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 .
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 1-18 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 1 and 10 recite temporarily adjust, subsequent to a particular first purchase by a first player of one or more particular virtual items, and modify the second outcome probability for the individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type involving the first player, that falls under "certain methods of organizing human activity", which is a form of managing personal interactions between people. The claimed invention is related to rewarding a player whom has made a purchase with additional and/or special dice, cards, indicia, or the like during a game for a set amount of time.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements of including: processor; and a computer system (see claims 1 and 10) which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because an entity offering reward programs that provide benefits to players that make purchases where the benefits has an expiration date is routine and conventional, specifically, a gaming establishment, e.g., a casino, often provide rewards tied with expiration dates to higher spending patrons. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the exception because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on computer-type machines where there is no explicit improvement to the gaming technology, e.g, implementing routine and conventional rewards program benefits having expiration dates into computer technology is deemed an abstract idea.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (processor, machine-readable instructions) performing data receiving and sending are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of gaming environment.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic processors, instructions, and data receiving/sending as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of providing gameplay special benefits for purchases, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries 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 1, 2, 8-11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20130184060 to Costello in view of US Pub. 20080200251 to Alderucci et al (Alderucci) and US Pub. 20030119579 to Walker et al (Walker ‘579).
Claims 1 and 10. Costello discloses a system for providing of probabilities associated with actions occurring in an online game in a game space, the system comprising:
(as required claim 10) being implemented in a computer system that includes one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions (Figs. 1-5, and ¶¶46-66 discloses various computing components that make online casino gaming possible) to:
execute an instance of the online game in the game space (Figs. 1-4 and ¶¶42 discloses online casino gaming);
perform actions within the online game, wherein the actions include a first action of a first action type, wherein individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type are determined based on a first outcome probability (¶¶21 and 22 discloses examples of gambling, wagering, and casino games which correspond to randomly selected game outcomes directly related to game odds for people choosing to participate in the respective games);
a particular first purchase by a first player of one or more particular virtual items, the first outcome probability for the first player, such that the first outcome probability for the individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type involving the first player (¶¶21-23 and 70 discloses purchasing items, points, credits, or the like, and disclose examples of gambling, wagering, and casino games which correspond to bet play commands to participate in one or more the games which provide randomly selected game outcomes directly related to game odds for people choosing to participate in the respective games).
However, Costello fails to explicitly disclose:
temporary adjustments of probabilities; and
temporarily adjust, subsequent to a particular first purchase by a first player of one or more particular virtual items, the first outcome probability for the first player, such that the first outcome probability for the individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type involving the first player are temporarily adjusted to a second outcome probability, wherein the second outcome probability is more favorable to the first player than the first outcome probability; and
modify the second outcome probability for the individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type involving the first player (emphasis added).
Alderucci teaches temporary adjustments of probabilities; and temporarily adjust, subsequent to a particular first purchase by a first player of one or more particular virtual items (¶184 “virtually shop), the first outcome probability for the first player, such that the first outcome probability for the individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type involving the first player are temporarily adjusted to a second outcome probability (¶16 “higher probability of achieving a winning outcome”; ¶34 “when a player goes to a store and purchases an item, he may get a code. The code may give the player a right … may last for a temporary period of time” ; “increase the probability for one or more winning outcomes”; ¶39 discloses reduction in payout percentage; such that a player is awarded a temporary change in game probability during casino game play for making a purchase then reduced to another payout percentage after the period of time expires), wherein the second outcome probability is more favorable to the first player than the first outcome probability (¶73 “providing higher probabilities for one or more winning outcomes”, i.e., higher odds of winning on wagers placed by a first player). The gaming system of Costello would have motivation to use the teachings of Alderucci in order to reward game players who make purchases for a certain amount in hopes to entice players to make more purchases which would generate more game revenue.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Costello with the teachings of Alderucci in order to reward game players who make purchases for a certain amount in hopes to entice players to make more purchases which would generate more game revenue.
Walker ‘579 teaches temporarily adjust the first outcome probability for the first player, such that the first outcome probability for the individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type involving the first player are temporarily adjusted to a second outcome probability; and modify the second outcome probability for the individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type involving the first player (Fig. 11B, ¶31 “customized the probability of the occurrence of the outcome”; ¶183 “modifying… probability elements; and ¶¶263-265) , wherein the second outcome probability is more favorable to the first player than the first outcome probability (¶¶212 and 236 teaches favorable customizations). The gaming system of Costello in view of Alderucci would have motivation to use the teachings of Walker ‘579 in order to provide game players with the option to control when to alter game probabilities in doing so would provide a more enjoyable game play experience to the game players.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Costello in view of Alderucci with the teachings of Walker ‘579 in order to provide game players with the option to control when to alter game probabilities in doing so would provide a more enjoyable game play experience to the game players.
Claims 2 and 11. Costello discloses wherein the first action is performed within the online game in response to one or more particular commands and/or instructions by the first player (¶21 “wager”, “bet”, or the like are commands/instructions).
Claims 8 and 17. Costello discloses wherein the one or more physical computing processors are further configured to:
present an offer for purchasing the one or more particular virtual items to the first player (¶¶21, 24-25, 70).
Claims 9 and 18. Costello discloses wherein the one or more physical computing processors are further configured to:
facilitate the particular first purchase by the first player through the offer (¶¶21, 24-25, 70).
Claims 3, 5, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20130184060 to Costello in view of US Pub. 20080200251 to Alderucci et al (Alderucci), and US Pub. 20030119579 to Walker et al (Walker ‘579), and US Pub. 20040162130 Walker et al (Walker ‘130) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20040102238 to Taylor.
Claims 3, 5, 12, and 14. Costello in view of Alderucci and Walker ‘579 teaches wherein the one or more physical computing processors are configured by machine-readable instructions such that the temporary adjustment of the first outcome probability is for a predetermined period of time (see Alderucci ¶¶34 and 42, and see Walker ‘579 ¶264).
However, Costello fails to explicitly disclose wherein a remainder of the predetermined period of time is communicated to the first player through a clock running down (emphasis added).
Taylor teaches wherein a remainder of the predetermined period of time is communicated to the first player through a clock running down (¶40). The gaming system of Costello in view of Alderucci and Walker ‘579 have motivation to use the teachings of Taylor in order to provide a player with visual notification of when the promotional game play will end which would assist the player in making the best decision of how much to participate in gameplay to take full of advantage of the promotional period.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Costello in view of Alderucci and Walker ‘579 with the teachings of Taylor in order to provide an added convenience to tracking promotional time remaining.
Claims 4, 6, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20130184060 to Costello in view of US Pub. 20080200251 to Alderucci et al (Alderucci) and US Pub. 20030119579 to Walker et al (Walker ‘579) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20040162130 Walker et al (Walker ‘130).
Claims 4 and 13. Costello in view of Alderucci and Walker ‘579 teaches wherein the one or more physical computing processors are configured by machine-readable instructions such that the adjustment of the first outcome probability for operations of the first operation type is communicated to the first player (see Alderucci ¶133 discloses casino server may then transmit an indication of the game configuration, and see Walker ‘579 Fig. 11B and ¶231).
However, Costello fails to explicitly teach the adjustment of the first outcome probability for operations of the first operation type is communicated to the first player prior to the completion of the particular first purchase (emphasis added).
Walker ‘130 teaches communicated to the first player prior to the completion of the particular first purchase (¶110 “prompt the player, on a secondary game screen, with an offer to purchase a time extension for a fee”). The gaming system of Costello in view of Alderucci and Walker ‘579 would have motivation to use the teachings of Walker ‘130 in order to inform players of potential benefits they will receive before making a purchase via a visual notification on a display which would make it easier for the players to recognize their potential benefits before making the purchase which could potentially save players a lot of money.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Costello in view of Alderucci and Walker ‘579 with the teachings of Walker ‘130 in order to provide a player an idea of the benefit he/she will receive before making a purchase via a visual notification on display which would make it easier for the players to recognize their potential benefits before making the purchase which could potentially save players a lot of money.
Claims 6 and 15. Costello in view of Alderucci and Walker ‘579 fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more physical computing processors are configured by machine-readable instructions such that the temporary adjustment of the first outcome probability is extended by extended period of time based on an additional purchase by the first player of one or more virtual items (emphasis added).
Walker ‘130 teaches temporary adjustment is extended based on an additional purchase (¶¶26, 110, and 111). The gaming system of Costello in view of Alderucci and Walker ‘579 would have motivation to use the teachings of Walker ‘130 in order to frequently reward game players that make additional purchases as a way to encourage game players to continue to make purchases in doing so helps to increase game revenue.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Costello in view of Alderucci and Walker ‘579 with the teachings of Walker ‘130 in order to frequently reward game players that make additional purchases as a way to encourage game players to continue to make purchases in doing so helps to increase game revenue.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20130184060 to Costello in view of US Pub. 20080200251 to Alderucci et al (Alderucci), US Pub. 20030119579 to Walker et al (Walker ‘579), and US Pub. 20040162130 Walker et al (Walker ‘130), as applied to claims 6 and 15 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20040102238 to Taylor.
Claims 7 and 16. Costello in view of Alderucci fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more physical computing processors are configured by machine-readable instructions such that the extended period of time is displayed to the player (emphasis added).
Taylor teaches extended period of time is displayed to the player (Fig. 1, and ¶¶69 and 80). The gaming system of Costello in view of Alderucci, Walker ‘579, and Walker ‘130 would have motivation to use the teachings of Taylor in order to explicitly show the player the amount of time remaining for his/her outcome probability adjustment in doing so would make players more comfortable in spending the extra money to receive the outcome probability adjustment period.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Costello in view of Alderucci, Walker ‘579, and Walker ‘130 with the teachings of Taylor in order would make players more comfortable in spending the extra money to receive the outcome probability adjustment period.
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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11238698. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases recite the same and/or similar key limitations relating to temporarily adjusting first outcome probabilities to second outcome probabilities in favor of a player after a purchase by the player.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10 of the instant application. US Pat. 11238698 claims a system for providing temporary adjustments of probabilities associated with actions occurring in an online game in a game space (see patented case, claim 1), the system comprising:
(as required claim 10) being implemented in a computer system that includes one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions (see patented case, claims 1 and 7),
execute an instance of the online game in the game space (see patented case, claim 1);
perform actions within the online game, wherein the actions include a first action of a first action type, wherein individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type are determined based on a first outcome probability (see patented case, claim 1 “individual outcomes of operations of the first operation type are determined … based on a first outcome probability”, note, the operations of the patented case are related the currently claimed actions);
temporarily adjust, subsequent to a particular first purchase by a first player of one or more particular virtual items, the first outcome probability for the first player, such that the first outcome probability for the individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type involving the first player are temporarily adjusted to a second outcome probability, wherein the second outcome probability is more favorable to the first player than the first outcome probability (see patented case, claim 1 “temporarily adjust, responsive to completion of … purchase”); and
modify the second outcome probability for the individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type involving the first player (see patented case, claim 1 “individual outcomes of operations of the first operation type”).
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11694515. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases recite the same and/or similar key limitations relating to temporarily adjusting first outcome probabilities to second outcome probabilities in favor of a player after a purchase by the player.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10 of the instant application. US Pat. 11694515 claims a system for providing temporary adjustments of probabilities associated with actions occurring in an online game in a game space (see patented case, claim 1), the system comprising:
(as required claim 10) being implemented in a computer system that includes one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions (see patented case, claims 1 and 7),
execute an instance of the online game in the game space (see patented case, claim 1);
perform actions within the online game, wherein the actions include a first action of a first action type, wherein individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type are determined based on a first outcome probability (see patented case, claim 1 “individual outcomes of operations of the first operation type are determined … based on a first outcome probability”, note, the operations of the patented case are related the currently claimed actions);
temporarily adjust, subsequent to a particular first purchase by a first player of one or more particular virtual items, the first outcome probability for the first player, such that the first outcome probability for the individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type involving the first player are temporarily adjusted to a second outcome probability, wherein the second outcome probability is more favorable to the first player than the first outcome probability (see patented case, claim 1 “temporarily adjust, responsive to completion of … purchase”); and
modify the second outcome probability for the individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type involving the first player (see patented case, claim 1 “individual outcomes of operations of the first operation type”).
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12198500. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases recite the same and/or similar key limitations relating to temporarily adjusting first outcome probabilities to second outcome probabilities in favor of a player after a purchase by the player.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10 of the instant application. US Pat. 12198500 claims a system for providing temporary adjustments of probabilities associated with actions occurring in an online game in a game space (see patented case, claim 1), the system comprising:
(as required claim 10) being implemented in a computer system that includes one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions (see patented case, claims 1 and 8),
execute an instance of the online game in the game space (see patented case, claim 1);
perform actions within the online game, wherein the actions include a first action of a first action type, wherein individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type are determined based on a first outcome probability (see patented case, claim 1 “individual outcomes of operations of the first operation type are determined … based on a first outcome probability” , note, the operations of the patented case are related the currently claimed actions);
temporarily adjust, subsequent to a particular first purchase by a first player of one or more particular virtual items, the first outcome probability for the first player, such that the first outcome probability for the individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type involving the first player are temporarily adjusted to a second outcome probability, wherein the second outcome probability is more favorable to the first player than the first outcome probability (see patented case, claim 1 “temporarily adjust, responsive to completion of … purchase”); and
modify the second outcome probability for the individual outcomes of the actions of the first action type involving the first player (see patented case, claim 1 “individual outcomes of operations of the first operation type”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights