Detailed Action
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
The claim(s) recite(s), inter alia,
receiving from a user in use by the user a request to register with a service provider to receive gaming services
responsive to the request, registering the user with the service provider
indicating to the user in use by the user that the user needs to complete registration with the service provider by performing an identity verification with an agent
wherein the user has limited access to the gaming services until the user completes the identity verification
receiving from an agent in use by the agent an indication that the identity of the user is verified
wherein receiving the indication from the agent comprises receiving from the agent an ID issued to the agent by the service provider
wherein the ID is used to authenticate the agent
responsive to receiving the indication from the agent, providing the user with full access to the gaming services of the service provider.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 covers performance of limitations in the mind. A human—using their mind, pen, and paper—is practicably capable accepting a request for game service registration, performing a preliminary registration, informing the user of a service restriction until a further identity validation requirement is met, consulting with an agent to perform the further identity validation, authenticating the agent through verification of an ID, and lifting the service restriction once the identity is validated.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Representative claim 1 recites the additional elements of “at least one processor” and “a computing system." Specifically, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because:
At least one processor — is described in the published specification with a high degree of generality:
[0099] A "processor" means one or more microprocessors, central processing units (CPUs), computing devices, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, graphics processing units (GPUs) or like devices or any combination thereof, regardless of the architecture (e.g., chip-level multiprocessing or multi-core, RISC, CISC, Microprocessor without Interlocked Pipeline Stages, pipelining configuration, simultaneous multithreading, microprocessor with integrated graphics processing unit, GPGPU).
Thus, it would be reasonable to interpret them as generic computing devices.
A computing system — is described in the published specification with a high degree of generality:
[0019] In order for an administrative agent 120 to perform functions for a service provider 110, an administrative agent may also have more computing systems 122 such as a computer, server, laptop, computing pad, smart phone etc. that may intercommunicate with a server 112, for example. Such a computing system 122 may be dedicated to interworking with a service provider(s) 110/server(s) 112 (one computing system 122 may interwork with only one service provider and therefore an agent may need multiple systems), and/or computing system 122 may interwork with many service providers, and/or may be a general purpose device. Such a computing system may include one or more processors and one or memories and/or be interfaced to one or more external memories, such as one or more and/or databases. A computing system 122 may include one or more network hardware/software/firmware based interfaces that enable the device to connect to and communicate over network 102. A computing system 122 may also have one or more software and/or firmware and/or hardware based application(s) that execute on the computing system in order to intercommunicate with a service provider 110/server 112. As another example, a computing system 122 may interwork with a service provider 110/server 112 through a web based application.
Thus, it would again be reasonable to interpret it as a generic computing device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is summarized as follows:
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 obviousness-type 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), and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 9,744,444 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
19023712 (This application)
US 9,744,444 B2
1. A method comprising: receiving by at least one processor from a user in use by the user a request to register with a service provider to receive gaming services; responsive to the request: registering by at least one processor the user with the service provider; and indicating by at least one processor to the user in use by the user that the user needs to complete registration with the service provider by performing an identity verification with an agent, and wherein the user has limited access to the gaming services until the user completes the identity verification,
1. A method comprising: receiving by at least one processor from a user in use by the user a request to register with a service provider to receive gaming services; responsive to the request: registering by at least one processor the user with the service provider; and indicating by at least one processor to the user in use by the user that the user needs to complete registration with the service provider by performing an identity verification with an agent, and wherein the user has limited access to the gaming services until the user completes the identity verification, and wherein the agent performs identity verification for a plurality of different service providers that provide gaming services; receiving by at least one processor from an agent in use by the agent an indication that the identity of the user is verified, wherein receiving the indication from the agent comprises receiving from the agent an ID issued to the agent by the service provider, and wherein the ID is used to authenticate the agent; and responsive to receiving the indication from the agent, providing by at least one processor the user with full access to the gaming services of the service provider.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Lake et al (US 20020091646 A1) discloses customer identity verification.
Chau et al (US 20040039655 A1) discloses a secure lottery ticket purchasing system.
Thackston (US 20050086168 A1) discloses a financial transfer system.
Yacenda (US 20140370959 A1) discloses a mobile gaming location verification system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steve Rowland whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, alternate Fridays, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm, Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights