DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marsh et al (2023/0080994) (herein “Marsh”). In regards to claims 1 and 11, Marsh teaches a gaming system comprising: one or more gameplay stations, the gameplay stations including a user interface; and a gaming server in communication with the one or more gameplay stations through a communications interface, the gaming server comprising a memory and a processor configured for executing instructions stored on the memory (See; Fig. 1, p[0036] and p[0055]) to perform the following steps: receive a gameplay request from at least one of the one or more gameplay stations (See; Fig. 13 for initiate a base game 1302); evaluate a continuation award for the gameplay request based on one or more of essential, immaterial, and/or supplemental elements of a bingo card; and determine an award value for the gameplay request based on the continuation award evaluation (See; Fig. 13 and p[0098]-p[0099] for determining an amount of bonus free spins based on the award amount determined by winning bingo patterns on the bingo card. The winning pattern can be considered an essential, immaterial and/or supplemental element of the bingo card. Further including secondary bonus games).
In regards to claims 2 and 12, Marsh teaches wherein the gameplay request comprises at least a bingo card and a bingo call (See; p[0033], p[0094] and p[0098] for a bingo game with card and call).
In regards to claims 3 and 13, Marsh teaches wherein the essential, immaterial, and/or supplemental elements of the bingo card include one or more of a size, color, and/or layout of the bingo card (See; p[0033], p[0094] and p[0098]-p[0099] for a bingo game with winning bingo patterns). In regards to claims 7 and 17, Marsh teaches wherein the essential, immaterial, and/or supplemental elements of the bingo card are compared to a match element in the continuation award evaluation (See; p[0004], p[0034], p[0106], p[0125]).
In regards to claims 8 and 18, Marsh teaches wherein the gameplay request further comprises a wager value (See; p[0043], p[0064]-p[0066]).
In regards to claim 9, Marsh teaches wherein the continuation award evaluation does not end the gameplay request; wherein the gameplay request ends when a game ending pattern occurs (See; Fig. 13 and p[0098]-p[0099] for determining an amount of bonus free spins based on the award amount determined by winning bingo patterns on the bingo card, thus not ending the game since bonus spins are implemented, where the game would only end if no winning patterns are identified).
In regards to claim 10, Marsh teaches wherein evaluating the continuation award for the gameplay request is based on a sequential daubing of one or more of essential, immaterial, and/or supplemental elements of a bingo card (See; p[0106] and p[0131]-p[0132] for a daubed bingo card). In regards to claim 19, Marsh teaches wherein the continuation award evaluation does not end the gameplay request (See; Fig. 13 and p[0098]-p[0099] for determining an amount of bonus free spins based on the award amount determined by winning bingo patterns on the bingo card, thus not ending the game since bonus spins are implemented, where the game would only end if no winning patterns are identified). In regards to claim 20, Marsh teaches wherein the gameplay request ends when a game ending pattern occurs (See; Fig. 13 and p[0098]-p[0099] where the game would end if there are no winning bingo patterns identified).
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh et al (2023/0080994) (herein “Marsh”). In regards to claims 4 and 14, Marsh fails to explicitly teach wherein the essential, immaterial, and/or supplemental elements of the bingo card include one or more of a playing card suite and a playing card value. However, Marsh teaches that many different types of games can be implemented such as poker or black jack (See; p[0053] where poker or black jack inherently use playing card suits and values). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Marsh to use a playing card suit and value so as to combine other combinations of wagering games to get interest from the user.
In regards to claims 5 and 15, Marsh fails to explicitly teaches wherein the essential, immaterial, and/or supplemental elements of the bingo card include one or more of a roulette space and a roulette chip. However, Marsh teaches that many different types of wagering games can be implemented such as roulette games (See; p[0003] and p[0053] for open ended wagering game implementations where roulette games are mentioned as a type of wagering game). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Marsh to use roulette so as to combine other combinations of wagering games to get interest from the user. In regards to claims 6 and 16, Marsh fails to explicitly teaches wherein the essential, immaterial, and/or supplemental elements of the bingo card include one or more of a rock-paper-scissors element. However, Marsh teaches that many different types of wagering games can be implemented (See; p[0003] and p[0053] for open ended wagering game implementations. Where rock paper scissors is a well-known game). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Marsh to use rock paper scissors so as to combine other combinations of wagering games to get interest from more users.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)270-7503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272-7776. 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.
/JONATHAN A BOYD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights