DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,366,562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not exact copies of one another, the instant application and claim 10 have slight language distinctions that are obviously equivalent as demonstrated below.
1. A gaming player verification system for use in conjunction with one or more gaming machines adapted for accepting wagers, presenting gaming events thereupon and granting monetary awards, the gaming player verification system comprising:
10…a gaming player verification system for use in conjunction with one or more gaming machines adapted for accepting wagers, presenting gaming events thereupon and granting monetary awards,
one or more communication objects adapted to be worn by players within said gaming player verification system, wherein at least one of said one or more communication objects comprises an RFID tag and an associated closed electrical circuit,
wherein the device of the user is adapted to be worn by the user within the gaming player verification system, wherein the device comprises an RFID tag and an associated closed electrical circuit,
Explanation: The communication object in the instant application is equivalent to “the device of the user” to claim 10 of ‘562.
is adapted to communicate via radio frequency waves, and is adapted to alter its communication pattern in response to any break of said closed electrical circuit;
is adapted to communicate via radio frequency waves, and is adapted to alter its communication pattern in response to any break of the closed electrical circuit;
one or more player tracking devices adapted to obtain information regarding a specific player from one or more of said one or more communication objects;
one or more player tracking devices adapted to obtain information regarding the user from the device of the user;
Explanation: Here, said specific player of the instant application is equivalent to the user of claim 10 of ‘562.
at least one computer server having a player verification program adapted to verify whether obtained information regarding said specific player is adequate according to one or more set criteria for verifying a player,
at least one computer server having a player verification program adapted to verify whether obtained information regarding the user is adequate according to one or more set criteria for verifying the user,
said at least one computer server being adapted to deny the initiation or continuation of a particular gaming event when said player verification program determines that any obtained information is unacceptable or when insufficient information has been obtained,
the at least one computer server configured to deny the initiation or continuation of a particular gaming event for the user when the player verification program determines that obtained information regarding the user is unacceptable or when insufficient information regarding the user has been obtained;
Explanation: The “adapted” language of the instant application is equivalent to the “configured” language of claim 10 of ‘562.
said at least one computer server being adapted to charge one of two accounts associated with said specific player,
the at least one computer server being further configured to charge the second account of the user,
Explanation: The instant application asks that one of two accounts of the user be charged and in claim 10, the second account of the user is charged, and thus one of two accounts is charged. Therefore the limitations are equivalent.
wherein the account to be charged is selected according to the nature of a transaction in which the specific player is involved;
wherein the second account when charged by the at least one computer server is selected when the user places wagers;
Explanation: The “selected according to the nature of a transaction” language of the instant application is equivalent to the “selected when the user places wagers” of claim 10 as placing wagers is a type of transaction.
a communication link or path between said player tracking device and said at least one computer server;
a communication link or path between the one or more player tracking devices and the at least one computer server; and
and at least one database in communication with said at least one computer server,
at least one database in communication with the at least one computer server,
said at least one database containing specific informational data with respect to a plurality of players.
the at least one database containing specific informational data with respect to a plurality of users.
Claim1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,055,954. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not exact copies of one another, the instant application and claim 10 have slight language distinctions that are obviously equivalent as demonstrated below.
1. A gaming player verification system for use in conjunction with one or more gaming machines adapted for accepting wagers, presenting gaming events thereupon and granting monetary awards, the gaming player verification system comprising:
10… a gaming player verification system for use in conjunction with one or more gaming machines adapted for accepting wagers, presenting gaming events thereupon and granting monetary awards,
one or more communication objects adapted to be worn by players within said gaming player verification system, wherein at least one of said one or more communication objects comprises an RFID tag and an associated closed electrical circuit,
wherein the device of the user is adapted to be worn by the user within the gaming player verification system, wherein the device comprises an RFID tag and an associated closed electrical circuit,
Explanation: The communication object in the instant application is equivalent to “the device of the user” to claim 10 of ‘562.
is adapted to communicate via radio frequency waves, and is adapted to alter its communication pattern in response to any break of said closed electrical circuit;
is adapted to communicate via radio frequency waves, and is adapted to alter its communication pattern in response to any break of the closed electrical circuit; and
one or more player tracking devices adapted to obtain information regarding a specific player from one or more of said one or more communication objects;
one or more player tracking devices adapted to obtain information regarding the user from the device of the user;
Explanation: Here, said specific player of the instant application is equivalent to the user of claim 10 of ‘562.
at least one computer server having a player verification program adapted to verify whether obtained information regarding said specific player is adequate according to one or more set criteria for verifying a player,
at least one computer server having a player verification program adapted to verify whether obtained information regarding the user is adequate according to one or more set criteria for verifying the user,
said at least one computer server being adapted to deny the initiation or continuation of a particular gaming event when said player verification program determines that any obtained information is unacceptable or when insufficient information has been obtained,
the at least one computer server configured to deny the initiation or continuation of a particular gaming event for the user when the player verification program determines that obtained information regarding the user is unacceptable or when insufficient information regarding the user has been obtained;
Explanation: The “adapted” language of the instant application is equivalent to the “configured” language of claim 10 of ‘562.
said at least one computer server being adapted to charge one of two accounts associated with said specific player,
the at least one computer server being further configured to charge the second account of the user,
Explanation: The instant application asks that one of two accounts of the user be charged and in claim 10, the second account of the user is charged, and thus one of two accounts is charged. Therefore the limitations are equivalent.
wherein the account to be charged is selected according to the nature of a transaction in which the specific player is involved;
wherein the second account when charged by the at least one computer server is selected when the user places wagers;
Explanation: The “selected according to the nature of a transaction” language of the instant application is equivalent to the “selected when the user places wagers” of claim 10 as placing wagers is a type of transaction.
a communication link or path between said player tracking device and said at least one computer server;
a communication link or path between the one or more player tracking devices and the at least one computer server; and
and at least one database in communication with said at least one computer server,
at least one database in communication with the at least one computer server,
said at least one database containing specific informational data with respect to a plurality of players.
the at least one database containing specific informational data with respect to a plurality of users.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
