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 19-26 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.
The claims are directed to initiating gameplay using a fractional amount of money (mental processes and organizing methods of human activity) involving:
validating the monetary value ticket as being redeemable (certain methods of organizing human activity, CMOHA, e.g., fundamental economic practices, and mental process, e.g., evaluation of validity a ticket);
determining the monetary value of the monetary value ticket (mental process, e.g., evaluation of fund amount);
when the monetary value of the monetary value ticket issued and presented at the redemption kiosk comprises a monetary amount having a fractional currency value (CMOHA, e.g., fundamental economic practices, and mental process, e.g., fund amount associated with piece of paper):
utilizing the redemption kiosk to enter the fractional currency value of the monetary value as a fee to enter a game (CMOHA, game rules allow game play using fractional amount);
redeeming the monetary value ticket by dispensing from the redemption kiosk currency in a first whole currency value comprising the monetary value less the fractional currency value (CMOHA, distribution of funds); and
when an outcome of said game comprises a winning outcome, additionally dispensing from the redemption kiosk an award ticket representing a plurality of credits usable at one or more of said plurality of gaming machines (CMOHA, issues another ticket); and
when the monetary value of the monetary value ticket issued from the gaming machine and presented at the redemption kiosk does not comprise a monetary amount having a fractional currency value, dispensing from the redemption kiosk currency in the amount of the monetary value without entering the player in the game (CMOHA, distribution of funds).
Claim 19 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of initiating gameplay using a fractional amount of money.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claim 19 recites “reader device”.
The additional elements (gaming machines, reader device) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
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 (gaming machines, reader device) performing receiving and sending ticket data are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of casino gaming.
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 machines, devices, 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 19-26 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mental process and 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 initiating gameplay using a fractional amount of money, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-34 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 19 recite the limitations "the physical monetary value ticket” and “the monetary value ticket" respectively in lines 3 and 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as claim 19 recites “a physical monetary value gaming system ticket” in lines 1-2. In addition, it is unclear whether there are different types of tickets. Note, there are additional recitations of “the monetary value ticket” in lines 6, 7, 13, and 20 in claim 19.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the player" in page 3 line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note, claim 27 has the same issue regarding “the player”.
Claim 27 recite the limitations "physical monetary value tickets” and “the monetary value tickets" in respectively lines 4 and 7 of the claim. It is unclear whether these different recitations are referring to the same or different tickets, thus, deemed indefinite.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the gaming machine" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 20-26 and 28-34 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because of their respective dependence on the independent claims.
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 19, 21-23, 26, 27, 29-31, and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 10-13, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10991205. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases recite the same key features related to a redemption kiosk, ticket using fractional value to play game, and additionally dispense an award ticket.
Regarding Claim 19 of instant application. US Pat. 10991205 claims a method of facilitating coinless redemption of a physical monetary value gaming system ticket, the gaming system comprising a plurality of gaming machines, comprising the steps of:
receiving, into a reader device at a redemption kiosk, the physical monetary value ticket for redemption, the monetary value ticket issued from one of said plurality of gaming machines and having an associated monetary value (see patent claim 10);
validating the monetary value ticket as being redeemable (see patent claim 1);
determining the monetary value of the monetary value ticket (see patent claim 1);
when the monetary value of the monetary value ticket issued from the gaming machine and presented at the redemption kiosk comprises a monetary amount having a fractional currency value (see patent claim 1):
utilizing the redemption kiosk to enter the fractional currency value of the monetary value as a fee to enter a game (see patent claim 1 “presenting a wagering game based upon a wager of said fractional currency value”);
redeeming the monetary value ticket by dispensing from the redemption kiosk currency in a first whole currency value comprising the monetary value less the fractional currency value (see patent claim 1 “redeeming the monetary-value ticket by dispensing from said kiosk currency in a first whole currency value comprising the monetary value less an amount of the wager of the fractional currency value”); and
when an outcome of said game comprises a winning outcome, additionally dispensing from the redemption kiosk an award ticket representing a plurality of credits usable at one or more of said plurality of gaming machines (see patent claims 1 and 10); and
when the monetary value of the monetary value ticket issued from the gaming machine and presented at the redemption kiosk does not comprise a monetary amount having a fractional currency value, dispensing from the redemption kiosk currency in the amount of the monetary value without entering the player in the game (see patent claims 1 and 10).
Regarding Claim 21 of instant application. US Pat. 10991205 claims wherein said game comprise a wheel segment selection event (see patent claim 4).
Regarding Claim 22 of instant application. US Pat. 10991205 claims wherein the fractional currency value comprises a number of cents of a dollar (see patent claim 2).
Regarding Claim 23 of instant application. US Pat. 10991205 claims further comprising presenting the game at the redemption kiosk comprising displaying game information on a video display associated with the redemption kiosk (see patent claim 3).
Regarding Claim 26 of instant application. US Pat. 10991205 claims further comprising the step of validating said award ticket (see patent claim 18, where the ticket has to be validated before use).
Regarding Claim 27 of instant application. US Pat. 10991205 claims a cashless gaming system configured to facilitate coinless monetary value ticket redemption comprising:
a plurality of gaming devices which present one or more wagering games and dispense physical monetary value tickets;
at least one casino accounting server which is in communication with the plurality of gaming devices at one or more times, the at least one casino accounting server configured to store information regarding the monetary value tickets, including a ticket identifier and a monetary value of each of the monetary value tickets (see patent claim 10);
at least one redemption kiosk having at least one ticket reader, at least one display device, at least one user input device, at least one currency dispensing device, at least one processor, at least one memory, and machine-readable code stored in the memory and executable by the processor (see patent claim 10) to:
transmit information regarding a monetary value ticket presented to the at least one ticket reader to the at least one casino accounting server for validation (see patent claim 10);
when the monetary value ticket is validated by the at least one casino accounting server and a monetary value of the monetary value ticket has a fractional monetary value of currency (see patent claim 10):
utilize the redemption kiosk to enter the fractional currency value as an entry fee to a game (see patent claim 1);
redeem the monetary value ticket by dispensing from the redemption kiosk currency in a first whole currency value comprising the monetary value less the fractional currency value (see patent claim 1); and
when an outcome of said game comprises a winning outcome, additionally dispensing from the redemption kiosk an award ticket representing a plurality of credits usable at one or more of said plurality of gaming devices (see patent claims 1 and 10); and
when the monetary value of the monetary value ticket issued from the gaming machine and presented at the redemption kiosk does not comprise a monetary amount having a fractional currency value, dispensing from the redemption kiosk currency in the amount of the monetary value without entering the player in the game (see patent claims 1 and 10).
Regarding Claim 29 of instant application. US Pat. 10991205 claims wherein said game comprise a wheel segment selection event (see claim 21 above).
Regarding Claim 30 of instant application. US Pat. 10991205 claims wherein the fractional currency value comprises a number of cents of a dollar (see claim 22 above).
Regarding Claim 31 of instant application. US Pat. 10991205 claims further comprising presenting the game at the redemption kiosk comprising displaying game information on a video display associated with the redemption kiosk (see claim 23 above).
Regarding Claim 34 of instant application. US Pat. 10991205 claims further comprising the step of validating said award ticket (see claim 26 above).
Claims 19, 21-23, 26, 27, 29-31, and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11587400. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases recite the same key features related to a redemption kiosk, ticket using fractional value to play game, and additionally dispense an award ticket.
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