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 .
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.
Claim 1-10, 12-15, 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-5, 7, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 17, 20, 16, 19, 12, 13 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,254,740. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘740 patent anticipate the respective instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saunders et al. (pub. no. 20200372750).
Regarding claim 1, Saunders discloses a computer-implemented method for operating hardware random number generators, HRNGs, that each have a launching state beginning at a starting point of a cycle and a second state ending at a resolution of the cycle (“With reference to FIG. 1, there is provided a schematic representation of an example embodiment of a gaming system 10 according to the present invention. A control unit 12 taking the form of a computer connected to a server, is in digital communication with a first physical random number generator 14, a second physical random number generator 16, a first gaming terminal 18, a second gaming terminal 20 and a third gaming terminal 22. The first physical random number generator 14 and the second physical random number generator 16 take the form of a first and second automated roulette wheel 14, 16 respectively, each having an operative period”, [0030];
“The first and second automated roulette wheels 14, 16 comprise a rotating mechanism, arranged to rotate the bowl of the first and second automated roulette wheels 14, 16 for a predetermined length of time and at a predetermined rotational speed. The first automated roulette wheel 14 and the second automated roulette wheel 16 have an operative period of adjustable start time, the start time being adjustable by the control unit 12. During the operative period the rotating mechanisms of the first automated roulette wheel 14 and the second automated roulette wheel 16 are activated by the control unit 12.
Following launch, the ball is arranged to traverse the inside surface of said bowl, starting at a most vertical position, until a reduction in momentum causes the ball to reduce vertical positioning in the bowl. As momentum of the ball and the vertical positioning of the ball within the bowl reduces, the ball sequentially passes a “no more bets” threshold and enters a pocket of the roulette wheel. The pocket in which the ball lands, determines the random number generated and therefore the win condition for the particular operative period of the first and second automated roulette wheels 14, 16. In the embodiment described, the ball is retrieved from the pocket and returned to the ball launcher to be launched during the next operative period. In the embodiment shown, the passing of the ball across a “no more bets” threshold signals the end of the betting period for the particular automated roulette wheel, and the beginning of a “no more bets” period for said wheel, which is comprised within an exit period. Following the determination of a win condition for a particular wheel, wherein input of betting information to the input portion which matches the win condition results in a win, the exit period is ceased, signalling the end of the operative period for said wheel. In the embodiment shown, betting information cannot be entered for a particular automated roulette wheel during the exit period, comprising a “no more bets” period and the determination of a win condition, of the operative period of said wheel”, [0033] & [0034]),
the method comprising: causing the HRNGs to be sequentially launched such that none of the starting points of the HRNGs occur at a same moment in time (“In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the control unit 12 is arranged to initiate the operative period of one of the first automated roulette wheel 14 or the second automated roulette wheel 16 such that the betting period of said wheel does not overlap with the betting period of the other wheel. This is performed by the control unit 12 by causing the start-time of the operative period of one wheel and the start-time of the operative period of the other wheel to be staggered. The staggering of operative periods in the embodiment shown preferably prevents the overlap of betting periods from different automated roulette wheels and as such does not permit simultaneous betting on a plurality of automated roulette wheels. This enables the embodiments shown to adhere to region-specific gambling regulations. The staggering of operative periods also enables the control unit 12 to minimise the length of time between betting periods and therefore allows a user to maximise the number of betting opportunities in a given time period”, [0036];
“In the embodiment shown, a time interval between the operative period of the first automated roulette wheel 14 and that of the second automated roulette wheel 16, may be adjusted in order to reduce the number of betting opportunities in a given time period. This may be used in particular scenarios wherein the maximum number of betting opportunities in a given time period is projected to exceed those permitted by local gambling regulations”, [0038]);
monitoring, using one or more sensors, a current state of each of the HRNGs (“Preferably the gaming system further comprises at least one camera providing a view of at least one of the random number generators to the gaming terminal to be output to a user. More preferably, the view provided to the gaming terminal to be output to a user is real-time video. Still more preferably, said gaming terminal is remote to said at least one of the random number generators”, [0024]);
providing a graphical user interface on a display of a remote electronic device, the graphical user interface comprising a graphical representation showing a live video stream of the HRNGs; detecting a user input indicative of a bet placed by a user of the remote electronic device, the bet indicating a desired outcome of one of the HRNGs (“The first, second and third gaming terminals 18, 20, 22 each comprise a betting interface comprising an input portion taking the form of a touch-sensitive screen. The touch-sensitive screen is also arranged to provide an output portion, in the form of an interactive display of all of the available betting options for the first and second automated roulette wheels 14, 16. The touch-sensitive screens of the first, second and third gaming terminals 18, 20, 22 are further arranged to accept an input from a user wherein the input comprises a selection of betting information from the available betting options and a selection of either the first automated roulette wheel 14 or the second automated roulette wheel 16 on which to bet. Betting information may be input to the input portion by a user on a choice of the first or second automated roulette wheels, only during the betting period of said chosen wheel”, [0032]); selecting one of the HRNGs based on the detected user input, a predefined criteria, and the current state of each of the HRNGs such that the selected HRNG has a lowest time until reaching the resolution while fulfilling the predefined criteria ([0036]);
and updating the graphical representation on the display of the remote electronic device by modifying the graphical representation to emphasize the selected HRNG (“As can be seen in FIG. 3, which shows the input and output portion of a gaming terminal 18, 20, 22 of FIG. 1, the touch-sensitive screen 34 provides a visual display of the betting options 36 to a user. The gaming terminal 18, 20, 22 also provides a visual display of both the first automated roulette wheel 38 and the second automated roulette wheel 40. The user is provided with the information on which of the first automated roulette wheel 14 and the second automated roulette wheel 16 is currently active by way of the highlight 42 around the visual display 38 of the first automated roulette wheel 14. The highlight 42 remains around the visual display 38 of the first automated roulette wheel 14 until the user opts to select the visual display 40 of the second automated roulette wheel 16”, [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, Saunders discloses the predefined criteria is that the time until reaching the resolution is above a threshold value ([0038]).
Regarding claim 3, Saunders discloses selecting one of the HRNGs comprises: filtering the HRNGs to form a subset of the HRNGs based on the current state of each of the HRNGs such that the time until reaching the resolution of each HRNG of the subset of HRNGs is above the threshold value; and selecting the HRNG of the subset of HRNGs having the lowest time until reaching the resolution ([0038] & [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Saunders discloses the graphical representation comprises a virtual betting interface for placing bets on an outcome of one of the HRNGs; and detecting the user input indicative of the bet comprises detecting a user confirmation of placed bets on the virtual betting interface ([0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Saunders discloses the HRNGs comprise physical roulette wheels; causing the HRNGs to be sequentially launched comprises causing sequential launching of a roulette ball in each of the physical roulette wheels (“The first and second automated roulette wheels 14, 16 comprise a rotating mechanism, arranged to rotate the bowl of the first and second automated roulette wheels 14, 16 for a predetermined length of time and at a predetermined rotational speed. The first automated roulette wheel 14 and the second automated roulette wheel 16 have an operative period of adjustable start time, the start time being adjustable by the control unit 12. During the operative period the rotating mechanisms of the first automated roulette wheel 14 and the second automated roulette wheel 16 are activated by the control unit 12. A ball launcher is arranged to launch a roulette wheel ball around the circumference of the bowl during rotation, wherein the ball launcher is arranged to determine the velocity at which the ball is launched. The launch of a ball from the ball launcher is controlled by the control unit 12”, [0033]);
and monitoring the current state of each of the HRNGs comprises monitoring at least one of a motion of the roulette ball, a position of the roulette ball, or a motion of the physical roulette wheel to determine a time until the roulette ball lands in a pocket of the physical roulette wheel, wherein the time until the roulette ball lands in the pocket of the physical roulette wheel defines the resolution of the physical roulette wheel (“Following launch, the ball is arranged to traverse the inside surface of said bowl, starting at a most vertical position, until a reduction in momentum causes the ball to reduce vertical positioning in the bowl. As momentum of the ball and the vertical positioning of the ball within the bowl reduces, the ball sequentially passes a “no more bets” threshold and enters a pocket of the roulette wheel. The pocket in which the ball lands, determines the random number generated and therefore the win condition for the particular operative period of the first and second automated roulette wheels 14, 16. In the embodiment described, the ball is retrieved from the pocket and returned to the ball launcher to be launched during the next operative period. In the embodiment shown, the passing of the ball across a “no more bets” threshold signals the end of the betting period for the particular automated roulette wheel, and the beginning of a “no more bets” period for said wheel, which is comprised within an exit period. Following the determination of a win condition for a particular wheel, wherein input of betting information to the input portion which matches the win condition results in a win, the exit period is ceased, signalling the end of the operative period for said wheel. In the embodiment shown, betting information cannot be entered for a particular automated roulette wheel during the exit period, comprising a “no more bets” period and the determination of a win condition, of the operative period of said wheel”, [0034]).
Claims 8-12 are directed to an article of manufacture containing code that implements the methods of claims 1-3, 5 and 4 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-3, 5 and 4 respectively.
Claims 15-19 are directed to a system that implements the methods of claims 1-3, 5 and 4 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-3, 5 and 4 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE STEFAN GALKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-9 & 12-5.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/LAWRENCE S GALKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights