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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. A system comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
determine a tournament time period for a wagering game tournament; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
receive plurality of tournament entries from a plurality of players during the tournament time period;
for each tournament entry: receive a tournament initiation instruction from the player playing a base wagering game at a gaming device; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
receive game play data for the base wagering game from the gaming device during the tournament time period; and
determine a tournament score for the player based on the play data and a tournament parameter; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
after the tournament time period, evaluate the plurality tournament scores for the plurality of players; and -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
award a tournament prize to a player of the plurality of players based on the evaluation of the tournament scores. -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas because they recite rules and/or instructions for managing a wagering game tournament and/or mental processes because they recite an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations, such as: “a system”, “a processor circuit”, “a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:” “receive plurality of tournament entries from a plurality of players during the tournament time period;” and “receive game play data for the base wagering game from the gaming device during the tournament time period;” are found to recite highly-generalized computer components to perform the general functions, insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., data gathering, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as : “a processor circuit”, “a memory” “at a gaming device” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements amount to reciting highly-generalized computer components that perform their ordinary function. For instance, a gaming system comprising a processor circuit and a memory is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprising a processor circuit, a memory, and gaming opportunities to be provided “at a gaming device” are known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more under Step 2B.
With respect to independent Claims 16 and 19, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as recited by independent Claim 1 in which the analysis above is incorporated herein. The differences are directed to a tournament controller to manage a wagering game tournament and a method of a wagering tournament. However, these differences do not alter the analysis from above as they amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or providing a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, independent Claims 16 and 19 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
With respect to dependent claims 2-15, 17-18, and 20, the limitations have been reviewed and analyzed and were each found to recite at least one of: an additional limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the claims 1-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1() as being anticipated by Kelly et al. (US 2009/0104987 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kelly discloses a system comprising (see Kelly, Fig. 1, 5A, 35, 0067-0071, 0308, ): a processor circuit (see Kelly, Fig. 5A, 0015-0016, 0308); and a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (see Kelly, Fig. 5A, 53-A-D, 0044, 0087, 0094, 0124, 0192, wherein the database of the tournament gaming system contains memory), cause the processor circuit to:
determine a tournament time period for a wagering game tournament (see Kelly, Fig. 2A-3, 0081-0082);
receive plurality of tournament entries from a plurality of players during the tournament time period (see Kelly, Fig. 3A-4, 0073-0074, 0082-0084);
for each tournament entry: receive a tournament initiation instruction from the player playing a base wagering game at a gaming device (see Kelly, Fig. 2A-2D, 0068-0070, wherein the entry points);
receive game play data for the base wagering game from the gaming device during the tournament time period (see Kelly, Fig. 1-4, 35-40, 53A-B, 0070-0081), ; and
determine a tournament score for the player based on the play data and a tournament parameter (see Kelly, 0074-0079, 0094-00950102-0104, 0106, wherein the score is determined what the player won (e.g., pay data) and a parameter providing a certain amount of entry points;
after the tournament time period, evaluate the plurality tournament scores for the plurality of players (see Kelly, Fig. 1-2D, 0069-0070); and
award a tournament prize to a player of the plurality of players based on the evaluation of the tournament scores (see Kelly, 0091-0092).
Regarding claim 2, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the game play data for the base wagering game is generated by each gaming device independently of the tournament parameter (see Kelly, Fig. 7, 0018, 0028, 0073, 0080, wherein the gaming machine provides a base game and no base game reconfiguration is needed which indicates that the base game is independent of the tournament parameter); 0138, wherein the tournament scores of the base game may be processed by the server or client).
Regarding claim 3, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the play data comprises, for each player, an amount wagered by the player for a predetermined time after the tournament initiation instruction (see Kelly, Fig. 1, 0069, 0073, 0084, wherein each wager amount is accounted for by each base game is accounted for by the tournament server).
Regarding claim 4, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the play data comprises, for each player, a number of base wagering games played by the player for a predetermined time after the tournament initiation instruction (see Kelly, 0079, 0085, wherein the tournament score is achieved).
Regarding claim 7, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the play data comprises, for each player, an amount won by the player for a predetermined time after the tournament initiation instruction (see Kelly, 0127, 0158-187).
Regarding claim 8, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the play data comprises, for each player, an amount lost by the player for a predetermined time after the tournament initiation instruction (see Kelly, 0158-0187).
Regarding claim 9, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the play data comprises, for each player, a base wagering game achievement achieved after the tournament initiation instruction (see Kelly, 0144, wherein the scores are ranked for an achievement such as recent five-minute time period of wagers/wins; 0158-0187, wherein the largest and lowest of individual game tournament score).
Regarding claim 10, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to notify players playing the base wagering game that the tournament has begun (see Kelly, Figs. 35-36).
Regarding claim 11, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to notify players playing the base wagering game that the tournament has ended (see Kelly, Figs. 38).
Regarding claim 12, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to display, at each gaming device, a current tournament score for the player for the gaming device (see Kelly, Fig. 38, 44, 0079).
Regarding claim 13, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to display, at each gaming device, a leaderboard comprising a plurality of the highest current tournament scores (see Kelly, Fig. 47, 77, 0328)).
Regarding claim 14, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the evaluation of the tournament scores comprises determining a predetermined number of high scores of the plurality of tournament scores, and wherein the tournament prize is awarded to each player associated with a high score of the plurality of high scores (see Kelly, Fig. 47, 0125, 0192, 0199-0200, 0328).
Regarding claim 15, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the evaluation of the tournament scores comprises a determination of a number of tournament scores that meet a predetermined score threshold, and wherein the tournament prize is awarded to each player associated with a tournament score that meets the predetermined score threshold (see Kelly, Fig. 47, 0199-0200, 0328).
Regarding claim 16, Kelly discloses a tournament controller comprising: a communication interface in communication with a plurality of gaming devices (see Kelly, Fig. 1, 5A, 35, 0067-0071, 0308);
a processor circuit (see Kelly, Fig. 5A, 0015-0016, 0308); and
a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to (see Kelly, Fig. 5A, 53-A-D, 0044, 0087, 0094, 0124, 0192):
determine a tournament time period for a wagering game tournament (see Kelly, Fig. 2A-3, 0081-0082);
receive, via the communication interface, a plurality of tournament entries from the plurality of gaming devices during the tournament time period, each tournament entry of the plurality of tournament entries associated with a player (see Kelly, Fig. 3A-4, 0073-0074, 0082-0084);
for each tournament entry: receive, via the communication interface, a tournament initiation instruction from the gaming device (see Kelly, Fig. 2A-2D, 0068-0070);
receive, via the communication interface, game play data from the gaming device for a base wagering game being played by the player at the gaming device during the tournament time period (see Kelly, Fig. 1-4, 35-40, 53A-B, 0070-0081); and
determine a tournament score for the player associated with the gaming device based on the play data and a tournament parameter (see Kelly, 0074-0079, 0094-0095, 0102-0104, 0106);
after the tournament time period, evaluate the plurality of tournament scores for the plurality of players (see Kelly, Fig. 1-2D, 0069-0070); and
award a tournament prize to a player of the plurality of players based on the evaluation of the tournament scores (see Kelly, 0091-0092).
Regarding claim 17, Kelly discloses the tournament controller of claim 16, wherein the game play data for the base wagering game is generated by each gaming device independently of the tournament parameter (see Kelly, Fig. 7, 0018, 0028, 0073, 0080).
Regarding claim 18, Kelly discloses the tournament controller of claim 16, wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to display, at each gaming device, a leaderboard comprising a plurality of the highest current tournament scores.
Regarding claim 19, Kelly discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a processor circuit (see Kelly, Fig. 1, 5A, 35, 0067-0071, 0308), a tournament time period for a wagering game tournament (see Kelly, Fig. 2A-3, 0081-0082);
receiving, by the processor circuit, a plurality of tournament entries from a plurality of gaming devices during the tournament time period, each tournament entry of the plurality of tournament entries associated with a player (see Kelly, Fig. 3A-4, 0073-0074, 0082-0084);
for each tournament entry: receiving, by the processor circuit, a tournament initiation instruction from the gaming device (see Kelly, Fig. 2A-2D, 0068-0070);
receiving, by the processor circuit, game play data from the gaming device for a base wagering game being played by the player at the gaming device during the tournament time period (see Kelly, Fig. 1-4, 35-40, 53A-B, 0070-0081); and
determining, by the processor circuit, a tournament score for the player associated with the gaming device based on the play data and a tournament parameter (see Kelly, 0074-0079, 0094-0095, 0102-0104, 0106);
after the tournament time period, evaluating, by the processor circuit, the plurality of tournament scores for the plurality of players (see Kelly, Fig. 1-2D, 0069-0070); and
awarding, by the processor circuit, a tournament prize to a player of the plurality of players based on the evaluation of the tournament scores (see Kelly, 0091-0092).
Regarding claim 20, Kelly discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the game play data for the base wagering game is generated by each gaming device independently of the tournament parameter (see Kelly, Fig. 7, 0018, 0028, 0073, 0080).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US 2009/0104987 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kusuda et al. (US 2008/0287175 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1. Although Kelly discloses play data includes various different game events such as wins and losses by the player following the tournament initiation instruction, it is silent with respect to consecutive wins/losses associated with the game play data.
Kusuda teaches a tournament system whereinafter the tournament initiation instruction the system is able to track game play betting data to determine a consecutive number of wins for the player in the game play data. (see Kusuda, 0151) Although, Kusuda does not explicitly disclose consecutive losses, indicative consecutive losses is one of a limited subset of known game outcomes. Game play data including different events in the game by using known techniques with similar devices would have yielded a predictable result of managing a tournament game and/or obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Kusuda, 0151). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application to include game play data to the consecutive number of wins and losses associated with the gameplay of a wagering game tournament.
Regarding claim 5, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1. The combination of Kelly and Kusuda teaches wherein the play data comprises, for each player, a number of consecutive base wagering game wins for a predetermined time after the tournament initiation instruction (see Kelly, 0083, 0158, wherein the play data includes the score for a time period wins; 0206; Kusuda, 0151)).
Regarding claim 6, Kelly discloses the system of claim 1. The combination of Kelly and Kusuda teaches wherein the play data comprises, for each player, a number of consecutive base wagering game losses for a predetermined time after the tournament initiation instruction (see Kelly, 0262, wherein in at least one embodiment the play data comprises a number of losses in a period of time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights