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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated July 1, 2025 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated April 4, 2025. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, 16-19, 21-23, and 25-26 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
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 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, 16-19, 21-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is considered representative and recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a method of operating an electronic gaming machine, the method comprising:
dynamically associating, via a processor of the electronic gaming machine, a bonus factor with a scatter symbol included in a base game symbol set (certain methods of organizing human activity);
randomly selecting, via the processor, base game symbols from the base game symbol set based at least in part on one or more numbers generated by a random number generator (certain methods of organizing human activity);
presenting, via a display device of the electronic gaming machine, a base game outcome corresponding to the base game symbols during play of a base game (certain methods of organizing human activity);
triggering, via the processor, a feature game due at least in part to the base game outcome involving at least a predetermined number of the scatter symbol (certain methods of organizing human activity); and
in response to triggering the feature game (certain methods of organizing human activity):
presenting, on the display device, a plurality of game options each involving a respective number of spins and a respective multiplier such that a respective product of the respective number of spins and the respective multiplier for each game option of the plurality of game options is equal to the bonus factor (certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical functions);
presenting a feature game outcome comprising feature game symbols at display positions of the display device in response to receiving, via a user interface of the electronic gaming machine, input that corresponds to a selected game option from the plurality of game options presented via the display device (certain methods of organizing human activity);
for each remaining spin of the respective number of spins specified by the selected game option (certain methods of organizing human activity):
holding one or more feature game symbols of the feature game outcome at respective display positions of the display device (certain methods of organizing human activity); and
replacing, via the processor, the one or more feature game symbols of the feature game outcome at the respective display positions of the display device (certain methods of organizing human activity);
storing, in a memory device via the processor, a plurality of paytables that facilitate a substantially constant player return irrespective of the selected game option by defining an inverse relationship between winning combinations and magnitude of corresponding prizes (certain methods of organizing human activity);
selecting, via the processor, a paytable from the plurality of paytables based at least in part on the selected game option (certain methods of organizing human activity); and
presenting, via the display device, a prize based at least in part on the feature game symbols of the feature game outcome matching a winning configuration in the paytable and multiplying a base prize specified by the paytable for the matching winning configuration by the respective multiplier specified by the selected game option (certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical functions).
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—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); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The present claims are directed to a method of providing a base game and allowing players to select one of a plurality of options for playing a feature game. These steps fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, they are directed to the sub-category of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the steps recite the rules or instructions to follow in playing the game. The claims are also directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic practice since the game involves a prize based, in part, on a paytable. The limitations “a respective product of the respective number of spins and the respective multiplier for each game option of the plurality of game options is equal to the bonus factor“ and “multiplying a base prize specified by the paytable for the matching winning configuration by the respective multiplier specified by the selected game option” fall into the category of mathematical functions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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.
The additional elements in the present claims are an electronic gaming machine, a processor, a display device, a user interface, a memory device, a mass storage device, a controller, a credit input mechanism, a payout mechanism, a random number generator, and computer readable storage media.
The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not change the performance or functioning of the computer, technology, or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements appear to be components of a generic computer and a step commonly carried out by gaming machines. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements (an electronic gaming machine, a processor, a display device, a user interface, a memory device, a mass storage device, a controller, a credit input mechanism, a payout mechanism, a random number generator, and computer readable storage media) are well-understood, routine, and conventional:
a gaming machine (Parham, US 2006/0089196 A1, the design and operation of gaming devices is well known and conventional gaming machines are available such as from International Gaming Technology.TM. and Bally.TM. [0022]),
a display device (Foster et al., US 2004/0204226 A1, the gaming unit 20 may include one or more audio speakers 62, a coin payout tray 64, an input control panel 66, a color video display unit 70 for displaying images relating to the game or games provided by the gaming unit 20, a status display 71 for providing player information, such as number of credits remaining, and a light device, such as, for example, an illuminated light bezel 84, a lighted bolster 86, a lighted topbox 88, a topper 90, and a lighted gaming candle 92, as are well known in the art [0043]),
a processor, a user interface, a mass storage device, a memory device, a controller, a credit input mechanism, a payout mechanism, a random number generator, and computer readable storage media (Walker et al., US 2004/0082384 A1, components well known in the art, specifically a processor, Ram and ROM, a data storage device, a random number generator, a communication port, a hopper controller, a hopper, a video controller, a touch screen, a coin acceptor controller, a coin acceptor, a bill acceptor controller, a bill acceptor, a reel controller, reels, an input device, an output device and a sensor [0058]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Prior Art Rejections
There are currently no prior art rejections against the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2015 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Claim 1 Is Not Directed to a Method of Organizing Human Activity” (Response [p. 16]).
Applicant argues that
The "organizing human activity" theory does not support the Examiner's allegation that the claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea at least because amended claim 1 is limited to a method of operating an electronic gaming machine, as opposed to a method of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." (Response [p. 16])
The examiner disagrees.
Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2):
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
• 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, and business relations); and
• managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people is further described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as including “social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions”.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) further describe “rules or instructions”:
An example of a claim reciting following rules or instructions is In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "rules for playing games", which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. 911 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 1011.
In applicant’s response dated July 1, 2025, applicant states:
For example, amended claim 1 recites a method of operating an electronic gaming machine whose processor (1) randomly selects base game symbols from the base game symbol set based at least in part on one or more numbers generated by a random number generator, (2) stores, in a memory device, a plurality of paytables that facilitate a substantially constant player return irrespective of the selected game option by defining an inverse relationship between winning combinations and magnitude of corresponding prizes, and (3) selects a paytable from the plurality of paytables based at least in part on the selected game option. (Response [p. 17])
The steps recited in the claims are instructions for playing a wagering game. As such, the examiner maintains that the claims are directed to the sub-category of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which falls under the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, in prong 1 of step 2A, the claims were also determined to fall in the sub-category of fundamental economic practice since the game involves a prize based, in part, on a paytable.
Next, applicant states “These claim elements collectively address, for example, the technical problem of preventing excessive payouts resulting from enhanced play characteristics of a feature game in view of a game option selected from a plurality of game options.” (Response [p. 17])
This appears to be directed to prong 2 of step 2A, which asks whether the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. One of the exemplary considerations used to determine whether the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application is if the additional elements reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Applicant states that “These claim elements collectively address, for example, the technical problem of preventing excessive payouts resulting from enhanced play characteristics of a feature game in view of a game option selected from a plurality of game options” (Response [p. 17]). However, preventing excessive payouts resulting from enhanced play characteristics is not viewed as a technical problem, but rather as a business problem.
Applicant further cites Skillz Platform Inc. v. Aviagames Inc. from the Northern District of California. This case is not precedential and therefore, not considered relevant to the present analysis.
Next, applicant states that “The ‘mathematical concepts’ theory does not support the Examiner's allegation that the claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea at least because the claimed subject matter is not directed to a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula or equation, or mathematical calculation” (Response [p. 18]).
Applicant quotes Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, which states “[t]hat a mathematical equation is required to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims to abstraction." This is certainly true, since the mere identification of an abstract idea in prong 1 of step 2A is not a final determination that a claim is not patent eligible. The claims may be found patent eligible even after identification of an abstract idea in the subsequent analysis in prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B.
In the present case, the claims recite a multiplier and multiplying a base game prize. The examiner maintains that these limitations recite a mathematical function.
In addition, according to MPEP 2106.04(a), “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible, if a claim limitation(s) is determined to fall within multiple groupings and proceed with the analysis in Step 2A Prong Two”. As such, the claims recite limitations that fall into certain methods of organizing human activity (in the sub-groups of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices) as well as mathematical functions.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, applicant state:
In this case, claim 1 as a whole reflects improvements to the functioning of an electronic gaming machine. For example, the claimed subject matter is directed to an improved method of operating an electronic gaming machine that prevents excessive payouts resulting from enhanced play characteristics of a feature game in view of a game option selected from a plurality of game options based on a paytable stored in a memory device. These features constitute improvements to the functioning of the electronic gaming machine. These improvements at the very least constitute the integration of an alleged abstract idea into a practical application and thus qualify claim 1 for eligibility under § 101. Appellant notes that the improvement itself does not need to be explicitly recited in the claim to bring an abstract idea into eligibility by integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. See, e.g., USPTO's October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, p. 12 ("The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification"). The USPTO's guidance indicates that the claim merely need to reflect an improvement in the relevant technology, as opposed to needing to recite the improvement itself. See id. (Response [pp. 20-21])
This appears to repeat the same argument as previously addressed. As stated above, preventing excessive payouts resulting from enhanced play characteristics is not viewed as a technical problem, but rather as a business problem.
Furthermore, under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant looks to the abstract idea to show a practical application instead of the additional elements. The additional elements (i.e., an electronic gaming machine, a processor, a display device, a user interface, a memory device, a mass storage device, a controller, a credit input mechanism, a payout mechanism, a random number generator, and computer readable storage media) do not
• reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• apply or use 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.
As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under prong 2 of Step 2A.
Next, applicant states
Moreover, "[u]nlike the invention in Alice Corp.," the claimed subject matter "is not merely limiting the abstract idea to a computer environment by simply performing the idea via computer (i.e., not merely performing routine data receipt and storage or mathematical operations on a computer), but rather is an innovation" in electronic gaming machines. Example 3 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines. Indeed, and as mentioned above, the Examiner apparently agrees that the pending claims are both novel and non-obvious. Accordingly, the pending claims constitute and/or represent innovations in electronic gaming machines. (Response [p. 21])
While applicant says the present claims are unlike Alice where the abstract idea simply performed the idea via the computer, it is unclear how the present claims are different. The alleged innovations in the electronic gaming machine have nothing to do with the hardware and instead are solely dependent on the abstract idea carried out by the additional elements. Additionally, the absence of prior art rejections in Alice was not sufficient to overcome the finding that the claims did not recite patent eligible subject matter under the two part analysis. MPEP 2106.05(I) states:
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Furthermore, a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Applicant looks to Example 3 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines as support, but it is unclear how the method of halftoning of Example 3 relates to the present claims. The examiner does not consider the subject matter of Example 3 similar to the subject matter recited in the present claims.
Applicant further argues
In the Action, the Examiner alleges that "[t]he additional elements appear to be components of a generic computer and a step commonly carried out by gaming machines." Action, p. 5. There are several problems with the Examiner's allegation here. First, whether claim 1 recites individual components and/or functions that appear generic is not a dispositive factor in the Eligibility Test. Second, the abstract idea alleged by the Examiner is a mischaracterization of the subject matter recited in claim 1. Third, even if claim 1 did recite the abstract idea alleged by the Examiner (which Appellant contests), claim 1 would still be patent eligible because it is directed to a specific implementation that improves gaming systems. (Response [pp. 21-22])
With respect to the first point, applicant refers to Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc. In Amdocs, the claims entail an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases). As stated above, the present claims are drawn to a business problem, not a technical problem. As such, Amdocs is not relevant to the present claims.
With respect to the second point, the examiner maintains that the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical functions as explained above.
With respect to the third point, applicant again argues that the claims are directed to an improved method of operating an electronic gaming machine that prevents excessive payouts that would otherwise result from enhanced play characteristics of a feature game in view of a game option selected from a plurality of game options based on a paytable stored in a memory device (Response [p. 23]). Again, preventing excessive payouts resulting from enhanced play characteristics is not viewed as a technical problem, but rather as a business problem.
With respect to a fourth point, applicant argues, “even if arguendo claim 1 were directed to an abstract idea as alleged by the Examiner, claim 1 would still be patent eligible because it is directed to a specific implementation that improves the electronic gaming machine. See, e.g., EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC, 830 Fed.Appx. 634, 642-646 (Fed. Cir. 2020)” (Response [pp. 23-24]).
The examiner disagrees. Nothing in the present claims improves an electronic gaming machine. The electronic gaming machine operates in the same fashion it always does. The only difference is that the electronic gaming machine carries out an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, applicant argues:
Nevertheless, even if claim 1 were directed to an abstract idea and did not satisfy prong two of step 2A of the Eligibility Test (which Appellant contests for at least the above-mentioned reasons), claim 1 would still satisfy step 2B of the Eligibility Test because claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea itself, which would bring claim 1 into eligibility under § 101 anyway. (Response [p. 25])
Applicant goes on to argue that:
As already discussed above, it is Applicant's position that the Examiner mischaracterized claim 1 as being directed to an abstract under the "mathematical concepts" theory and the "organized human activity" theory. Action, p. 4. Moreover, as further discussed above, claim 1 recites additional elements directed to preventing excessive payouts resulting from enhanced play characteristics of a feature game by (1) "randomly selecting, via the processor, base game symbols from the base game symbol set based at least in part on one or more numbers generated by a random number generator," (2) "storing, in a memory device via the processor, a plurality of paytables that facilitate a substantially constant player return irrespective of the selected game option by defining an inverse relationship between winning combinations and magnitude of corresponding prizes," and then (3) "selecting, via the processor, a paytable from the plurality of paytables based at least in part on the selected game option." These additional elements amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under the "mathematical concepts" theory and the "organized human activity" theory. Because these additional elements amount to significantly more than an alleged abstract idea, the claimed subject matter reflects and/or constitutes an inventive concept that qualifies for eligibility under § 101. (Response [pp. 25-26])
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Instead of looking to the additional elements whether they amount to significantly, applicant focuses on the abstract idea. That is, applicant argues that the limitations of the abstract idea are able to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. This is incorrect.
Instead, the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements (an electronic gaming machine, a processor, a display device, a user interface, a memory device, a mass storage device, a controller, a credit input mechanism, a payout mechanism, a random number generator, and computer readable storage media) are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The examiner maintains that the present claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
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 WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/WERNER G GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights