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 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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: responsive to a receipt of first slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by a display device, of a value, and responsive to a receipt of second slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by the display device, of a modification of the value, wherein: the modification of the value occurs following a server operating independent of the processor determining that an event occurred during a sporting event, the displayed modification of the value is based on the event occurring during the sporting event, a first event occurring during the sporting event result in a first displayed modification of the value, a second, different event occurring during the sporting event results in a second, different displayed modification of the value, and the displayed modification of the value occurs independent of any modification of the value based on any received monetary value” (Claim 1); “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: responsive to a receipt of first slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by a display device, of a value, responsive to a receipt of second slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by the display device, of a modification of the value, wherein the modification of the value occurs following a server operating independent of the processor determining that a first event occurred during a sporting event and the modification of the value occurs independent of any modification of the value based on any received monetary value, responsive to a receipt of third slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by the display device, of an association of the value with a user, wherein the association occurs following the server operating independent of the processor determining that a second, different event occurred during the sporting event, and responsive to a receipt of fourth slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by the display device, of the value being rolled into another value, wherein the fourth slot accounting system protocol data is received responsive to the second, different event not occurring during the sporting event” (Claim 10); and “A method of operating a system, the method comprising: responsive to a receipt of first slot accounting system protocol data, displaying, by a display device, a value, and responsive to a receipt of second slot accounting system protocol data, displaying, by the display device, a modification of the value, wherein: the modification of the value occurs following a server operating independent of the electronic gaming machine determining that an event occurred during a sporting event, the displayed modification of the value is based on the event occurring during the sporting event, a first event occurring during the sporting event results in a first displayed modification of the value, a second, different event occurring during the sporting event results in a second, different displayed modification of the value, and the displayed modification of the value occurs independent of any modification of the value based on any received monetary value” (Claim 12). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as it pertains to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Such limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers game rules and/or management of a value award but for the recitation of a “system”, “processor”, “memory device”, “slot accounting system”, “server”, and/or “display device”. That is, other than reciting “system”, “processor”, “memory device”, “slot accounting system”, “server”, and/or “display device”, nothing in the claims precludes the concepts from being performed via managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (interactions encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as commercial or legal interaction); thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous load shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping) including rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions for managing values based on modification events). Although the claims recite the limitations in steps of displaying, the claims recite rules for playing a game, particularly, modification rules for a value. The claim recites an abstract idea of managing a value, which is an organization of human activity. The display steps occur responsive to conditions occurring. These conditions are conditions in which a value is managed e.g. the display steps encompasses the abstract idea. Managing interactions including social activities and following rules or instructions is a method of organizing human activity.
This judicial exception of Claims 1-20 are not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed limitations of “responsive to a receipt of first slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by a display device, of a value, and responsive to a receipt of second slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by the display device, of a modification of the value…” (Claim 1); “responsive to a receipt of first slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by a display device, of a value, responsive to a receipt of second slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by the display device, of a modification of the value, … responsive to a receipt of third slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by the display device, of an association of the value with a user, … responsive to a receipt of fourth slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by the display device, of the value being rolled into another value…” (Claim 10); and “responsive to a receipt of first slot accounting system protocol data, displaying, by a display device, a value, and responsive to a receipt of second slot accounting system protocol data, displaying, by the display device, a modification of the value, …” (Claim 12) are also recited at a high level of generality (e.g. as a general means of communicating or receiving serial data based on a protocol that results in display of a value, display of a modification of the value, display of an association of the value with a user, and/or display of the value being rolled into another value) and amounts to mere pre or post solution displaying of a value, displaying of a modification of the value, displaying of an association of the value with a user, and/or displaying of the value being rolled into another value, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claimed computer components (“system”, “processor”, “memory device”, “slot accounting system”, “server”, and/or “display device”) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) 1-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of a “system”, “processor”, “memory device”, “slot accounting system”, “server”, and/or “display device” used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the system(s) or method or the extent to which a computer performs/implements the functions of the system(s) or method. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Furthermore, the applicant discloses that “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable instruction execution apparatus, create a mechanism for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks” (¶ 106); “It should be further appreciated that the gaming system utilized to modify an award based on one or more events occurring (or not occurring) in a sporting event may be any suitable electronic gaming machine (such as a slot machine, a video poker machine, a video lottery terminal, a terminal associated with an electronic table game, a video keno machine, a video bingo machine located on a casino floor, or a sports betting terminal), and/or any suitable personal gaming device (wherein the data associated with the progressive award and the sporting event are accessed over a network)” (¶ 10); “In certain embodiments in which the gaming system includes an EGM (or personal gaming device) in combination with a central server, central controller, or remote host, the central server, central controller, or remote host is any suitable computing device (such as a server) that includes at least one processor and at least one memory device or data storage device” (¶ 91); “The central server, central controller, or remote host and the EGM (or personal gaming device) are configured to connect to the data network or remote communications link in any suitable manner. In various embodiments, such a connection is accomplished via: a conventional phone line or other data transmission line, a digital subscriber line (DSL), a T-1 line, a coaxial cable, a fiber optic cable, a wireless or wired routing device, a mobile communications network connection (such as a cellular network or mobile Internet network), or any other suitable medium” (¶ 97); “The at least one processor 1010 is any suitable processing device or set of processing devices” (¶ 100); “The master gaming controller 1012 also includes at least one memory device 1016, which includes: (1) volatile memory (e.g., RAM 1009, which can include non-volatile RAM, magnetic RAM, ferroelectric RAM, and any other suitable forms)….. Any other suitable magnetic, optical, and/or semiconductor memory may operate in conjunction with the EGM disclosed herein…A computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing…More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer readable storage medium would include the following: a portable computer diskette, ……. or any suitable combination of the foregoing. In the context of this document, a computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device”(¶ 101); “In various embodiments, part or all of the program code and/or the operating data described above is stored in at least one detachable or removable memory device including, but not limited to, a cartridge, a disk, a CD ROM, a DVD, a USB memory device, or any other suitable non-transitory computer readable medium” (¶ 99); “In various embodiments, the display devices include, without limitation: a monitor, a television display, a plasma display, a liquid crystal display (LCD), ……. or any other suitable electronic device or display mechanism” (¶ 114); “The at least one input device 1030 may include any suitable device that enables an input signal to be produced and received by the at least one processor 1010 of the EGM” (¶ 108); “In one embodiment, the at least one input device 1030 includes a payment device configured to communicate with the at least one processor of the EGM to fund the EGM. In certain embodiments, the payment device includes one or more of: (a) a bill acceptor into which paper money is inserted to fund the EGM; …. any suitable combination thereof” (¶ 124); “In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider) or in a cloud computing environment or offered as a service such as a Software as a Service (SaaS)” (¶ 105); “In certain such embodiments, an operator (such as a gaming establishment operator) and/or a player uses such a removable memory device in an EGM to implement at least part of the present disclosure. In other embodiments, part or all of the program code and/or the operating data is downloaded to the at least one memory device of the EGM through any suitable data network described above (such as an Internet or intranet)” (¶ 108) and “includes one or more communication interfaces having different architectures and utilizing a variety of protocols, such as (but not limited to) 802.11 (WiFi); 802.15 (including Bluetooth™); 802.16 (WiMax); 802.22; cellular standards such as CDMA, CDMA2000, and WCDMA; Radio Frequency (e.g., RFID); infrared; and Near Field Magnetic communication protocols” (¶ 129). Such disclosure suggests that any software or hardware required by the claims are no more than generic components operating in their ordinary capacity.
In addition to the above, Nakatani (US 5,720,663) teaches that game computations can be handled in a software manner by general-purpose processors (Col. 14:10-14). Scott (US 2004/0009812: ¶ 20), Walker (US 6,527,638: Col. 12:6-17, Col. 15:24-38), Banyai (US 2001/0034262: ¶ 32), Cannon (US 2002/0183105: ¶ 5-6, 39), deKeller (US 2003/0017867: ¶ 23), and/or Lindo (US 2005/0085293: ¶ 21) teach the use of card swiper/reader within gaming apparatus as being well-understood, well-known, known, traditional, routine, or conventional in the art for the purpose of allowing user’s to place wagers or bets. Saffari (US 2003/0050111) teaches a conventional gaming machine (system) comprising a input device used to play a game, processor to implement the game, memory device, and/or display are used to allow a player to start a game, cause images representative of a reel/slot game to be display, determine an outcome of the game, determine a payout/award associated with the outcome of a game (¶ 2). Hornik (US 2006/0100019) teaches input devices such as wager acceptor(s), touch screen display, push buttons, are conventional in the art (¶ 37). McGahn (US 2002/0183109) teaches that input device are well known in the art (¶ 46). Walker (US 2004/0038733) teaches that display devices and input device of electronic gaming machines/systems are well-known (¶ 51-52, 61). Fier (US 6,126,542) teaches that processors are well-known in electronic gaming machines (Col. 3:63-Col. 4:5). Nicastro (US 2003/0027619) teaches that processors are conventional within electronic gaming machines. Nguyen (US 2004/0137987) teaches it is communication interfaces are well known in the art for receiving data (¶ 18, 52). Johnson (WO 2004/024266 A1)(¶ 108-109), D’Amico (WO 2004/111801 A2)(¶ 44), Hornik (US 2006/0111164)(¶ 33), and Hornik (US 2006/0111170)(¶ 35) teach that communication interfaces that transmit or receive serial data are well known in the art. Acres (AU 2006203638 A1) teaches that any communication protocol can be used over serial interfaces as known in the art (lines 3-11, page 62). Nohr (US 2013/0085000) teaches it is known in the art for communication interfaces to use transfer protocols such as serial (¶ 53). The above references provide support or suggest that the claimed components are well-understood, routine, and/or conventional components performing in their ordinary capacity.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13- 20 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts encompassed within managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) under the Grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. a person can mentally maintain a modified value, observe a result of an outcome associated with a sporting event and modify the progressive award to provide a new modified value). The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Boese (US 2016/0328926) view of Caputo (US 2017/0294079), and in further view of Guinn (US 2014/0094274).
Claims 1 and 12: Boese discloses an electronic gaming machine (100, 500a)(Figs. 2, 5a) comprising: a communication interface (314)(¶ 100, 115); a processor (302)(¶ 100); and a memory device (304)(¶ 100) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (¶ 101-110), cause the processor to (invokes the method thereof): responsive to a receipt, via the communication interface (¶ 85, 90, 115, 283-285, 317) , of first data, cause a display, by a display device, of a value (progressive value)(¶ 85, 90 169, 173, 283-285, 317), and responsive to a receipt, via the communication interface (¶ 85, 90, 115, 283-285, 317), of second data, cause a display, by the display device, of a modification of the value, wherein the modification of the value occurs following a server (¶ 85, 90, 115, 283-285, 317) operating independent of the processor determining that an event occurred, the displayed modification of the value is based on the event occurring (¶ 170, ¶ 175), a first event occurring result in a first displayed modification of the value (¶ 170, 175-176, (first event could be 3 turbo symbols outcome (resulting in a $30 increase in value), 4 turbo symbols outcome (resulting in a $50 increase in value), or 5 turbo symbols outcome (resulting in a $75 increase in value))), 177-178, 179-180, 195-196, 201-203, 209-210), a second, different event occurring results in a second, different displayed modification of the value (¶ 170, 175-176, (first event could be 3 turbo symbols outcome (resulting in a $30 increase in value), 4 turbo symbols outcome (resulting in a $50 increase in value), or 5 turbo symbols outcome (resulting in a $75 increase in value))), 177-178, 179-180, 195-196, 201-203, 209-210), and the displayed modification of the value occurs independent of any modification of the value based on any placement of any wager (¶ 174-176, 177-178, 179-180, 195-196, 201-203, 209-210).
Boese teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting serial receipt of first and/or second data in accordance with a slot system protocol. Boese at least teaches that various protocols can be used (¶ 167), that the data received pertains to slot accounting such as value data and value modification data (see above), and that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 341). Furthermore, an analogous art of Caputo teaches a similarly structured electronic gaming machine including a communication interface wherein data is received by serial receipt, via a communication interface and in accordance with a slot accounting system protocol (¶ 188, 190, 261-262, emphasis on ¶ 261-262). 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 interface means of Boese with the serial slot accounting system protocol interface means of Caputo because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of receiving slot data by an electronic game machine communication interface in which Boese is intended. Such a modification allows for communication of information within the gaming system (Caputo - ¶ 262).
Boese in view of Caputo teaches the above, in addition to events that occur and results in modifications of a value (progressive value)(see above), but lacks explicitly suggesting the events occurring during a sporting event. Boese at least teaches the ability the electronic gaming machine to stream sporting events to the user/player/gamer (¶ 65, 116) and that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Additionally, an analogous art of Guinn teaches a similarly structured gaming system that provides games, wherein the games and events therein occur during a sporting event (¶ 47-52, 57-59, Figs. 4-6). 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 system/method of Boese in view of Caputo such the game thereof occurs simultaneously or during a sporting event as taught by Guinn. Such a modification would further enhance player entertainment, perpetuate player loyalty, and thus increase game play and profitability (Guinn - ¶ 6).
Claims 2 and 13: Boese in view of Caputo in view of Guinn teaches wherein the displayed modification of the value is associated with a quantity of activations following the event during the sporting event (Boese - ¶ 199-201, emphasis on ¶ 199).
Claims 3 and 14: Boese in view of Caputo in view of Guinn teaches wherein the displayed modification of the value is associated with an amount of time following the event occurring during the sporting event (Boese - ¶ 199-201, emphasis on ¶ 199).
Claims 4 and 15: Boese in view of Caputo in view of Guinn teaches wherein the event occurring during the sporting event comprises a series of events occurring during the sporting event (Boese - ¶ 170, 175-176, (first event could be 3 turbo symbols outcome (resulting in a $30 increase in value), 4 turbo symbols outcome (resulting in a $50 increase in value), or 5 turbo symbols outcome (resulting in a $75 increase in value))), 177-178, 179-180, 195, 201-203, 209-210).
Claims 5 and 16: Boese in view of Caputo in view of Guinn teaches wherein the sporting event comprises a plurality of sporting events, a first event of the series of events occurs during a first sporting event of the plurality of sporting events and a second event of the series of events occurs during a second, different sporting event of the plurality of sporting events (Boese – see above, Guinn - ¶ 47-52, 57-59, Figs. 4-6 (plays of the football game are an examples of a plurality of sporting events)). Since the sporting event of Guinn occurs simultaneously during the progressive game of Boese then such a modification results in the plurality of sporting events occurring or overlapping with events of the progressive game.
Claims 6 and 17: Boese teaches wherein the value is associated with a sports team of the sporting event and the event occurring during the sporting event comprises an outcome of the sporting event occurring in association with that sports team of the sporting event (¶ 121, 196, 340).
Claims 7 and 18: Boese teaches wherein the value is associated with a sporting event participant of the sporting event and the event occurring during the sporting event comprises an outcome of the sporting event occurring in association with that sporting event participant of the sporting event (¶ 196, such as the event “Lucky Nag” (event participant) winning in the 7th race (during the race) at the Ol’ Go ‘Round Racetrack, wherein the sporting event comprises the multiple races (at least 7 races) occurring at the Ol’ Go ‘Round Racetrack e.g. winning during the multiple races, ¶ 340).
Claims 8 and 19: Boese in view of Caputo in view of Guinn teaches wherein the display device comprises an electronic gaming machine display device (Boese - ¶ 169-170, 175-176, 177-178, 179-180, 195-196, 201-203, 209-210).
Claims 9 and 20: Boese in view of Caputo in view of Guinn teaches wherein the first displayed modification of the value is by a first amount and the second, different displayed modification of the value is by a second, different amount (Boese - ¶ 170, 175-176, (first event could be 3 turbo symbols outcome (resulting in a $30 increase in value), 4 turbo symbols outcome (resulting in a $50 increase in value), or 5 turbo symbols outcome (resulting in a $75 increase in value))), 177-178, 179-180, 195-196, 201-203, 209-210).
Best Applicable Prior Art
In regards to Claims 10-11, with emphasis on Claim 10, Boese (US 2016/0328926) in view of Caputo (US 2017/0294079) in view of Guinn (US 2014/0094274) teaches a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: responsive to a receipt of first slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by a display device, of a value, responsive to a receipt of second slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by the display device, of a modification of the value, wherein the modification of the value occurs following a server operating independent of the processor determining that a first event occurred during a sporting event and the modification of the value occurs independent of any modification of the value based on any received monetary value.
However, Boese in view of Caputo in view of Guinn fails to teach responsive to a receipt of third slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by the display device, of an association of the value with a user, wherein the association occurs following the server operating independent of the processor determining that a second, different event occurred during the sporting event, and responsive to a receipt of fourth slot accounting system protocol data, cause a display, by the display device, of the value being rolled into another value, wherein the fourth slot accounting system protocol data is received responsive to the second, different event not occurring during the sporting event.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights