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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Response to Remarks:
Regarding 101:
The Applicant argues that organizing human activity is not found in the claims, because the claims are not directed to directions/instructions/managing human behavior or commercial/legal interactions. The set of claims, in the opinion of the Examiner, does both subtopics of organizing human activity. Thus, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To have managing of human behavior rejection, there needs to be some kind of management of human behavior, such as, following instructions between people (in the context of the invention).
Here, the claims are directed to first associating a mobile computing device with a casino agent. Then, the claims go on to disclose many limitations, including the limitations of dependent claims (i.e. claim 6) that direct how the mobile computing device is used by the casino agent. For example, receiving an input at the mobile device or receiving a description and evaluation of the quality of interaction between the mobile computing device and the player. Although the claims are limited in their explicit use of a casino agent doing any of the limitations, the first claim limitation had already set up the mobile device to be in effect the casino agent. Therefore, all of the instructions of the limitations, such as, initiating a game or delivering an award is presumably accomplished by the casino agent. Thus, the casino agent via a device that is working in its ordinary capacity is following the claim’s limitations instructions between themselves and the players.
To have a commercial or legal interaction, the claims would need to disclose some kind of agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, thus, in effect a business relationship.
Here, the claims are directed to agreements in the form of a legal obligation/sales activity and behavior, with the effect being a business relationship between the casino and/or casino agent and the players.
First, the claims are explicit in generating and delivering an award of gaming credit to the player when the player has won. Thus, the casino is essentially fulfilling its legal obligation/sales activity/contract between itself and the player. The underlying premise of the claims is that when a player wins at the casino then the player is rightfully given (by generating and delivering a gaming credit) a reward for playing at the casino. It’s the essential foundation of gambling. Thus, meeting the sales activity and legal obligation of the casino. The contract if you will.
Second, the claims are also explicit in directing the formalities/quality of the relationship between casino agent and player. As already discussed above, the claims are directed to guiding, evaluating, and improving the relationship between casino agents and players. Thus, satisfying the business relationship aspect of organizing human activity.
For at least the reasons above, the Examiner maintains the rejection.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-23 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1-23 are directed to the abstract idea of an organizing human activity.
Part I. 2A-prong one (Identify the Abstract Ideas)
The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Independent claims 1, 7, and 14 when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claims 1, 7, and 14 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The above claim falls within organizing human activity and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.)
Part II. 2A-prong two (additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application)
Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea. Such as, “…gaming system comprising: a network of electronic casino gaming machines; a plurality of mobile computing devices…a wireless network operatively connected to the network for communicating with the mobile computing devices; a physical object or a code… at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory memory device that stores a plurality of instructions…mobile computing device…”
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) as well-understood, routine, conventional. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
As a result, Examiner asserts that claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-23 are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part III. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1-23 do not include any limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, alone. Claims 1, 7, and 14 do include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include, , “…gaming system comprising: a network of electronic casino gaming machines; a plurality of mobile computing devices… a wireless network operatively connected to the network for communicating with the mobile computing devices; a physical object or a code… at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory memory device that stores a plurality of instructions…mobile computing device…”
These amounts to generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and a high level of generality.
In addition, Fig.1-2 of the Applicant’s specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the system. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, Examiner notes that the additional limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
Claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-23 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to independent claims 1, 7, and 14.
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 ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
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, Rob Wu can be reached at 571.272.6045. 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623