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 Objections
Claims 2,4, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 7, “the set of one or more eligible bingo patterns” should read “a set of one or more eligible bingo patterns”.
Claim 4, line 9, “a given bingo card during the first game session” should read “the given bingo card during the first game session”.
Claim 11, line 2, “the value levels” should read “the plurality of value levels”.
Claim 11, line 2, “the first value level” should read “a first value level”.
Claim 14, line 10, “a player of the device” should read “the player of the device”.
Claim 16, line 8, “the set of one or more eligible bingo patterns” should read “a set of one or more eligible bingo patterns”.
Claim 18, line 9, “a given bingo card” should read “the given bingo card”.
Claim 21, line 2, “the value levels” should read “the plurality of value levels”.
Claim 21, line 2, “the value levels” should read “the plurality of value levels”.
Claim 25, line 2, “the first value level” should read “a first value level”.
Claim 28, line 10, “a player of the device” should read “the player of the device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14-18, 20-22, 24-26, and 28 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 at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claim 15, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
A system comprising: a plurality of processors and memory devices, wherein: one or more of the processors are located in a server and at least some of the processors are located in devices remote from the server, and the memory devices store computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the processors, cause the processors, in aggregate, to: cause each device to present, via a display of that device, a corresponding user interface that includes a player-accessible representation of one or more bingo cards associated with that device for a first game session, determine, for each of the devices, whether that device is a first type of device participating in the first game session in a for-money context or a second type of device participating in the first game session in a free-to-play context, cause numbers to be selected from a first set of numbers for the first game session and by the server for the first game session, cause each of the devices to be provided with information indicating each of the numbers selected from the first set of numbers by the server, and receive one or more bingo claim indications for the first game session sent from one or more of the devices, wherein each bingo claim indication indicates that the device from which that bingo claim indication was received made a claim that one or more of the numbers selected by the server for the first game session match a corresponding number or numbers in one or more locations on one of the one or more bingo cards associated with the device from which that bingo claim indication was received that form a pattern that matches an eligible bingo pattern of one or more eligible bingo patterns associated with the device from which that bingo claim indication was received.
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 15) recites an abstract idea included in the groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., processors, memory devices, server, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction 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;
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Wagering (e.g., “for-money context in claim 1, wagering games such as bingo in ¶4 and ¶41 of the specification”), which is a form of hedging, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
B. Formation of a gambling contract (i.e., by a player placing a wager the player is entering into a contract with a game operator), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Commercial or Legal Interactions. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Commercial or Legal Interactions while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims; and/or
C. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-26, and 28:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Fundamental Economic Principles. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Fundamental Economic Principles to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14-18, 20-22, 24-26, and 28 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “processors, memory devices, server”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, in order to be eligible the claims would require structure that is beyond generic. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of processors, memory devices, and servers (used through a computer) are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by Swanberg et al. (US 20020155893 A1; hereinafter Swanberg). Swanberg discloses that a conventional computer is used to execute videogames (¶5). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1, 14, 15, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellerman et al. (US 20060281555 A1; hereinafter Kellerman) in view of Lee E. Cannon (US 20160307410 A1; hereinafter Cannon).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Kellerman discloses a system comprising: a plurality of processors and memory devices, wherein: one or more of the processors are located in a server and at least some of the processors are located in devices remote from the server (plurality of client computers and server; ¶8), and the memory devices store computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the processors, cause the processors, in aggregate, to: cause each device to present, via a display of that device, a corresponding user interface that includes a player-accessible representation of one or more bingo cards associated with that device for a first game session (user able to select from interface to play bingo; ¶33), determine, for each of the devices, whether that device is a first type of device participating in the first game session in a for-money context or a second type of device participating in the first game session in a free-to-play context (allows players that pay to play with non-paying members in ¶28 and ¶59 and this can be applied to bingo games in ¶8).
Kellerman does not explicitly disclose cause numbers to be selected from a first set of numbers for the first game session and by the server for the first game session, cause each of the devices to be provided with information indicating each of the numbers selected from the first set of numbers by the server, and receive one or more bingo claim indications for the first game session sent from one or more of the devices, wherein each bingo claim indication indicates that the device from which that bingo claim indication was received made a claim that one or more of the numbers selected by the server for the first game session match a corresponding number or numbers in one or more locations on one of the one or more bingo cards associated with the device from which that bingo claim indication was received that form a pattern that matches an eligible bingo pattern of one or more eligible bingo patterns associated with the device from which that bingo claim indication was received.
However, Cannon teaches cause numbers to be selected from a first set of numbers for the first game session and by the server for the first game session (numbers drawn before for the occurrence of the bingo game in ¶77 and numbers drawn are from the range of 1 to 75 in ¶82), cause each of the devices to be provided with information indicating each of the numbers selected from the first set of numbers by the server (numbers received on the ball draw; ¶82 and Fig. 7), and receive one or more bingo claim indications for the first game session sent from one or more of the devices (claim indications through the daub button; ¶59), wherein each bingo claim indication indicates that the device from which that bingo claim indication was received made a claim that one or more of the numbers selected by the server for the first game session match a corresponding number or numbers in one or more locations on one of the one or more bingo cards associated with the device from which that bingo claim indication was received (matching the numbers in the ball draw and the numbers in the bingo card; ¶82-83) that form a pattern that matches an eligible bingo pattern of one or more eligible bingo patterns associated with the device from which that bingo claim indication was received (checking if patterns formed matches the game-winning pattern for the bingo game; ¶83).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kellerman to implement the teachings of Cannon for the benefit of implementing the gameplay and rules of a bingo game through an electronic device. Here the bingo game is being implemented for all players during the game session.
Regarding claims 14 and 28, Kellerman discloses implementing the device from which that bingo claim indication was received is of the second type (both types of devices are included in the game session in ¶28 and ¶59 and the game can be a bingo selection in ¶33).
Kellerman does not explicitly disclose wherein the memory devices store further computer- executable instructions which, when executed by the processors, further cause the processors, in aggregate, to: cause, for each received bingo claim indication where the device from which that bingo claim indication was received is of the first type, a monetary award corresponding to the eligible bingo pattern for that received bingo claim indication to be associated with a player of the device from which that bingo claim indication was received, and cause, for each received bingo claim indication, a promotional award corresponding to the eligible bingo pattern for that received bingo claim indication to be associated with a player of the device from which that bingo claim indication was received.
However, Cannon teaches wherein the memory devices store further computer- executable instructions which, when executed by the processors, further cause the processors, in aggregate, to: cause, for each received bingo claim indication where the device from which that bingo claim indication was received is of the first type, a monetary award corresponding to the eligible bingo pattern for that received bingo claim indication to be associated with a player of the device from which that bingo claim indication was received (claiming bingo game prize through the Daub button; ¶84), and cause, for each received bingo claim indication where the device from which that bingo claim indication was received is of the second type (both types of device are included in the game session; ¶28 and ¶59), a promotional award corresponding to the eligible bingo pattern for that received bingo claim indication to be associated with a player of the device from which that bingo claim indication was received (promotional awards such as interim pattern awards to be received by players as the game continues; ¶5-6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kellerman to implement the teachings of Cannon for the benefit of keeping players engaged in the game. Having different promotional awards or monetary awards based on different patterns will allow users to stay engaged in the game by completing different patterns and getting rewarded for it. Even if the user doesn’t win the biggest reward, it will still reward the user in different ways for their time and keep them engaged.
Claims 2-4 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellerman in view of Cannon as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Warner et al. (US 20130316789 A1; hereinafter Warner).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Kellerman does not explicitly disclose wherein the memory devices store further computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the processors, further cause the processors, in aggregate, to: cause a corresponding value level from a plurality of value levels to be established for each of the devices of the second type, wherein the corresponding value level established for each device of the second type is associated with a corresponding player account associated with that device of the second type for the first game session, cause the set of one or more eligible bingo patterns associated with each device of the second type to be selected from a plurality of sets of one or more eligible bingo patterns based on the corresponding value level identified for that device of the second type, wherein at least two of the sets of one or more eligible bingo patterns in the plurality of sets of one or more eligible bingo patterns are different from one another.
However, Warner teaches wherein the memory devices store further computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the processors, further cause the processors, in aggregate, to: cause a corresponding value level from a plurality of value levels to be established for each of the devices of the second type (system tracks player status, which is different depending on the player; ¶82 and ¶96), wherein the corresponding value level established for each device of the second type is associated with a corresponding player account associated with that device of the second type for the first game session (determined through player tracking during one or more gaming sessions; ¶82),cause the set of one or more eligible bingo patterns associated with each device of the second type to be selected from a plurality of sets of one or more eligible bingo patterns based on the corresponding value level identified for that device of the second type (controlling or adjusting a plurality of bingo patterns based on player's status; ¶96), wherein at least two of the sets of one or more eligible bingo patterns in the plurality of sets of one or more eligible bingo patterns are different from one another (plurality of bingo outcomes or bingo patterns will lead to someone of ordinary skill in the art to understand that it will include patterns that that different from each other; ¶96).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kellerman to implement the teachings of Warner for the benefit of rewarding player based on tracking their player history and/or loyalty in order to keep them spending money on the game. By having a system that will be more rewarding towards their top spenders, it allows their top spenders to feel rewarded and keep spending large amounts of money in the game.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Kellerman does not explicitly disclose wherein: the plurality of value levels includes at least a first value level and a second value level, the first value level is associated with a first set of one or more eligible bingo patterns in the plurality of sets of one or more eligible bingo patterns, the second value level is associated with a second set of one or more eligible bingo patterns in the plurality of sets of one or more eligible bingo patterns, the first set of one or more eligible bingo patterns has a first probability that an eligible bingo pattern in the first set of one or more eligible bingo patterns will be formed on a given bingo card during the first game session after a first quantity of numbers is selected in the first game session, the second set of one or more eligible bingo patterns has a second probability that an eligible bingo pattern in the second set of one or more eligible bingo patterns will be formed on the given bingo card in the first game session after the first quantity of numbers is selected in the first game session, and the first probability is higher than the second probability.
However, this is obvious to try. Although Warner does not explicitly disclose or teach a number of levels, Warner does teach assigning certain value levels to the players because the system controls or adjusts a plurality of bingo patterns based on the player's status that is tracked by the system (¶82 and ¶96). Since the system already assigns certain value levels to the player, one of ordinary skill in the art will conclude that these levels can be divided into level 1, level 2, and/or more levels. Furthermore, since there are different value levels applied to each player and the system controls or adjusts a plurality of bingo patterns based on the player's status, one of ordinary skill in the art will conclude that the probabilities to form eligible bingo patters will also be higher for those players with a higher value level or higher player status.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kellerman to implement the teachings of Warner for the benefit of rewarding player based on tracking their player history and/or loyalty in order to keep them spending money on the game. By having a system that will be more rewarding towards their top spenders, it allows their top spenders to feel rewarded and keep spending large amounts of money in the game.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Kellerman does not explicitly disclose wherein: the plurality of value levels further includes at least a third value level and a fourth value level, the third value level is associated with a third set of one or more eligible bingo patterns in the plurality of sets of one or more eligible bingo patterns, the fourth value level is associated with a fourth set of one or more eligible bingo patterns in the plurality of sets of one or more eligible bingo patterns, the third set of one or more eligible bingo patterns has a third probability that an eligible bingo pattern in the third set of one or more eligible bingo patterns will be formed on a given bingo card during the first game session after the first quantity of numbers is selected in the first game session, the fourth set of one or more eligible bingo patterns has a fourth probability that an eligible bingo pattern in the fourth set of one or more eligible bingo patterns will be formed on the given bingo card in the first game session after the first quantity of numbers is selected in the first game session, the second probability is higher than the third probability, and the third probability is higher than the fourth probability.
However, this is obvious to try. Although Warner does not explicitly disclose or teach a number of levels, Warner does teach assigning certain value levels to the players because the system controls or adjusts a plurality of bingo patterns based on the player's status that is tracked by the system (¶82 and ¶96). Since the system already assigns certain value levels to the player, one of ordinary skill in the art will conclude that these levels can be divided into level 1, level 2, and/or more levels. Furthermore, since there are different value levels applied to each player and the system controls or adjusts a plurality of bingo patterns based on the player's status, one of ordinary skill in the art will conclude that the probabilities to form eligible bingo patters will also be higher for those players with a higher value level or higher player status.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kellerman to implement the teachings of Warner for the benefit of rewarding player based on tracking their player history and/or loyalty in order to keep them spending money on the game. By having a system that will be more rewarding towards their top spenders, it allows their top spenders to feel rewarded and keep spending large amounts of money in the game.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 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, 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
