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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 2/27/26. Claims 21, 26, and 27 have been cancelled and claims 28 - 32 have been added. Claims 1 – 20, 22 – 25, and 28 – 32 are now pending in the current application.
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, 22 – 25, and 28 – 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
I. The claims are drawn to apparatus, process and CRM categories.
II. Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2a:
III. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
An apparatus for third party enablement of game features comprising: one or more processors; and a first service associated with a first enterprise and executed by the one or more processors of a first server, the first service configured to: obtain, from an application service associated with a second enterprise, data indicating one or more gameplay features for a gaming application associated with the second enterprise and the application service, each gameplay feature of the one or more gameplay features having feature enablement criteria corresponding to the gameplay feature, receive, via a communications network, a selection of a gameplay feature of the one or more gameplay features, receive, via the communication network, a first indicator indicating that the feature enablement criteria associated with the selected gameplay feature has been satisfied, the first indicator indicating that at least one of the gaming application or a client application associated with the first enterprise has automatically detected at least one of: a mobile device hosting the at least one of the gaming application or the client application is at a location associated with the first enterprise, or a qualifying interaction with the first enterprise, and based on receipt of the first indicator, automatically enable, via the communications network, the selected gameplay feature corresponding to the automatically detected feature enablement criteria.
The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Fundamental economic principles or practices
Commercial or legal interactions
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims are directed towards incentivizing the behavior of users playing a game via group agreements or contract. This is viewed by the Examiner as a fundamental economic practice, an agreement in the form of contracts, and managing personal behavior or relationships between people, which are all considered to be abstract ideas according to the 2019 guidelines.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
iii. Although the claims recite additional limitations, such as one or more processors and at least one server, the said additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require
additional limitations such as an interface, memory, and display components.
iv. These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claim language does recite additional elements such as one or more processors and at least one server, however, these viewed as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 20, 22 – 25, and 28 – 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeWaal et al. (U.S. 2009/0124351) in view of Lutnick et al. (U.S. 2009/0093300).
Regarding claim 1, 11, 23, and 25, DeWaal discloses an apparatus for third party enablement of game features, (“the good or service offered to the player has an associated cost which is paid by a casino, gaming establishment, or a third party such as an advertiser or sponsor”, par. 0098), comprising one or more processors, (fig. 2a), of a first server, fig. 2b, part 56), the first service associated with a first enterprise, (a casino, gaming establishment”, par. 0098), and executed by the one or more processors, (“the gaming device preferably includes at least one processor 12, such as a microprocessor, a microcontroller-based platform, a suitable integrated circuit or one or more application-specific integrated circuits”, par. 0031), configured to obtain an application service associated with a second enterprise, data indicating one or more gameplay features for a gaming application associated with the second enterprise, (“a central server or controller and/or a gaming machine processor to cause one of the system gaming machines to display a game”, par. 0102), each gameplay feature of the one or more gameplay features having a feature enablement criteria corresponding to the gameplay feature, (“The controller determines whether to generate an offer for the player”, par. 0104), receive, via a communications network, (fig. 2b), a selection of a gameplay feature of the one or more gameplay features, (“a base or primary game may be a keno game wherein the gaming device displays a plurality of selectable indicia or numbers on at least one of the display devices. In this embodiment, the player selects at least one or a plurality of the selectable indicia or numbers via an input device such as the touch screen”, par. 0064), receive, via the communication network, a first indicator indicating that the feature enablement criteria has been satisfied, (“the gaming device may also give players the opportunity to win credits in a bonus or secondary game or bonus or secondary round. par. 0065).
While DeWaal discloses a mobile device, DeWaal is silent upon disclosing the first enterprise automatically detecting the mobile device. In a related art, however, Lutnick discloses a gaming system, (fig. 4a), wherein Lutnick further discloses a first indicator indicating that at least one of a gaming or client application associated with the first enterprise has automatically detected at least one of a mobile device hosting the at least one of the gaming application or the client application is at a location associated with the first enterprise, or a qualifying interaction with the first enterprise, and in based on receipt of the first indicator, automatically enable, via the communications network, the selected gameplay feature is enabled, corresponding to the automatically detected feature enablement criteria, (“a mobile device may initiate communication with a table game, gaming device, or other entity that is most proximate to the mobile device. For example, the mobile device may determine that a particular slot machine is the closest slot machine to the mobile device. Accordingly, the mobile device may initiate communication with the slot machine. The player with the mobile device may then participate in the games of the slot machine. The player may participate as a primary player or as a secondary player, in various embodiments. If the player participates as a primary player, the mobile gaming device may receive an amount of a bet from the player and then transmit a signal to the gaming device, thereby triggering the gaming device to generate an outcome. Thus, the gaming device may be triggered to spin and generate an outcome without the physical presence of a player directly in front of the gaming device. For example, the player may be located ten feet away from the gaming device, yet the gaming device may initiate a game and generate an outcome in response to a signal from the mobile device”, par. 1706).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the automatic detection of Lutnick into the art disclosed by DeWaal in order to provide a gaming platform for rapid play and easy viewing of the gaming experience, as disclosed by Lutnick, (par. 0196).
Regarding claim 2, DeWaal discloses wherein to receive the first indicator indicating that the feature enablement criteria has been satisfied comprises to receive the first indicator from the first server or a client application executing on a second client device, (“the gaming device may also give players the opportunity to win credits in a bonus or secondary game or bonus or secondary round. par. 0065).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, DeWaal discloses wherein the application service is configured to provide, to the mobile gaming application, program code to modify a user interface (UI) of the mobile gaming application to display one or more graphical elements corresponding to the one or more gameplay features, (“The memory device stores program code and instructions, executable by the processor, to control the gaming device”, par. 0031).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, DeWaal discloses wherein the data further includes one or more of user qualification criteria, one or more offer items, or one or more offer locations, (“The controller determines whether to generate an offer for the player”, par. 0104).
Regarding claims 5, DeWaal discloses wherein the feature enablement criteria comprises one or more of a purchase amount, a purchase of at least one of the one or more offer items, or an indication that the first client device is located in proximity to at least one of the one or more offer locations, (“the gaming system and method disclosed herein offers a player of a gaming machine one or more goods and services after the player wins an award at the gaming machine”, par. 0011).
Regarding claim 6, DeWaal discloses herein the application service is further configured to: in response to receipt of the selection of the gameplay feature, provide to a second client application via the communications network, selected application feature data, the second client application executing on a second client device, the selected application feature data including one or more of a first identifier identifying the selected gameplay feature, a third indicator indicating the feature enablement criteria corresponding to the selected gameplay feature, a second identifier identifying the mobile gaming application, or a third identifier identifying the first client device, (“ the gaming device may also give players the opportunity to win credits in a bonus or secondary game or bonus or secondary round. The bonus or secondary game enables the player to obtain a prize or payout in addition to the prize or payout, if any, obtained from the base or primary game”, par. 0065).
Regarding claim 7 and 17, DeWaal discloses wherein the feature enablement criteria comprises an indication that the second client device is located in proximity to a location indicated in the data, (“at least one display device may be a mobile display device, such as a PDA or tablet PC, that enables play of at least a portion of the primary or secondary game at a location remote from the gaming device”, par. 0038).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 14, 15, 18 20, and 22, DeWaal discloses wherein the second client application comprises a mobile retailer application, (“In one embodiment, the offer identifies a good or service, a retailer or provider of the good or service”, par. 0149).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, DeWaal discloses wherein the application service is further configured to provide, to the mobile gaming application, a fifth indicator indicating that the fourth indicator indicating permission to participate in the offer has been received by the application service, (“The controller determines whether to generate an offer for the player”, par. 0104).
Regarding claim 24, DeWaal discloses wherein the mobile gaming application is further configured to receive, from the application service, a second indicator indicating permission to participate in the third-party offer has been received by the application service, (“the good or service offered to the player has an associated cost which is paid by a casino, gaming establishment, or a third party such as an advertiser or sponsor”, par. 0098).
Regarding claims 28 - 32, DeWaal discloses wherein to obtain the data indicating the one or more gameplay features, includes to obtain the one or more gameplay features via an application program interface (API) configured to receive the data (“a central server or controller and/or a gaming machine processor to cause one of the system gaming machines to display a game”, par. 0102).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20, 22 – 25, and 28 – 32 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/E.M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DAVID L LEWIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715