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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acres (US 2013/0296016 A1) in view of Humphrey (US 2019/0188943 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Acres teaches an electronic gaming system comprising:
at least one memory with instructions stored thereon; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to, [0019] and [0072]:
receive a first amount of credits comprising a first credit contribution from a first client device of a plurality of client devices for a play of an electronic game, wherein the first client device is associated with a first player account of a plurality of player accounts, and wherein the plurality of player accounts are participating in the electronic game (receives a first player’s wager or credit input at a first linked device for the shared gaming event, and that input is the first contribution, paragraphs [0056], [0072] and [0106]);
receive a second amount of credits comprising a second credit contribution from a second client device of the plurality of client devices for the play of the electronic game, wherein the second client device is associated with a second player account of the plurality of player accounts (receives a second player’s wager or credit input at a second linked device for the same event, and the example contributions are $100 and $20, paragraph [0056] and [0106]);
determine a first outcome amount to provide to the first player account based upon the first amount of credits and a game outcome for the play of the electronic game (applies the award for the winning outcome to the first meter and splits awards according to the tracked contribution ratio, so the first result depends on the first contribution and the outcome, paragraphs [0072] and [0106]);
determine a second outcome amount to provide to the second player account based upon the second amount of credits and the game outcome (the same tracked-ratio split produces the second player’s award from the second contribution and the outcome, paragraph [0106]).
Acres does not expressly disclose cause a second credit balance comprising the second outcome amount to be provided to the second player account based upon an output request received from the second client device, wherein after the output request is received, at least the first player account and a third player account of the plurality of player accounts remain participating in the electronic game. Humphrey discloses a system that continues play of the multiplayer game after a designated player cashes out of that player’s electronic gaming machine, and continues play of the multiplayer game after a non-designated player cashes out of that player’s electronic gaming machine, paragraphs [0038]-[0039]. The cash-out operation is the output request. The players who remain after that cash out include the first and third player accounts. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Acres so that an output request from the second client device pays that player’s outcome balance and leaves the first and third player accounts in the linked game, as taught by Humphrey and would have been motivated to do so to let one player cash out of a shared multiplayer session without ending the session for the players who still have credits.
Regarding claim 2, Acres in view of Humphrey teaches the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to determine the game outcome (Acres determines whether the wager produced a winning combination at the linked device, paragraphs [0097] and [0098]).
Regarding claim 3, Acres in view of Humphrey teaches the electronic gaming system of Claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to determine the game outcome based at least in part upon at least one message received from at least one server (Acres coordinates the linked devices through the network, and the server or host computer stores the player account and game data consulted for the shared event, paragraphs [0009] and [0028]).
Regarding claim 4, Acres in view of Humphrey teaches the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the output request is a cash out request (Acres provides a game button that cashes out the credits remaining on the device, as indicated on the credit meter, paragraph [0022], and Humphrey treats the cash-out operation as the event that removes one player while the multiplayer game continues, paragraphs [0038] and [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Acres in view of Humphrey teaches the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to determine that the first player account and the second player account are participating in the play of the electronic game based on receipt of the first amount of credits and the second amount of credits (Acres places each player in the linked credit-sharing procedure when credits are received at that player’s device, paragraphs [0096] and [0106]).
Regarding claim 6, Acres in view of Humphrey teaches the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to, in response to selection of a spin button at the first client device, cause display of a plurality of reels to spin and stop at each client device of the plurality of client devices, wherein the spin and stop of the plurality of reels is associated with the game outcome for the play (Acres starts the shared interval when player 1 presses the game-initiating button, and the common display, including spinning reels, appears substantially identically on each device, with the stop associated with the winning outcome, paragraphs [0070] and [0072]).
Regarding claim 7, Acres in view of Humphrey teaches the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: cause display of a first credit balance associated with the first player account at the first client device, the first credit balance comprising the first amount of credits; and cause display of the second credit balance associated with the second player account at the second client device (Acres displays a credit meter at each device, and displays a common credit meter at both devices, paragraphs [0020], [0070], and [0080]).
Regarding claim 8, Acres in view of Humphrey teaches the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to store proportions of the first amount of credits and the second amount of credits with respect to a third amount of credits comprising the first amount of credits and the second amount of credits in a player contribution table stored in the at least one memory, and wherein the player contribution table includes a list of the plurality of player accounts and a credit contribution section storing a respective amount of credits contributed by each respective player account of the plurality of player accounts (Acres keeps track of all the players’ contributions in order to provide the appropriate pay outs, paragraphs [0106]).
Regarding claim 9, Acres in view of Humphrey teaches the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: designate one of the plurality of player accounts as a host player account associated with a host client device of the plurality of client devices; receive instructions from the host client device to invite at least one of the first player account or the second player account to join the electronic game; and transmit an invitation to at least one of the first client device or the second client device based upon the instructions received from the host client device (Acres discloses the host player account, John, can send a linking invitation to Jane, Figs 5A and 5B, paragraph [0066].
Regarding claim 10-18, Acres in view of Humphrey teaches the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to receive a first message associated with a first amount of credits comprising a first credit contribution from a first client device, receive a second message associated with a second amount of credits comprising a second credit contribution from a second client device, identify a first outcome amount based upon the first amount of credits and a game outcome, identify a second outcome amount based upon the second amount of credits and the game outcome, and cause a second credit balance comprising the second outcome amount to be stored as being associated with the second player account based upon an output request received from the second client device, wherein after the output request is received, at least the first player account and a third player account remain participating in the electronic game, as similarity discussed above.
Regarding claim 19-20, Acres in view of Humphrey teaches the computer-implemented method of electronic gaming implemented by at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the computer-implemented method comprising receiving a first amount of credits comprising a first credit contribution from a first client device, receiving a second amount of credits comprising a second credit contribution from a second client device, selecting a first outcome amount based upon the first amount of credits and a game outcome, selecting a second outcome amount based upon the second amount of credits and the game outcome, and causing a second credit balance comprising the second outcome amount to be provided to the second player account based upon an output request received from the second client device, wherein after the output request is received, at least the first player account and a third player account remain participating in the electronic game, as similarity discussed above.
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. 12,223,800 (Marks).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct. Marks claim 1 recites a memory and processor that receive a first credit contribution from a first client device of a first player account and a second credit contribution from a second client device of a second player account, determine a first outcome amount from the first amount and the game outcome, determine a second outcome amount from the second amount and the game outcome, and provide the second credit balance on a cash out request from the second client device while at least the first player account and a third player account still participate. That claim also recites the spin-and-stop at each client and the balance displays.
Pending claim 1 omits the spin, the displays, and the express participation test, and it says output request rather than cash out request. A broader claim is not patentably distinct from a patented claim that contains every limitation of the broader claim. The output request is the cash out request of Marks claim 1, as pending claim 4 confirms. Pending claims 2-9 add the outcome determination, the server message, the cash out label, the participation test, the shared reel spin, the balance displays, the contribution table, and the host invitation. Those additions are in Marks claims 1-7, including the contribution table and the host invitation. Pending claims 10-20 are the same architecture in medium and method form, which is an obvious change of statutory class over the patented system and method claims.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights