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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 19/179,654 originally filed on April 15, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Priority
This application claims priority of US Provisional Application 63/634,211, filed April 15, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 8 and 15, recites the limitation “credit meter value.” The limitation is originally introduced in respective claims 1, 8, and 15. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the credit meter value”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1, 8, or 15. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18, recites the limitation “a credit meter.” The limitation is originally introduced in respective claims 2, 9, and 16. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the credit meter”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 2, 9, or 16. Therefore, claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7, and substantially similar limitations in claims 14, and 20, recites the limitation “in storage.” The limitation is originally introduced in respective claims 1, 8, and 15. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “in the storage”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1, 8, or 15. Therefore, claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “method” (i.e. a process), claim 8 is directed to “one or more non-transitory computer readable media” (i.e. a machine), and claim 15 is directed to “an apparatus” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “detecting and preventing fraud,” reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Claims that require a computer may also recite a mental process, as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
“receiving, during a primary game, a bonus game indication configured to indicate a bonus game has been triggered;
receiving, during the bonus game, a card-out signal;
based on receiving the card-out signal, maintaining… during the bonus game, a user identifier;
determining, based on bonus game play during the bonus game, a change in a credit meter value;
receiving a card-in signal; and
based on receiving the card-in signal, associating the user identifier with the change in credit meter value.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “storage,” “non-transitory computer media,” “at least one processor,” and “memory” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “detecting and preventing fraud” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “storage,” “non-transitory computer media,” “at least one processor,” and “memory” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “storage,” “non-transitory computer media,” “at least one processor,” and “memory” are parts of a gaming device. Instant specification paragraph [00158] describes a gaming device as “an electronic gaming machine. Although an electronic gaming machine or “slot” machine is illustrated, various other types of devices may be used to wager credits or other value on a game of chance. The term “electronic gaming device” is meant to include various devices such as electro-mechanical spinning-reel type slot machines, video slot machines, and video poker machines, for instance. Other gaming devices may include computer-based gaming machines, wireless gaming devices, multi-player gaming stations, modified personal electronic gaming devices (such as cell phones), personal computers, server-based gaming terminals, and other similar devices.”
Each of the components are described in the disclosure as generic computing components. These elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kammler et al. (hereinafter “Kammler,” US 2005/0054446) in view of Walker et al. (hereinafter “Walker,” US 2003/0114217).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 8 and 15, Kammler discloses a method comprising:
…
receiving, during the … game, a card-out signal (Kammler [0081-0082], “At 6:00 a.m., a player inserts his or her player card into a gaming machine… At 6:10 a.m., the player removes his or her player card from the gaming machine.”);
based on receiving the card-out signal, maintaining, in storage, during the … game, a user identifier (Kammler [0082], “At 6:10 a.m., the player removes his or her player card from the gaming machine. SCI 23 retrieves the meter readings from CPU 61, for example, a reading of 620 on the coin-in meter, a reading of 600 on the coin-out meter and a reading of 10 on the credit meter. The SCI stores this information as account data 85 in memory 83.”);
determining, based on … game play during the … game, a change in a credit meter value (Kammler [0082-0083], “SCI 23 retrieves the meter readings from CPU 61, for example, a reading of 620 on the coin-in meter, a reading of 600 on the coin-out meter and a reading of 10 on the credit meter. The SCI stores this information as account data 85 in memory 83… At 6:10 a.m., SCI 23 sends player data 87 for the regular gaming session to the central authority 21 (CA), including, for example, that the regular session started at 6:00 a.m., that 20 coins were inserted into the gaming machine, that 0 coins were paid out to the player and the lapsed time of play was 10 minutes. This player data 87 was generated by SCI 23 based on data 85. As understood, other information may be sent to central authority 21 as well or instead.”);
receiving a card-in signal (Kammler [0087], “At 6:13 a.m., the same player again inserts his or her card.”); and
based on receiving the card-in signal, associating the user identifier with the change in credit meter value (Kammler [0087], “The SCI retrieves player identification information and recognizes that the same player has reinserted his or her player card. The SCI uses the meter values that existed at the start of the virtual session at 6:10 a.m., so as to effectively combine any data occurring during the virtual session into the new regular gaming session; or, in other words, to effectively treat the regular gaming session as though it had begun at the start of the virtual session. Thus, any player data occurring during the virtual session is not sent to the central authority at the time of card reinsertion, i.e., at 6:13 a.m. The SCI resets secondary indicator 91 to its inactive state indicating that the virtual session is over and sets indicator 89 to its active state indicating that a regular gaming session is in progress.”).
Kammler does not explicitly teach receiving, during a primary game, a bonus game indication configured to indicate a bonus game has been triggered.
However, Walker discloses receiving, during a primary game, a bonus game indication configured to indicate a bonus game has been triggered (Walker [0293], “a player may operate two or more different slot machines simultaneously, with all of the two or more slot machines in automated play mode. To do so, for example, the player may insert his or her player tracking card in a first slot machine 104, deposit funds, and select the automated play mode, which then proceeds. The player then removes his or her player tracking card from the first slot machine 104 and, with automated play mode continuing in the first slot machine 104, the player inserts his or her player tracking card in a second slot machine 104,” showing starting an automated play mode, then performing card-out; also Walker [0162], “The exit event that corresponds to the record 7is the occurrence of a "bonus round". As is familiar to those who are skilled in the art, a "bonus round" is sometimes also referred to as a "secondary game",” indication that a bonus game has been triggered).
Walker is analogous to Kammler, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Kammler, to include receiving, during a primary game, a bonus game indication configured to indicate a bonus game has been triggered, as taught by Walker, because it combines prior art elements of bonus games to the known methods of player tracking card management to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claims 9 and 16, Kammler in view of Walker discloses tracking play during the bonus game and determining additional game play without deduction from a credit meter (Kammler [0013], “in one embodiment a virtual gaming session is established after the player removes his or her player card while game credits remain on the credit meter.”).
Regarding claim 5, and substantially similar limitations in claim 12, Kammler in view of Walker discloses determining, based on the change in the credit meter value, one or more account balance changes associated with the user identifier (Kammler [0013], “During the virtual gaming session, activity at the gaming machine is monitored until the virtual session ends, upon which activity data is transferred for adjusting the player's account.”).
Regarding claim 6, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 19, Kammler in view of Walker discloses wherein associating the user identifier with the change in the credit meter value comprises associating the user identifier with the change in the credit meter value despite the card-out signal (Kammler [0076], “the player removes his or her player card while credits remain on the credit meter or while a game is in progress and then the employee inserts his or her employee card. The normal employee functions will be available while the employee card is inserted. Meter changes that occur while an employee card is inserted will be attributed to the virtual session of the player.”).
Regarding claim 7, and substantially similar limitations in claims 14 and 20, Kammler in view of Walker discloses wherein maintaining, in storage, during the bonus game, a user identifier comprises maintaining, in storage, during the bonus game, a user identifier despite the card-out signal (Kammler [0012], “provide game activity tracking both prior to card insertion and after card removal.”).
Claims with No Prior Art Rejection
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite wherein tracking bonus game play comprises determining an amount of credits added to a credit meter from game wins not associated with deductions from the credit meter. Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite wherein tracking bonus game play comprises determining an amount of credits deducted from a credit meter associated with the bonus game wherein the amount of credits deducted from the credit meter is not associated with the user identifier during the bonus game. All of these claims depend from respective claims 2, 9, and 16. The features of the above claims, along with the limitations of their parent claims, are not disclosed in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stewart (US 2009/0270180) Player tracking method and a player tracking system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights