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 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 40-45 are drawn to a method.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter
Step 2A:
However, under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of (1) game rules for the performance of a game.
Taking Claim 1 as exemplary, the claim language centers on an electronic skill based game wherein users play a game using a displayed game board that displays a pattern of icons and alternate icons. Here, a first, second, and third icon pattern is generated and displayed, however this is merely part of the game and thus an abstract idea. (see SAVVY DOG SYSTEMS, LLC v. PENNSYLVANIA COIN, LLC, “The abstract describes displaying the game field “to the player as a preview for deciding whether or not to play the displayed game.”) The user interacts with said icons under specified game rules, see (c), and an outcome is determined based on said game rules and displayed to the player. This is merely following the rules of the game and thus is also part of a method of human activity as users are organized to play a game. Additionally, the claims states an analyzing step wherein the board is analyzed to determine “analyzing the displayed third pattern of icons in real time to determine if a predefined pattern of icons, from a finite list of predefined patterns of icons stored in a database, is present in the displayed third pattern of icons.” However, this can be completed in the mind as an individual can compare the pattern to recorded combinations and determine if a previous pattern is present within the new game board, similarly to the determination of a “check mate” in chess. Furthermore, the claims represent the idea of collecting, analyzing information, and outputting information of Electric Power Grid where the Court determined that such was a mental process. Thus, here the claims represent an abstract idea as well.
Additionally, the abstract idea of game rules is within the “Mental Steps” and “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the invention seeks to play a game, and such does not solve a technical problem. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only a generic computer is used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not as the claim language recites a game cabinet, inputs, reels, payout devices, controllers/processors, remote processors for performing the game within a network, display, however Examiner takes Official Notice that all of these items are well understood, routine, and common in the gaming art, as demonstrated previously by arcade machines and slot machines. Many of the claimed features are demonstrated in Angell (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0043814, see paragraphs 0004-0009), which states that conventional slot machines includes a cabinet with a display, coin inputs, reels, a payout device in the form of a coil hopper, and a processor. Additionally, Walker (U.S. PGPUB 2001/0007828, see paragraph 0030) states that networking of gaming machines is conventional as well. These computer based elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments fails to present a counter argument to the previous non-final rejection, wherein, Examiner was directed towards merely a link with USPTO examples, without explanation of how the claimed invention is analogous to any of said examples. Additionally, Applicant indicated that their claim was a process and not an abstract idea. However, as Examiner indicates above Applicant’s process for playing a game is an abstract idea. Thus, the claims remain rejected.
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 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.
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
Prosecution Insights