DETAILED ACTION
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 1-3, 7-11, and 15-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,283,155 (hereinafter ‘155) in view of Nelson, US 2017/0092059. Claim 1 of ’155 teaches all of the limitations of Independent Claims 1, 9, and 17 with the exception of a wireless interface for receiving the data and where the data is application data. Nelson teaches a gaming machine with a wireless interface for receiving player data from a mobile device and where the data is application data (Fig. 2D and 2E and Par. 77-78, 132, and 142. See also Par. 145). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify ‘155 to include a wireless interface and application data as taught by Nelson in order to allow the player to replace devices such as a player tracking card for communication with a gaming machine with their own personal mobile device, and allow easy and convenient wireless communication between the EGM and the user’s device.
Dependent Claims 2 and 10 of the present application are taught by Claim 1 of ‘155.
Dependent Claims 3 and 11 of the present application are taught by Claim 6 of ‘155.
Dependent Claims 7 and 15 of the present application are taught by Nelson (Par. 132 and 142).
Dependent Claims 8 and 16 of the present application are taught by Claim 1 of ‘155.
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 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed toa mental process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “causing the application data to be parsed to determine application information associated with the application data to display on the display device;”. This simply described reading and interpreting generic application data. When claimed broadly at such a high level this could simply be “parsing” text data from a players account, such as their name or loyalty program level. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a display device, wireless interface, memory and processor, are merely instructions to use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, recitation of receiving application data from a device associated with a player account is insignificant extra solution data gathering activity, and causing the display device to display the application information at a predefined location is insignificant extra solution display activity, see MPEP 2106.05(h). As such these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claim 18 recites additional abstract elements of the intended use of the abstract idea, as well as insignificant extra solution activity in the form of generally claimed network communication with a player tracking computer system. Dependent Claim 20 recites additional abstract details of the data. As such, these limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because recitation of a display, wireless interface, memory and processor are recitation of routine and conventional computer element well known in the art. The courts have held that “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” (See buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc.) represent routine and conventional computer activity. Further, Lyons et al., US 2018/0108207 (Par. 16) and Achmuller et al., US 2020/0242887 (Par. 48) teaches where it is well-known for a gaming machine to receive data associated with a player account over a wireless interface by “carding-in” with a mobile device. Finally, Blahut et al. teaches where it is conventional to display text or other material at a particular location on screen (Col. 6 lines 50-60). As such, even when considered as a whole, the additional elements fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 18 recites additional abstract elements of the intended use of the abstract idea. As well as routine and conventional computer activity in the form of generally claimed network communication with a player tracking computer system as described above. Dependent Claim 20 recites additional abstract details of the data. As such, these limitations fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 17-20 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 17 recites the limitation "the application" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McIntyre et al., US 2016/0307399.
In Reference to Claim 17
McIntyre et al. teaches a method of supporting an application by an electronic gaming device, the electronic gaming device comprising: a display device (Abstract and Fig. 1); a wireless interface (Par. 4, 24); at least one memory with instructions stored thereon (Par. 63 and 66); and at least one processor (Par. 67-68), the method comprising: receiving, via the wireless interface and from an end user
device associated with a player account, application data associated with the application, the application stored on the end user device (See Fig. 7 and Par. 40-41 which teaches that the player requests to pair their mobile device with the EGM and downloads and installs an application to allow it to interface with the EGM. And Par. 43-44 which teaches that the mobile device application sends media content and settings to the gaming machine to customize the presentation of the EGM. See also Fig. 3 and Par. 32-33); causing the application data to be parsed to determine application information associated with the application data to display on the display device; and based upon the parsing, causing the display device to display the application information at a predefined location of the
display device (Fig. 7 and Par. 45-46 which teaches the EGM takes the media and customization settings from the mobile application and interprets them in order to customize the visual presentation of the game. See Fig. 3-6 and Par. 32-37 which teaches presenting on the display of the gaming machine the customized gaming presentation. Further the specification of replacement images for particular slot icons or particular cards faces or the card back constitutes displaying the application information at a predefined location of the display device since these customizations are then display on particular areas of the display such as the player hand or the slot reels).
In Reference to Claim 20
McIntyre et al. teaches wherein the application data comprises presentation layer data, wherein the parsing identifies the presentation layer data, and wherein the method further comprises translating at least part of the presentation layer data into at least part of the application information displayed at the display device (Par. 4, 33, 44-45 which teaches where the application data includes both “custom game media” and “customization settings” and Par. 46 “the gaming system presents game play on the gaming machine according to the customized settings and provided media content” where examiner considers the “customization settings” to constitute “presentation layer data” since they specify how the custom game media is to be used in game).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadeja et al., US 2020/0175809, in view of Nelson, US 2017/0092059.
In Reference to Claims 1, 9, and 17
Jadeja et al. teaches method, a button deck and an electronic gaming device comprising: a button deck (Fig. 3-4 and Par. 45) comprising a display device (Fig. 3, 6, Par. 45 and 51); a wireless interface (Fig. 3 and Par. 47); at least one memory with instructions stored thereon (Fig. 3 and Par. 50 “one or more non-transitory storage media operatively coupled to the one or more processors” see also Par. 36 and 66); and at least one processor in communication with the display device, the wireless interface, and the at least one memory(Fig. 3, 7 and Par. 45, 50, 66), wherein the instructions,
when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to receive, via the wireless interface, player data from an end user device associated with a player account (Par. 47 “For example, the user interface system 310 may include a wireless interface that is configured for radio frequency communication, infrared communication, near-field magnetic communication, etc. In some implementations, the user interface system 310 may be configured to receive player identification information.” And Par. 65 “For example, the player loyalty system may be configured to read a player loyalty card (e.g., a radio frequency identification (RFID) card), to receive player loyalty account information from a smart phone or another type of mobile device via a wireless interface (such as a Bluetooth™ or other near-field wireless interface), etc., when a player is in the vicinity of an EGM that includes, or is configured for communication with, the button deck module 300.” See also Par. 25 which teaches that the mobile application is associated with a user’s casino related accounts); cause the player data to be parsed to determine player information associated with the player data to display on the display device (Par. 65 “The player loyalty system may or may not be incorporated into the button deck module 300, depending on the particular implementation. However, a control system of the button deck module 300 may be configured to receive the player loyalty account information from the player loyalty system, to extract personal information from the player loyalty account information and to control the display system 320 to provide an attract sequence that involves displaying at least some of the personal information, such as the person's name. In some examples, a control system of the button deck module 300 may be configured to receive the player loyalty account information from the player loyalty system and to extract other player loyalty account information, such as information regarding a person's level and/or status in a casino's player loyalty program.”); based upon the data, cause the display device to display the player information at a predefined location of the display device (Fig. 6 and Par. 47-49, Par. 54, 58-59, 63, and 65 which teach displaying player tracking data on the button deck. See in particular Fig. 6 and Par. 65 “According to some such examples, the control system may be configured to control the display system 320 to indicate one or more colors, symbols, etc., that correspond with the level and/or status in the player loyalty program. For example, if a player has attained a platinum level player in the player loyalty program, in some such implementations the control system may be configured to control the display system 320 to display a platinum color on at least a portion of the display system 320, e.g., in a border area such as the peripheral area 625 that is shown in FIG. 6.” Which teaches where the control system of the button deck is configured to use extracted player information to implement particular displays of the information at particular locations of the button deck display).
However although Jadeja et al. teaches where the button deck device can operate as player tracking system, include card readers and other interfaces for player tracking functionality (Par. 47-48 and 65), and teaches where the device can “receive player loyalty account information from a smart phone or another type of mobile device via a wireless interface” and parse the received information for display as described above. Jadeja et al. does not explicitly teach where the received data and parsed information received from the mobile device is from an application.
Nelson teaches a gaming machine which receives player loyalty information wirelessly from a mobile device from a player loyalty application stored on the end user device (Fig. 2D and 2E and Par. 77-78 and 132 which teaches the mobile application. See also Par. 58 which teaches downloading the application).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Jadeja et al. to receive application data with the player loyalty information via the wireless interface as taught by Nelson in order to allow the player to also interact with the gaming machine using their mobile device and to facilitate additional more advanced features via the app such as cash transfers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the device and system of Jadeja et al. to receive application data with the player loyalty information via the wireless interface as taught by Nelson.
In Reference to Claim 2 and 10
Jadeja et al. teaches where the button deck further comprises a parser device, and wherein the parser device is configured to parse the application data (Fig. 3 and Par. 45, 50, 65, and where examiner considers the control system of the button deck performing the information extraction and display to constitute “a parser device”).
In Reference to Claim 3 and 11
Jadeja et al. and Nelson teach where the application is associated with player tracking, and wherein the application information displayed at the display device includes player tracking data (Nelson Fig. 2D and 2E and Par. 77-78 and 132, Jadeja et al. Fig. 6 and Par. 65).
In Reference to Claim 5, 13, and 19
Jadeja et al. and Nelson teach wherein the display device comprises a touchscreen device (Par. 46 “touch screen”), and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive at least one signal from the touchscreen device based upon an input associated with the application provided at the predefined location of the display device (Jadeja et al. Fig. 6 and Par. 63 which teaches a “cash out” button on the touch screen display of the button deck); and transmit, via the wireless interface, input data based upon the input to the end user device (Nelson Par. 134 “the EGM is configured to communicate other commands to the mobile device” and “a Disconnect APDU which informs the mobile device application to drop the connection with the EGM, such as when the EGM cashout button is pressed” which teaches where when the player presses the cash out button to end their gaming session the EGM sends input data of the cashout to the mobile application to inform the mobile device to disconnect from the EGM).
In Reference to Claims 7 and 15
Jadeja et al. and Nelson teach wherein the wireless interface supports at least one of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or near field communication (NFC) (Jadeja et al. Par. 63 “Bluetooth.” Nelson Par. 132 “NFC” and 142 and 145 “Bluetooth” and “Wi-Fi”).
In Reference to Claims 8 and 16
Jadeja et al. and Nelson teach wherein the predefined location is stored in the at least one memory (Jadeja et al. Par. 65 which teaches where the button deck displays the information in particular locations. And Fig. 3 and Par. 45 and 50 which teaches non-transitory computer readable medium which stores the instructions to operate the button deck display using the control system).
Claims 4, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadeja et al., US 2020/0175809, Nelson, US 2017/0092059, further in view of Higgins et al., US 2020/0090452.
In Reference to Claims 4 and 12
Jadeja et al. teaches a player tracking system server which includes storing player tracking information (Fig. 2 and Par. 20, 25, 39), and Jadeja et al. and Nelson teaches where the application data includes player tracking data as described above. However, they do not explicitly teach where the end user device is in communication with a player tracking computer system storing player tracking data included in at least part of the application data.
Higgins et al. teaches a gaming system where an end user device is in communication with a player tracking computer system storing player tracking data included in at least part of the application data (Abstract and Par. 61 which teaches where a mobile device application is able to perform various casino functions including “enrolling in a player tracking system (i.e., a loyalty program), logging a player into a gaming establishment loyalty account, such as a player tracking system account, logging a player out of a gaming establishment loyalty account, redeeming comps associated with a player tracking system, checking a quantity of player tracking points, updating the user's information” and Fig. 1 and Par. 23, 32, 34 which teaches that a user’s mobile device connects via Wi-Fi directly to a remote host responsible for a particular service to present it on the mobile application).
It would be desirable to modify the device and system of Jadeja et al. and Nelson to include direct mobile access to player tracking account information as taught by Higgins et al. in order to allow players to more conveniently access and manage their player tracking account without first being required to connect to a gaming machine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the device and system of Jadeja et al. and Nelson to include direct mobile access to player tracking account information as taught by Higgins et al.
In Reference to Claim 18
Jadeja et al. and Nelson teach where the application is associated with player tracking, and wherein the application information displayed at the display device includes player tracking data (Nelson Fig. 2D and 2E and Par. 77-78 and 132, Jadeja et al. Fig. 6 and Par. 65). Further Jadeja et al. teaches a player tracking system server which includes storing player tracking information (Fig. 2 and Par. 20, 25, 39), and Jadeja et al. and Nelson teaches where the application data includes player tracking data as described above. However, they do not explicitly teach where the end user device is in communication with a player tracking computer system storing player tracking data included in at least part of the application data.
Higgins et al. teaches a gaming system where an end user device is in communication with a player tracking computer system storing player tracking data included in at least part of the application data (Abstract and Par. 61 which teaches where a mobile device application is able to perform various casino functions including “enrolling in a player tracking system (i.e., a loyalty program), logging a player into a gaming establishment loyalty account, such as a player tracking system account, logging a player out of a gaming establishment loyalty account, redeeming comps associated with a player tracking system, checking a quantity of player tracking points, updating the user's information” and Fig. 1 and Par. 23, 32, 34 which teaches that a user’s mobile device connects via Wi-Fi directly to a remote host responsible for a particular service to present it on the mobile application).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Jadeja et al. and Nelson to include direct mobile access to player tracking account information as taught by Higgins et al. in order to allow players to more conveniently access and manage their player tracking account without first being required to connect to a gaming machine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of Jadeja et al. and Nelson to include direct mobile access to player tracking account information as taught by Higgins et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 14 are 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL V LARSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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.
/CARL V LARSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights