The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Office-Action acknowledges the Amendment and is a response to said Amendment.
Status of the Application
This Office-Action acknowledges the Amendment filed on 4/5/2024 and is a response to said Amendment.
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 1-15 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. Subject matter eligibility determinations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 follow the procedure explained in the Federal Register notice titled 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, which is found at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites providing players with a reveal list of at least three potential awards in sequence for next successive spins.
The limitation of “storing a finite pool of predetermined awards in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium; providing an input device, an output device, and a processing unit operationally connected to the input device and the output device; providing a payment mechanism being either a ticket reader configured to read a ticket or a card reader to read a card, and crediting credits to a player via the payment mechanism; executing instructions on the processing unit to perform a following operations: displaying a reveal list, the reveal list comprising at least three upcoming stored awards in sequence in the finite pool for immediately following sequential spins, the reveal list being a smaller subset of the finite pool, the at least three upcoming stored awards displayed in the reveal list are each displayed as a respective number of credits, the reveal list displayed in a plurality of columns; receiving a wager from the player using the credits which came from the payment mechanism; spinning reels using computer generated animation; retrieving a stored award from the finite pool; and 2stopping the reels on a combination of symbols which results in an award according to a paytable which matches the stored award which was displayed in the reveal list” is reasonably and broadly interpreted as being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activities but for the recitation of generic computer components.
To further elaborate, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”, “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, or “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
In this case, the limitations of listed above is viewed as being directed towards “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of providing players with a reveal list of at least three potential awards in sequence for next successive spins. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The Examiner would also like to point out that the inclusion of payment mechanism for crediting players is currently interpreted as being directed as merely having “extra-solution activity” to the concept of providing players with a reveal list of at least three potential awards in sequence for next successive spins. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of input device, output device, payment mechanism, ticket reader, card reader, and processing unit for providing players with a reveal list of at least three potential awards in sequence for next successive spins are mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1-15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8, 10-15 do not remedy the deficiencies of claims 1 and 9, and are also rejected as non-statutory because as discussed above, they are just mere details that add to the abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Human Activities” and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states:
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees that the claimed features are a “mere” design choice. However, no authority (such as a case or section in the MPEP) is cited defining what criteria is used to classify the claimed features as a “mere design choice.” Claim 1 recites, “… the at least three upcoming stored awards displayed in the reveal list are each displayed as a respective number of credits;…” This feature is not a mere design choice but serves a technological and nonconventional purpose of providing the player a visual amount of credits the upcoming stored award instead of in a different form (such as symbols) which may not be evident what its value is.
Furthermore, the Applicant submits that in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), claims amounting a series of steps were held to be eligible. The Federal Circuit concluded that “[t]he claim uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice…[and] therefore, is not directed to an abstract idea.
In addition, see Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal circuit held the claims therein which recited a set of steps performed on a computer eligible and stated, “In contrast, we have found eligibility when somewhat facially-similar claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality under step one, see Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335, or recite a sufficient inventive concept under step two…” (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit also stated, “the ordered combination of these limitations yields an inventive concept sufficient to confer eligibility without undue preemption...”
The Applicant submits that the independent claims recite an ordered combination which contains an inventive concept which operates as a whole in an unconventional manner.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 1-15 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. For example, [0084] of the applicant’s specification discloses “The methods described herein can be implemented by any type of gaming system, eg, a slot machine (video or mechanical) in a casino, a computer (personal computer or portable device) playing at an online casino over the Internet, and a game promotion/ Sweepstakes system that uses Sweepstakes points to play, etc”. In this case, this disclosure is interpreted as being directed towards a general-purpose computer being used for implementing the abstract idea of providing skill-based a slot game. More specifically, Claims 1-15 incorporate a system and method comprising an input device, a processing unit, an output device, a payment mechanism, and card reader which are no interpreted as a particular/specialized component.
Furthermore, the Examiner believes the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful away. For example, a display of a progressive jackpot could be interpreted as a reveal list which can reveal to individual of a potential award. The Examiner would like to reiterate that the claimed invention is not seen as there being an improvement being made upon gaming technology, but rather changing the way information is being presented to a player for game play. At least based on the above, the claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
With regard to McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., the Court criticized the District Court's conclusion that the claims were drawn to the abstract idea of automated rules-based use of morph targets and delta sets for lip-synchronized three-dimensional animation as oversimplifying and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims, and stating that there is an improvement in allowing computer to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expression in animated characters that previous could not only be produced by human animators where it was stated that "processes that automate tasks that humans are capable of performing are patent eligible if properly claimed". In this case, a question that must be asked is if there is a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery. In McRO, the courts found that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation based on rules of a particular type. In this case, it was determined that the claimed rules, not the implementation of a general-purpose computer, improved existing technology. Unlike McRo, the Examiner does not believe there is an improvement upon the technology being implemented. The Examiner believes that the instant invention is merely an implementation of an abstract idea on a general-purpose computer while providing no improvement upon the existing technology.
In Amdocs v. Openet Telecom (Fed. Cir Nov. 1, 2016), Amdocs was directed towards a system designed to solve an accounting and billing problem faced by network service providers in which components were arrayed in a distributed architecture in order to enable load distribution and reduce congestion in network bottlenecks while still allowing data to be accessible from a central location. In this case, Amdocs' claims solved a technological problem and improved the performance of the system itself wherein the claims were narrowly drawn to not preempt any and all generic enhancement of data in a similar system nor did it merely combine the components in a generic manner. It was determined that even though the claims of Amdocs were directed toward generic components, they also entailed an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases).
In this case, the Examiner does not believe the instant invention is similar to Amdocs because there is no technological problem upon which is in need of improvement. The Examiner believes the instant invention is directed towards an abstract idea utilizing well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry in which such well-understood, routine, and conventional activities do not enhance/improve upon the technological field nor solve any technological problem. In this case, the Examiner is not sure how Amdocs applies to the instant invention because the invention is not directed towards any technological problem that needed to be improved upon or enhance, let alone an accounting and billing problem faced by network service providers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY KEITH WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 11-7pm.
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 on 5712701344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights