor to:
receive identifying information of a player (¶¶ [0021]-[0023], [0041] discloses the identity of a player at an electronic gaming machine may be determined … a player may provide identification and authentication information to an electronic gaming machine);
determine, based on a wireless connection between a mobile device of the player and a logic device, that the player has begun a player session (¶¶ [0025]-[0028], [0030]-[0032] discloses initiating a communication session, at an electronic gaming machine in communication with a mobile computing device. By use of the method 100, the mobile computing device and the electronic gaming machine may be securely connected such that the player at the electronic gaming machine can know that the player's mobile computing device is communicating with the correct electronic gaming machine);
facilitate an exchange of application-level messages during the player session (¶¶ [0032]-[0039] discloses a determination is made as to whether a communication application is installed on the mobile computing device, communications between the electronic gaming machine and the mobile computing device may be conducted via a communication application installed at the mobile computing device … the mobile computing device is directed to install the communication application. In some implementations, the electronic gaming machine may transmit a message to the mobile computing device. The message may include any information indicating that the application should be installed at the mobile computing device);
monitor the wireless connection to ensure that the mobile device remains within a predetermined range of the logic device as part of maintaining the player session (¶¶ [0030] discloses a short-range communication session between the mobile computing device and the electronic gaming machine is initiated. In some implementations, the short-range communication session may be conducted via a communication mechanism that requires that the mobile computing device be proximate to the electronic gaming machine); and
employ a time-based data synchronization algorithm for the data such that the data exchanged during the player session changes during the player session (¶¶ [0068]-[0069] discloses a unique logon code may be established for the communication session between the gaming machine and the mobile computing device. The logon code may also expire if a designated period of time has passed without the logon code being used).
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claim 10, Davis discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the logic device is associated with an electronic gaming machine (EGM) and is included in a cabinet of the EGM (figs. 1, 4 depicts the mobile computing device and electronic gaming machine).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claim 11, Davis discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the logic device is associated with a table game and is positioned at a location of a table at which the table game is played (¶¶ [0130]-[0131]).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claim 12, Davis discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the identifying information comprises a seating position of the player at the table (¶¶ [0130]-[0131]).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 13, Davis discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the wireless connection utilizes a Near Field Communication (NFC) protocol (¶¶ [0080]-[0081]).
Regarding Claim 8, and similarly recited Claim 17, Davis discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further enable the processor to: transfer, via the wireless connection, information describing a virtual ticket to enable the player to wager funds during the player session (¶¶ [0022], [0111]).
Regarding Claim 14, Davis discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the wireless connection utilizes a proximity-based wireless communication protocol (¶¶ [0019]-[0020]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-7, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0023339 (“Davis”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,622,836 (“Nelson”),
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 15 and 19, Davis discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further enable the processor to:
detect that a wireless signal strength between the logic device and the mobile device has fallen below a predetermined threshold; and
in response to detecting that the wireless signal strength between the logic device and the mobile device has fallen below the predetermined threshold, discontinue the player session
In a related invention, Nelson discloses wherein the instructions further enable the processor to:
detect that a wireless signal strength between the logic device and the mobile device has fallen below a predetermined threshold (Col. 2:3-45 discloses monitoring the signal strength of the wireless signal between a portable electronic device and an EGM during a game-play session, sampling the signal strength upon establishing the connection, and terminating/maintaining the wireless connection in dependence on whether the signal strength has fallen below a predetermined threshold level); and
in response to detecting that the wireless signal strength between the logic device and the mobile device has fallen below the predetermined threshold, discontinue the player session (Col. 2:3-45 discloses monitoring the signal strength of the wireless signal between a portable electronic device and an EGM during a game-play session, sampling the signal strength upon establishing the connection, and terminating/maintaining the wireless connection in dependence on whether the signal strength has fallen below a predetermined threshold level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nelson's signal-strength monitoring and threshold-based session termination into Davis's mobile-EGM session in order to automatically maintain the session only while the player's device remains within a usable range and to release the session when the player leaves.
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claim 16 and 20, Davis discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further enable the processor to:
sample a wireless signal strength between the mobile device and the logic device upon establishing the wireless connection; and
implement a disconnect algorithm such that the player session is discontinued once the wireless signal strength falls below a predetermined threshold relative to an initial strength detected upon establishing the wireless connection.
In a related invention, Nelson discloses: wherein the instructions further enable the processor to:
sample a wireless signal strength between the mobile device and the logic device upon establishing the wireless connection (Col. 2:3-45); and
implement a disconnect algorithm such that the player session is discontinued once the wireless signal strength falls below a predetermined threshold relative to an initial strength detected upon establishing the wireless connection (Col. 2:3-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nelson's signal-strength monitoring and threshold-based session termination into Davis's mobile-EGM session in order to automatically maintain the session only while the player's device remains within a usable range and to release the session when the player leaves.
Regarding Claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1 above and Claim 6.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights