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 .
Priority
Applicant claims the benefit of US Provisional Application No. 63631004, filed April 8, 2024. Claims 1-20 have been afforded the benefit of this filing date.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“plurality channels” in claims 1, 8, and 15 should read “plurality of channels.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5 and substantially similar limitations in claims 12 and 18, the claim recites “the logic circuitry is configured to verify the extracted channel identifier with the gaming machine to link the extracted channel identifier to the second channel identifier.” Because claims 5, 12, and 18 depend on claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, each of them already incorporates by reference the limitation of “link, via the cross-channel server, the extracted channel identifier of the first channel and a second channel identifier associated with the second channel to the cross-channel instance.” In light of the specification, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to infer that the “first channel” and “second channel” would already be “linked” by virtue of being “link[ed] […] to the cross-channel instance via the cross-channel server.” Accordingly, the additional limitation recited in claims 5, 12, and 18 of “verify the extracted channel identifier with the gaming machine to link the extracted channel identifier to the second channel identifier” presumably seeks to further limit the linking process by reciting an additional step of “verify[ing]” an “extracted channel identifier” or otherwise further limit the “linking” process by specifying that “verif[ication” is performed as part of the process.
However, the specification does not appear to explain what this “verif[ication]” entails. The only instances of the word “verify” or “verification” in the specification appear in the context of describing/comparing the features of other systems in the prior art (see paragraphs 71-72). In paragraph 72, the specification notes that “the systems and methods of the present disclosure provide a streamlined, technical solution to by providing end users with an efficient method for discovering new channels in exchange for a single, cross-channel authentication relying upon a user’s computing device and captured image data.” However, this appears to refer to the process of linking the user’s computing device to an EGM using a QR code, the process of which is already recited in claims 1, 8, and 15, as discussed above, without any mention of an additional “verif[ication]” step which occurs on a software level (as suggested by the “logic circuitry [being] configured to verify […]”). Searching the text for “channel identifier” similarly provides no information regarding an additional “verif[ication]” step. Finally, Examiner notes that if Applicant did not intend to claim an additional “verif[ication]” step (or otherwise further limit the “linking” process by specifying that “verif[ication” is performed as part of the process), then it would be unclear how claims 5, 12, and 18 serve to further limit claims 1, 8, and 15, which would consequently result in a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Thus, for the sake of compact prosecution, “the logic circuitry is configured to verify the extracted channel identifier with the gaming machine to link the extracted channel identifier to the second channel identifier,” where it appears in the claims, will be construed as referring to a additional step in the linking process which occurs on the software level and serves to verify the identity of either the “first channel” or “second channel.”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. §101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “‘[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1-20 are directed to machines and methods, which fall into the four statutory categories. However, claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 309 (1980).
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, the disclosure “relates to a technological improvement to gaming systems, gaming machines, and […] new and improved cross-channel gaming features” (see paragraph 1). Although the specification contemplates the use of these systems and/or machines in non-wagering games, it is evident that the preferred embodiment of the invention is its application to wagering games (see paragraphs 39-42, 44-45, 48-49, etc.).
Representative claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
“A cross-channel gaming system comprising:
a gaming machine comprising a presentation assembly configured to present a first game associated with a first channel of a plurality channels;
a mobile device associated with a player and comprising at least one image sensor, wherein the player is associated with a first gaming session including play of the first game at the gaming machine;
a cross-channel server communicatively coupled to the gaming machine and the mobile device, the cross-channel server configured to manage a cross-channel instance including the first channel and a second channel associated with a second game, the cross-channel server storing a plurality of state events for the cross-channel instance, each state event of the plurality of state events linked to one or more respective state actions; and
logic circuitry comprising one or more processors and one or more memory devices configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the logic circuitry to:
cause the gaming machine to present, via the presentation assembly, a coded identifier associated with the cross-channel instance, the coded identifier including a channel identifier associated with the first channel;
in response to the at least one image sensor of the mobile device capturing image data including the coded identifier, extract the channel identifier from the image data by analyzing pixels of the image data representing the coded identifier;
link, via the cross-channel server, the extracted channel identifier of the first channel and a second channel identifier associated with the second channel to the cross-channel instance;
extract at least one cross-channel data element from the second channel based on a second gaming session including play of the second game; and
in response to detecting a first state event of the plurality of state events from the at least one cross-channel data element, cause the first channel to automatically perform at least one of the one or more respective state actions linked to the first state event.”
The underlined portions of representative claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially similar features in claims 8 and 15. It is clear that the inventive concept here is a set of rules for a game, which may provide one or more awards to a player. The dependent claims further define the abstract idea by introducing various rules and/or features to the game (e.g., display a “state meter” to visually indicate the player’s progress toward triggering a “state event,” providing free spins as an award for the player triggering a “state event,” etc.). The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
a method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., an award-providing game, which is effectively a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the game) as discussed in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014), In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018),
a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in In re Smith, and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,
a method of managing a game similar to that of managing a game of bingo in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App'x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential);
a set of game rules similar to increasing or decreasing the risk-to-reward ratio, or more broadly the difficulty, of a multiplayer game based upon previous aggregate results, as discussed in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021); and/or
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., allowing a human player to play an award-providing game according to rules of the game method) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The claimed abstract idea reproduced above is effectively a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations between one or more players and an operator of the gaming machine based on probabilities created during the game (see Smith, Marco Guldenaar, and Alice). Based on the reasoning in Smith, and Marco Guldenaar, the recited steps of conducting a game in the instant claims relate to the “fundamental economic practice” of rules for conducting a game. The abstract idea is also similar to that of Planet Bingo, in which a method of managing a bingo game was found to be an abstract idea. Though the instant claims are not limited to bingo games, they encompass the management of similar games. The abstract idea is also comparable to the game rules presented on gaming machines in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, in which a reward probability could be increased or decreased based on aggregating previous game outcomes placed on the gaming machines. The Bot M8 decision also found that such abstract idea is “more broadly the difficulty[] of a multiplayer game.” While the instant claims appear to only require one player, the modification of the reward probability is clearly comparable to that of Bot M8 because the instant claims cause a modification (i.e., re-spinning, additional wild symbols, additional bonus trigger symbols) of the reels that result in one or more modified awards. Finally, the claims allow a player to win an award, which is a financial transaction based on the rules of the game (e.g., as determined by a random number generator). Such transactions are akin to the sort of organizing of human activities, i.e., risk hedging, discussed in Bilski (and shadow accounts in Alice).
Under prong 1, the above analysis demonstrates that the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely provide instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, add only extra solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. While certain physical elements (e.g., elements that are not an abstract idea such as a gaming machine) are present in the claims, such features do not effect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine (only generic gaming components), (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., a casino or similar environment under control of a jurisdiction which uses casino protocols), such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims encompass the following additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se: an electronic gaming device comprising a memory and a processor to execute instructions to carry out the abstract idea, a mobile device comprising an image sensor, and a server comprising a memory and a processor to execute instructions to carry out the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
To the extent the claimed game machines are casino-type gaming machines, such as slot machines, the claimed features are generic, conventional, and well-known in the art of wager gaming and/or are devices and techniques that represent extra-solution activity.
For instance, US 6,142,872 to Walker et al. teaches that these elements are conventional:
“The slot server 200 and the slot machines 300-303, discussed further below in conjunction with FIGS. 2 and 3, respectively, may be embodied as conventional hardware and software, as modified herein to carry out the functions and operations described below. The slot server 200 and slot machines 300-303 transmit data between one another. The transmitted data may represent player names and corresponding identification numbers and team associations, credit balance amounts and play results. The slot server 200 and each of the slot machines 300-303 may communicate by means of cable or wireless links on which data signals can propagate” (6:53-64).
“In a per-spin embodiment, each player starts the representative slot machine 300 in a conventional manner by providing a form of payment, for example, by depositing one or more coins or bills in a coin/bill acceptor 355, or inserting a credit card, debit card or smart card into a card reader 364” (8:45-50).
“Each team player can cash out in a conventional manner by pushing a cash out button 370 on his or her respective slot machine 300-303. The CPU 310 then checks the RAM to see if the player has any credit and, if so, signals the hopper 354 to release an appropriate number of coins into a payout tray” (9:15-20).
Walker additionally teaches that “slot machines 300-303” may be embodied as “conventional hardware and software” shown in Figure 3, including three reels, a reel controller, a video display and a random number generator.
Additionally, US 2002/0187828 to Benbrahim teaches a gaming machine and a master gaming controller, and notes that permitting data to flow to and from the processor of a master gaming controller is “well known.” Benbrahim ¶ 29. Benbrahim further notes, “Many gaming devices, such as that illustrated, include a card reader 38 for reading information from a player card…This information may be used in a player tracking system, as is well known in the art.” Id. ¶ 24. Note that card reader 38 is disposed in the housing of the gaming machine in Fig. 1. Benbrahim also teaches the use of various versions of software code that is tailored to “the particular jurisdiction” in which the gaming device is to be operated. Id. ¶ 51.
US 2008/0026854 to Chen et al. describes a “conventional gaming machine” that may include a cabinet housing that supports a display, several input devices, a currency acceptor, and encloses the electrical components, such as a processor and random number generator, with a door having a lock for the cabinet to prevent unauthorized access along with doors being in communication with the controller to alert a user if the door is opened. See e.g., Chen ¶ 27, 31, 33, and 42.
US 2010/0255902 to Goldstein et al. teaches a variety of security mechanisms, including tampering detection and prevention. Goldstein teaches that security monitoring circuits detect intrusion into a gaming device by monitoring security switches attached to access doors in the gaming device cabinet. See Goldstein ¶ 247. Preferably, access violations result in suspension of game play and can trigger additional security operations to preserve the current state of game play. Id. Moreover, Goldstein teaches that the gaming device may not advance from a first state to a second state until critical information that allows the first state to be reconstructed has been atomically stored, and after the state of the gaming device is restored during the play of a game of chance, game play may resume and the game may be completed. Id. at ¶ 242.
US 2021/0312756 to Penacho et al. teaches selecting reel strips for spins on a ribbon wheel, where the linked reel strip mechanism can be used to select reel strips for spins of other types of reels, such as a re-spin series that uses linked reel strips. See Penacho ¶ 184. The Penacho reference also recognizes that weighted tables (or lookup tables) can be used to satisfy regulatory requirements for randomness and RTP. Id. at ¶ 61. While these elements are considered to be part of the abstract idea as identified hereinabove, to the extent that these features might be considered as additional elements, they could not be seen as improvements to the underlying technology because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Furthermore, the specification admits in paragraph 17 that “As used herein, a “gaming channel” or “gaming platform” is a defined as a set of hardware and software configured to execute game code for play of a game. The hardware may include, for example, processors, memory devices, displays, input devices, cabinets, phones, laptops, etc. […] While different gaming channels can share one or more hardware and/or software components, the distinction between gaming channels is delineated in each channel necessitating a change in the game executable and/or any compatibility layer of the channel to present and operate the game in an intended form” and in paragraphs 32-33 that “The first channel 210 […] includes a gaming machine 214 and a gaming environment (GE) server 216 in communication with the cross-channel server 204. The second channel 212 is associated with a mobile gaming environment using player mobile devices […] the gaming machine 214 may be primarily dedicated for use in playing wagering games, or may include non-dedicated devices, such as mobile phones, personal digital assistants, personal computers, etc.” As such, generic mobile devices or conventional mobile phones would be capable of meeting the substantive limitations of the claims, as well as other generic computer devices such as laptops and desktops. Naturally, because a server may be hosted on a generic computing device such as a laptop, the entirety of the gaming system of the instant application could be implemented using only generic computing devices.
In light of these factual findings, the additional claim features discussed above are well-understood, routine, and conventional and/or constitute extra-solution activities.
Taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer itself, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
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(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US Patent No. 20140018155) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent No 20180047249).
Regarding claim 1 and substantially similar limitations in claims 8 and 15, Nelson et al., henceforth Nelson ‘155, discloses “a cross-channel gaming system comprising: a gaming machine comprising a presentation assembly configured to present a first game associated with a first channel of a plurality channels (see paragraph 31: “The EGM 2 can include a) displays, such as a main display 26 on which a wager-based game can be output”); a mobile device associated with a player and comprising at least one image sensor (the “portable electronic devices/PEDs”, which may include smartphones; see paragraph 27: “mobile or portable electronic devices, such as cell phones, smart phones, portable entertainment electronics, netbooks, tablets or laptop computers”), wherein the player is associated with a first gaming session including play of the first game at the gaming machine (see paragraph 31: “The EGM 2 can include a) displays, such as a main display 26 on which a wager-based game can be output”); a cross-channel server communicatively coupled to the gaming machine and the mobile device (see paragraph 18: “Yet another aspect of the present invention includes a casino server […] configured to receive a request from an EGM to establish communications with a Portable Electronic Device (PED) when one or more predetermined conditions has been triggered during play of a selected game on the EGM”), the cross-channel server configured to manage a cross-channel instance including the first channel and a second channel associated with a second game (see paragraph 18: “The casino server is further configured to establish communications with PED; and present one or more game offerings, related to the selected game on the EGM, to the PED for download and operative play on PED”), the cross-channel server storing a plurality of state events for the cross-channel instance (see paragraph 70: “the EGM (and/or server 4) will commence monitoring and tracking of one or more predetermined gaming parameters or conditions”), each state event of the plurality of state events linked to one or more respective state actions (see paragraph 69: “According to the present invention, these bonus offerings may only be "unlocked" or available once the Player/Patron surpasses one or more predetermined playing benchmarks, to be discussed below, for the play of the EGM game”); and logic circuitry comprising one or more processors and one or more memory devices (see paragraph 18: “Yet another aspect of the present invention includes a casino server, having a processor and a memory”) configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the logic circuitry to: cause the gaming machine to present, via the presentation assembly, a coded identifier associated with the cross-channel instance, the coded identifier including a channel identifier associated with the first channel (see paragraph 63: “the EGM can be configured to output a QR code that a PED can scan. Information embedded in the QR code can allow the PED to establish communications with the EGM 2 via server 4”); in response to the at least one image sensor of the mobile device capturing image data including the coded identifier, extract the channel identifier from the image data by analyzing pixels of the image data representing the coded identifier (see paragraph 156: “ In another embodiment, via the video display, the service window application can be configured to output data in an optical image format, such as a 1-D/2-D bar-code or a QR code. The optically formatted data can be captured by a camera on the PED”); link, via the cross-channel server, the extracted channel identifier of the first channel and a second channel identifier associated with the second channel to the cross-channel instance (see paragraph 63: “Information embedded in the QR code can allow the PED to establish communications with the EGM 2 via server 4”); extract at least one cross-channel data element from the [first] channel based on a [first] gaming session including play of the [first] game (see paragraph 95: “At 304 of FIG. 3A, the EGM 2 can employ its logic to determined whether the one or more predetermined conditions to qualify for the one or more game offering have been met or surpassed by the Player/Patron's play”); and in response to detecting a first state event of the plurality of state events from the at least one cross-channel data element, cause the [second] channel to automatically perform at least one of the one or more respective state actions linked to the first state event (see paragraph 96: “Should one or more predetermined conditions be met or surpassed, "unlocking" the bonus game offering and qualifying the Player/Patron for download, install and play of the bonus game offering on their PED”).”
However, Nelson ‘155 does not disclose “extract at least one cross-channel data element from the second channel based on a second gaming session including play of the second game; and in response to detecting a first state event of the plurality of state events from the at least one cross-channel data element, cause the first channel to automatically perform at least one of the one or more respective state actions linked to the first state event.”
Because Nelson ‘155 discloses monitoring a player’s gameplay on an EGM to determine when a predetermined “gameplay parameter” or “playing benchmark” (“state events”), and providing awards to the player which affect the player’s gameplay on a second device (providing a bonus/award in response to a playing benchmark being surpassed is considered analogous to “perform[ing]” a “respective state action […] in response to detecting a first state event”), e.g., providing free spins on the player’s mobile device after reaching a certain number of spins on an EGM (see paragraph 71, “It will be appreciated, however, that any predetermined parameters or conditions can be applied to trigger a bonus offering. In a spinning reel type EGM game, after a Player reaches their collective 1000th spin, they may be rewarded with 300 free spins that may be commenced from their PED”), the only significant difference between Nelson ‘155’s disclosure and the claimed invention is that the “first channel” (Nelson ‘155’s EGM) is the channel being monitored (instead of the “second channel,” as recited in the claims), and the “second channel” (Nelson ‘155’s PED) performing a “respective state action” in response to a “state event” detected in the monitored channel (instead of the “first channel,” as recited in the claims). In essence, Nelson ‘155 discloses a virtually identical concept to the inventive concept of the claimed invention, except that the roles of the EGM (“first channel”) and the mobile device/PED (“second channel”) have been reversed.
Nelson et al., henceforth Nelson ‘249, teaches a gaming system and method for incentivizing players to use their mobile devices to transfer funds to an electronic gaming machine. The system described by Nelson ‘249 is largely identical to that described by Nelson ‘155 (both being systems for facilitating and incentivizing communication between players’ personal mobile devices and electronic gaming machines using QR codes; Examiner notes that the primary inventor is the same for both patent applications), so they are considered as belonging to the same field of art. Notably, Nelson ‘249 teaches the use of “incentive triggering events” wherein a player’s use of their mobile device results in an EGM in communication with the mobile device providing an award to the player in response to the “incentive triggering event,” in the form of modifying gameplay on the EGM (see paragraph 32: “In various embodiments, one or more determined incentives are associated with one or more plays of one or more games of the EGM. In certain embodiments, based on the system determining that the EGM is paired with a mobile device, the system causes the EGM to alter or otherwise modify one or more features, aspects or parameters of the EGM to alter or otherwise modify the player's gaming experience”). The “incentive triggering events” of Nelson ‘249 are considered directly analogous to the “state events” of the claimed invention; consequently, providing awards to the player in the form of modifying gameplay of the EGM (the “first channel”) when an “incentive triggering event” is detected on the player’s mobile device (the “second channel”) is considered analogous to the limitation of “in response to detecting a first state event […] caus[ing] the first channel to automatically perform […] a respective state action” recited in the claim.
Finally, Nelson ‘249 provides a motivation for gaming establishments to incentive players to pair their mobile devices with EGMs hosted by the establishment in paragraph 10: “Such a configuration encourages the use of mobile devices to facilitate fund transfers and thus overcomes certain of the known security concerns and labor cost concerns associated with both cash-based gaming and ticket voucher-based gaming. Such a configuration further reduces […] the amount of waste produced by gaming establishments.” One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that awarding players for playing wagering games on their mobile devices by providing free and/or enhanced plays of wagering games on EGMs hosted at a gaming establishment would most likely result in an increase in the frequency and/or duration of gaming sessions on the player’s mobile device (when the player is not present at the gaming establishment) and incentivize return visits to the gaming establishment (so the player can “redeem” their awarded plays on the establishment’s EGMs), both of which would result in an increase in the gaming establishment’s revenue.
Therefore, 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 the gaming system of Nelson ‘155 to swap the roles of the EGM and the player’s mobile device, as taught by Nelson ‘249, resulting in awards being offered on the EGM in response to detecting gameplay events on the player’s mobile device (instead of offering awards on the player’s mobile device in response to detecting gameplay events on the EGM), and they would have been motivated to do so to reap a variety of benefits, such as reducing security concerns, labor costs, and waste, as taught by Nelson ‘249, in addition to incentivizing longer and/or more frequent mobile gaming sessions and incentivizing return visits to gaming establishments.
Regarding claim 3 and substantially similar limitations in claims 10 and 17, Nelson ‘155 (in view of Nelson ‘249) discloses “the cross-channel gaming system of claim 1, wherein, in response to extracting the channel identifier from the image data, an application associated with the second game of the second channel is automatically installed on the mobile device (see paragraph 86: “Upon pressing the screen at the "Download" message 124 region, download and installation of the Star Wars bonus game, for instance, may begin immediately. Such download and automatic install is similar to that experienced by many mobile application downloads and installs”).”
Regarding claim 4 and substantially similar limitations in claim 11, Nelson ‘155 (in view of Nelson ‘249) discloses “the cross-channel gaming system of claim 1, wherein the coded identifier is a quick response (QR code) (see paragraph 63, “For example, the EGM can be configured to output a QR code that a PED can scan. Information embedded in the QR code can allow the PED to establish communications with the EGM 2 via server 4, local area network 6 or wide area network 52”).
Regarding claim 5 and substantially similar limitations in claims 12 and 18, Nelson ‘155 (in view of Nelson ‘249) discloses “the cross-channel gaming system of claim 1.”
However, Nelson ‘155 does not disclose “the logic circuitry is configured to verify the extracted channel identifier with the gaming machine to link the extracted channel identifier to the second channel identifier.”
Nelson et al., henceforth Nelson ‘249, teaches a gaming system and method for incentivizing players to use their mobile devices to transfer funds to an electronic gaming machine. The system described by Nelson ‘249 is largely identical to that described by Nelson ‘155 (both being systems for facilitating and incentivizing communication between players’ personal mobile devices and electronic gaming machines using QR codes; Examiner notes that the primary inventor is the same for both patent applications), so they are considered as belonging to the same field of art. Notably, Nelson ‘249 teaches verifying a player’s identity when a player attempts to pair their mobile device with an EGM, using either “authentication tokens” (see paragraphs 156-157: “In certain embodiments, after a player has opened an application on a mobile device and selected an action to be performed, the system determines if the mobile device application is associated with an active authorization token previously created by the system […] the mobile device application verifies the identifying information of the player by communicating with a verification/authentication server over one or more wireless communication protocols […] to obtain the active authorization token”). Nelson ‘249 additionally notes that “an authorization token is a time-based token which expires after a designated period of time and which is associated with an additional level of player authentication beyond a player's application username and application password” (paragraph 156).
Therefore, 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 the gaming system of Nelson ‘155 to verify a player’s identifying information when pairing an EGM with the player’s mobile device, as taught by Nelson ‘249, and they would have been motivated to do so to increase the security of the system, as taught by Nelson ‘249.
Regarding claim 7 and substantially similar limitations in claims 14 and 20, Nelson ‘155 (in view of Nelson ‘249) discloses “the cross-channel gaming system of claim 1, wherein the one or more respective state actions includes awarding at least one of a number of free spins, a number of wild symbols, or a number of bonus trigger symbols within the first game (see paragraph 71: “In a spinning reel type EGM game, after a Player reaches their collective 1000th spin, they may be rewarded with 300 free spins that may be commenced from their PED”).”
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guinn et al. (US Patent No. 20140274308).
Regarding claim 2 and substantially similar limitations in claims 9 and 16, Nelson ‘155 (in view of Nelson ‘249) discloses “the cross-channel gaming system of claim 1.”
However, Nelson ‘155 (in view of Nelson ‘249) does not disclose “the presentation assembly is configured to present a state meter to visually indicate progress towards the first state event based on the play of the next game.”
Guinn et al., henceforth Guinn, teaches a wagering game system wherein an award (such as a prize or a bonus game on an EGM) may be provided to the player in response to an award-triggering event occurring on a separate gaming device (see paragraph 32, “Events separate from the primary wagering game may trigger the bonus game, such as […] events related to other players or other gaming devices, etc.”). Due to these similarities with the inventions of Nelson ‘155/‘249 and the instant application, Guinn is considered to belong to the same field of art. Notably, Guinn teaches displaying a progress meter to visually indicate the player’s progress toward a prize or bonus game (see Figs. 5-6 and paragraph 71: “For example, as illustrated in FIG. 5, a progress meter 505 indicates that an option to select a prize or a bonus game play will be presented when the progress meter 505 indicates completion”).
Therefore, 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 the gaming system of Nelson ‘155 (in view of Nelson ‘249) to display a progress meter to visually indicate a player’s progress toward achieving one of the “predetermined playing benchmarks” taught by Nelson ‘155, as taught by Guinn, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow players to tell how close they are to earning an award associated with a particular benchmark, increasing player excitement and incentivizing players to continue playing.
12. Claim(s) 6, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubajak et al. (CN Patent No. 111149135).
Regarding claim 6 and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 19, Nelson ‘155 (in view of Nelson ‘249) discloses “the cross-channel gaming system of claim 1.”
However, Nelson ‘155 (in view of Nelson ‘249) are silent on whether “the cross-channel instance is removed in response to at least one of the first gaming session or the second gaming session concluding.”
Kubajak et al., henceforth Kubajak, teaches systems and methods for establishing and utilizing a wireless connection between an electronic gaming machine (EGM) and a player’s mobile device. Due to these similarities with the inventions of Nelson ‘155/‘249 and the instant application, Kubajak is considered to belong to the same field of art. Notably, Kubajak teaches that the Bluetooth connection between the EGM and the player’s mobile device may be terminated when the player ends the session by logging out of the application on their mobile device (“As shown in FIG. 4 F, when the player is out (operation 440), the Bluetooth connection (session) can be terminated. For example, the player may terminate the session (operation 440a) by logging out the application executed on their mobile device 114”).
Therefore, 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 the gaming system of Nelson ‘155 (in view of Nelson ‘249) to automatically terminate the connection between an EGM and a player’s mobile device when the player ends the gaming session on their mobile device, as taught by Kubajak, and they would have been motivated to do so to free up system resources by closing communication channels which are no longer in use.
Additional References
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US Patent Publication 2016 0133089 A1 to Roemer;
US Patent Publication 2021 0295646 A1 to McPhail; and
US Patent Publication 2022 0092932 A1 to Bachman et al.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH HAROLD JOHANSSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:30 to 6:30.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571)270-7625. 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.
/K.H.J./
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights