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 § 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.
Claim 5, 7, 14, and 16 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 5 recites the limitation "a viewer" in line 4. However, there was disclosure of that limitation previously before in Claim 2. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a viewer" in line 3. However, there was disclosure of that limitation previously before in Claim 2. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a viewer" in line 4. However, there was disclosure of that limitation previously before in Claim 11. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a viewer" in line 3. However, there was disclosure of that limitation previously before in Claim 11. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 2-21 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 2 recites:
A system comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
generate virtual game content for a wagering game for display by a display device of a mixed reality viewing device being worn by a player of the wagering game, wherein the virtual game content appears to the player to interact with a real-world object in a field of view of the player;
generate two-dimensional virtual game content corresponding to the virtual game content being viewed by the player and two-dimensional object content corresponding to the real-world object in the field of view of the player; and
cause a second display device to display the two-dimensional virtual game content, wherein the two-dimensional virtual game content appears to a viewer of the second display device to interact with the real-world object.Claim 11 recites:
A mixed reality viewing device comprising:
a wearable display device;
a processor circuit; and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
display, by the wearable display device, virtual game content for a wagering game, wherein the virtual game content appears to a player wearing the wearable display device to interact with a real-world object in a field of view of the player;
generate two-dimensional virtual game content corresponding to the virtual game content being viewed by the player and two-dimensional object content corresponding to the real-world object in the field of view of the player; and
cause a second display device separate from the mixed reality viewing device to display the two-dimensional virtual game content, wherein the two-dimensional virtual game content appears to a viewer of the second display device to interact with the real- world object.
Claim 20 recites:A method comprising:
generating, by a processor circuit, a virtual game content for a wagering game for display by a display device of a mixed reality viewing device being worn by a player of the wagering game, wherein the virtual game content appears to the player to interact with a real-world object in a field of view of the player;
generating, by the processor circuit, two-dimensional virtual game content corresponding to the virtual game content being viewed by the player and two-dimensional object content corresponding to the real-world object in the field of view of the player; and
causing, by the processor circuit, a second display device to display the two-dimensional virtual game content, wherein the two-dimensional virtual game content appears to a viewer of the second display device to interact with the real-world object.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a mixed reality viewing device) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: generating a video image including the electronic gaming machine, the electronic gaming machine is within a view of a player, generating virtual content associated with the game executed by the electronic gaming machine, and displaying the virtual content to the player to augment the player's view of the electronic gaming machine, the virtual content appears to the player to be on or adjacent to the electronic gaming machine.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely 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 instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 2, 11, and 20 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: mixed reality viewing device, processor circuit, memory, and display device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Bregenzer, US 20040224745 discloses that it is well understood that software and firmware that controls for a casino-based game is stored on various memory devices, such as a ROM, EPROM, EEPROM, flash memory, hard drive, disk drive, or other alterable or inalterable memory or memories, and that the memory devices are linked to the processor or processors (paragraph 28); Krynicky, US 20050266909, discloses that slot machines are also well known in the art and comprise a row or rows of reels (or simulated reels) having symbols positioned about the face of each reel (paragraph 5); Rehill et al., US 10726678 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the graphical user interfaces are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device (Col 22, lines 44-47); Cockrell, Jr., US 20070057464, discloses that computer systems for implementing games can be suitable general-purpose computers having a processor and memory and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 69); Geisner, US 20080242421, discloses processors can be general purpose processor for implementing online games and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 24, 34, 52); Wilson, US 20050277457, discloses that it is readily understood that the video games are normally computer controlled, and that the game-logic electronic circuitry for implementing the method for playing such a video game in a machine is well known and available to one skilled in the art (paragraph 28); Thomas, US 20160358424, discloses that reel-based games utilize symbols for display on an array for generating outcomes are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 4); Falciglia, SR., US 20100203948 discloses that, as is well known, the combinations of reel positions and their odds of hitting are associated with the controller, and the controller is arranged to stop the reels in a position displaying a combination of indicia as determined by the controller based on the combinations and odds (paragraph 142); Vancura, US 20120064961, discloses that, in general, the operating hardware and software necessary to implement a casino-based game is well known and is based on one or more communicatively interconnected controllers, processors, or microprocessors found within such a casino game (paragraph 26); Reeves et al., US 20160063799 discloses that graphical user interfaces (GUIs) are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device and are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 82); Walker et al., US 20080039190 discloses that graphical user interfaces, including graphical buttons provided via touch screens, menus, etc., are well known in the art (paragraph 101); Vuong et al., US 20030195037, discloses that when it comes to gaming machines, such gaming machines comprises cabinets and are well-known in the field (paragraph 11);
Bell et al., US 20040233171 discloses that three-dimensional images (3D) can be generated in a number of ways well known to one of ordinary skill in the art, utilizing well known display devices suchs as a CRT or LCD screen, stationary, non-stationary, handheld, or head-worn displays for virtual reality or augmented reality applications, including head tracked display devices, and the like (paragraph 25).
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that 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 additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 3-10, 12-19, and 21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (ie: at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity because each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, the dependent claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Best Applicable Prior Art
Regarding independent Claim 2, the closest prior art, Kiely et al., US 20150065219 (Kiely) in view of Massing et al., US 20140121015 (Massing) is interpreted as disclosing: A system comprising:
a processor circuit (para 50); and
a memory (para 50) coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
generate virtual game content for a wagering game for display by a display device of a mixed reality viewing device, wherein the virtual game content appears to the player to interact with a real-world object in a field of view of the player (Fig 2-3; para 21-22, 25, 28, 36-37, 41. The figures depicts gaming content being displayed on a mixed reality viewing device held by a player while the player interacts with an electronic gaming machine.);
generate two-dimensional virtual game content corresponding to the virtual game content being viewed by the player (Fig 2-3) and two-dimensional object content corresponding to the real-world object in the field of view of the player (Fig 3; para 21-22, 25-31. The figure depicts two-dimensional objects such as hidden information, such as the values of the question marks, that are not depicted on the electronic gaming machine.).
While Kiely discloses of a mixed reality viewing device (Fig 2, elem 150, para 25, 37, 41), Kiely failed to disclose the mixed reality viewing device being worn by the player. However, when it comes to mixed reality viewing devices, Massing disclose that player can wear mixed reality viewing devices in the form of glasses over his/her head as it can present wagering game content in 3D (Fig 1A, elem 130; para 39, 61, 66).
In this case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Gagner's teachings with Kiely because it would allow the player of Kiely to view virtual content on his mixed reality viewing device (Kiely: Fig 2, elem 150, 151) in 3D such that, instead of holding the mixed reality viewing device by hand (as depicted in Fig 2 of Kiely), the player can instead wear the mixed reality viewing device as 3D glasses as taught by Massing as it would provide obvious benefits such allowing the player to see the virtual content meant for the wagering machine but in 3D.
While the combination of Kiely and Massing is interpreted as disclosing using a display device for generating virtual game content, Kiely discloses that only a single mixed reality viewing device can be used for viewing two-dimensional virtual game content. In this case, the combination is interpreted as teaching away from a second display device to display the two-dimensional virtual game content, wherein the two-dimensional virtual game content appears to a viewer of the second display device to interact with the real-world object.
In this case, the Examiner believes that, even though there exists prior art that can teach the limitations mentioned above in individual parts, when attempting to put the individual parts together as a whole in combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to combine.
Regarding independent Claim 11, the closest prior art, Kiely et al., US 20150065219 (Kiely) in view of Massing et al., US 20140121015 (Massing) is interpreted as disclosing:
A mixed reality viewing device comprising:
a display device (Fig 1, elem 150; para 14, 20) ;
a processor circuit (para 50); and
a memory (para 50) coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
display, by the display device, virtual game content for a wagering game, wherein the virtual game content appears to the player display device to interact with a real-world object in a field of view of the player (Fig 2-3; para 21-22, 25, 28, 36-37, 41. The figures depicts gaming content being displayed on a mixed reality viewing device held by a player while the player interacts with an electronic gaming machine);
generate two-dimensional virtual game content corresponding to the virtual game content being viewed by the player (Fig 2-3) and two-dimensional object content corresponding to the real-world object in the field of view of the player (Fig 3; para 21-22, 25-31. The figure depicts two-dimensional objects such as hidden information, such as the values of the question marks, that are not depicted on the electronic gaming machine.).
While Kiely discloses of display device (Fig 2, elem 150, para 25, 37, 41), Kiely failed to disclose the display device is wearable by the player.
However, Massing disclose that player can wear mixed reality viewing devices in the form of glasses over his/her head as it can present wagering game content in 3D (Fig 1A, elem 130; para 39, 61, 66).
In this case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Massing's teachings with Kiely because it would allow the player of Kiely to view virtual content on his display device (Kiely: Fig 2, elem 150, 151) in 3D such that, instead of holding the mixed reality viewing device by hand (as depicted in Fig 2 of Kiely), the player can instead wear the display device as 3D glasses as taught by Massing as it would provide obvious benefits such allowing the player to see the virtual content meant for the wagering machine but in 3D.
While the combination of Kiely and Massing is interpreted as disclosing using a display device for generating virtual game content, Kiely discloses that only a single mixed reality viewing device can be used for viewing two-dimensional virtual game content. In this case, the combination is interpreted as teaching away from a second display device separate from the mixed reality viewing device to display the two-dimensional virtual game content, wherein the two-dimensional virtual game content appears to a viewer of the second display device to interact with the real- world object.
In this case, the Examiner believes that, even though there exists prior art that can teach the limitations mentioned above in individual parts, when attempting to put the individual parts together as a whole in combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to combine.
Regarding independent Claim 20, the closest prior art, Kiely et al., US 20150065219 (Kiely) in view of Massing et al., US 20140121015 (Massing) is interpreted as disclosing:A method comprising:
generating, by a processor circuit, a virtual game content for a wagering game for display by a display device of a mixed reality viewing device of a player of the wagering game, wherein the virtual game content appears to the player to interact with a real-world object in a field of view of the Fig 2-3; para 21-22, 25, 28, 36-37, 41. The figures depicts gaming content being displayed on a mixed reality viewing device held by a player while the player interacts with an electronic gaming machine.);
generating, by the processor circuit, two-dimensional virtual game content corresponding to the virtual game content being viewed by the player (Fig 2-3) and two-dimensional object content corresponding to the real-world object in the field of view of the player (Fig 3; para 21-22, 25-31. The figure depicts two-dimensional objects such as hidden information, such as the values of the question marks, that are not depicted on the electronic gaming machine.)
While Kiely discloses of a mixed reality viewing device (Fig 2, elem 150, para 25, 37, 41), Kiely failed to disclose the mixed reality viewing device being worn by the player. However, when it comes to mixed reality viewing devices, Massing disclose that player can wear mixed reality viewing devices in the form of glasses over his/her head as it can present wagering game content in 3D (Fig 1A, elem 130; para 39, 61, 66).
In this case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Gagner's teachings with Kiely because it would allow the player of Kiely to view virtual content on his mixed reality viewing device (Kiely: Fig 2, elem 150, 151) in 3D such that, instead of holding the mixed reality viewing device by hand (as depicted in Fig 2 of Kiely), the player can instead wear the mixed reality viewing device as 3D glasses as taught by Massing as it would provide obvious benefits such allowing the player to see the virtual content meant for the wagering machine but in 3D.
While the combination of Kiely and Massing is interpreted as disclosing using a display device for generating virtual game content, Kiely discloses that only a single mixed reality viewing device can be used for viewing two-dimensional virtual game content. In this case, the combination is interpreted as teaching away from a second display device to display the two-dimensional virtual game content, wherein the two-dimensional virtual game content appears to a viewer of the second display device to interact with the real-world object.
In this case, the Examiner believes that, even though there exists prior art that can teach the limitations mentioned above in individual parts, when attempting to put the individual parts together as a whole in combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to combine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights