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 Status
After the amendments filed 06/04/2026, claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-20, and 22-25 remain pending, of which, 1 and 15 were amended, 22-25 were newly added, and 19 and 20 are currently withdrawn.
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 1-8, 10-15, 17-20, and 22-25 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. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claim 15 and 19, having substantially similar features, was also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. An electronic gaming machine (EGM) comprising:
a display device;
a biometric sensor;
a gesture analysis component;
a geolocation module;
a processor circuit; and
a memory device which stores a plurality of instructions, which when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
detect a user identity based on user input received at the biometric sensor from a user (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
determine a user location based on a location of the EGM via the geolocation module (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
determine whether the location of the EGM is within a designated geographic area, wherein the EGM enables non-monetary wager-based game play if the EGM is located outside the designated geographic area (Mental Processes);
cause the display device to display a plurality of game symbols arranged in a symbol selection zone of the display (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
cause the display device to display a plurality of value symbols that are assignable to a game symbol of the plurality of game symbols (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
detect, by the gesture analysis component, a gesture from the user (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
interpret, by the gesture analysis component, the gesture from the user as game instructions comprising movement of a value symbol of a plurality of value symbols (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
based on the game instructions interpreted by the gesture analysis component, cause the display device to move the value symbol of the plurality of value symbols to be on a selected game symbol of the plurality of game symbols (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
cause the display device to display a plurality of symbol display positions with less than all of the plurality of game symbols (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
responsive to one of the plurality of symbol display positions comprising the selected game symbol, cause the display device to display an award value to be credited to the user (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
cause the display device to display a value symbol that is assignable to a game symbol of the plurality of game symbols based on a selection input from the user that moves the value symbol to be on one of the plurality of game symbols to identify the selected game symbol of the plurality of game symbols, and wherein a quantity of symbol display positions are provided in the symbol selection zone and vary based on a type of game being played, and wherein the selection input from the user comprises a graphical user input that is actuated to cause ones of the plurality of value symbols to be dragged and dropped onto ones of the plurality of game symbols in the symbol selection zone (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
wherein a first game comprises a first quantity of symbol display positions, a second game comprises a second quality of symbol display positions that is different from the first quantity of symbol display positions (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
wherein a payout of the first game is different than a payout of the second game based on a difference between the first quality and the second quantity (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
The limitations in claim 1 (and similarly claim 15) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a display device, a processor circuit, a memory device, a display device, a biometric sensor, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity includes at least:
Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), 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); and/or
Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Wagering, wherein in light of applicant’s specification, some limitations identified above may also be interpreted as placement of a wager during a wagering game (See ¶14, ¶23, player’s wager and awards are an amount of currency and wagers are placed by a player via selection of game symbols by assigning value symbols). Wagering is a fundamental economic principle as related to the abstract idea of hedging and is, by definition, is also a form of contract formation (for example by placement of a wager a player is entering into a contract with a game operator, whereby the game operator agrees to provide the player with a chance at winning a game in exchange for the placement of the wager). Wagering is a form of hedging, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
B. Formation of a gambling contract (i.e., by a player placing a wager the player is entering into a contract with a game operator), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Commercial or Legal Interactions. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Commercial or Legal Interactions while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims; and/or
C. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims; and/or
D. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “determine whether the location of the EGM is within a designated geographic area…”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the concepts in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, 17-18, and 22-25:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional rules to be followed and/or fundamental economic principles to be performed and/or further commercial or legal interactions and/or Mental Processes to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-18 and 21 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, 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. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. 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)).
This judicial exception is 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 computer components 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.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) 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 “display device, a processor circuit, a memory device, a biometric sensor”, etc. 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. 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. 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.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general-purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a computer memory, a processor, a biometric sensor, and display are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by US 2003/0050111, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a controller with a memory, display and a processor to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶2) and U.S. 2003/0114217, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a biometric sensor to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶120). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/04/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 because the specification establishes that EGMs differ significantly from general purpose computers due to strict regulatory requirements, and thus, the claimed display device, biometric sensor, gesture analysis component, and geolocation module satisfy unique EGM peripheral requirements, and therefore, constitute patent-eligible subject matter (See Remarks, pgs. 13-15). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 is evaluated based on the limitations explicitly recited in the claims, rather than unclaimed features, intended advantages, or grad statements in the specification. While the specification discusses general regulatory and security concepts in EGMs, the claims themselves recite the elements (i.e., biometric sensor, geolocation module, gesture analysis component, and display device). At an extremely high level of generality without any specialized hardware structure or technical mechanisms to distinguish them from standard off-the-shelf peripherals. Furthermore, the instant claims fail to integrate the abstract idea of game rules and wagering into a practical application because they do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, nor do they apply the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond routine implementation (See MPEP 2106.05(a)-(h)). Specifically, identifying a user via a generic biometric sensor is well-understood, routine pre-solution data gathering. Determining the EGM’s position via a generic geolocation module to toggle between monetary and non-monetary wagering amounts to conventional jurisdictional gating and insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, interpreting player movement via a generic gesture analysis component merely substitutes one conventional user=input mechanism (e.g., gesture detection) for another (e.g., a physical button, touchscreen, etc. to deliver game instructions. Simply limiting the execution of an abstract idea to a specific technological environment, such as an EGM, does not impart patent eligibility.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights