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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Oct. 09, 2019 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the claim amendments filed on December 23, 2025.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending.
Claim 10 has been canceled.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites, “generating, by the slot machine device, a user interface displaying a virtual reel for presenting media data of an NFT” and is objected to because the acronym NFT has not been defined. NFT must be defined as non-fungible token (NFT), at least and initially. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 11-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining a value (i.e., determining an award value) without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 11 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1, 11 and 20.
In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a method, claims 11-19 are directed to a system comprising a slot machine device comprising a processor, and claim 20 is directed to a computer storage medium of a slot machine device having machine-executable instructions stored thereon. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 11 is directed to a system comprising: a slot machine device comprising a processor configured to: “receive one or more token identifiers corresponding to one or more non-fungible tokens of a blockchain from one or more client devices; generate a user interface displaying a virtual reel for presenting media data of an NFT; receive a request to initiate a randomized event session from one or more session client devices; execute a randomization algorithm that randomly identifies a token identifier associated with a non-fungible token of the one or more non-fungible tokens; update the user interface using the media data of the non-fungible token identified according to the randomization algorithm, the user interface is updated to display the virtual reel presenting the media data extracted from the non-fungible token associated with the token identifier randomly identified using the randomization algorithm; and in response to identifying a player user of the randomized event session as a winner of the randomized event session based on the non-fungible token identified from executing the randomization algorithm: execute a smart contract to determine a first award value for the player user of the randomized event session based on the non-fungible token; execute the smart contract to determine a second award value for an owner associated with a blockchain wallet having the non-fungible token based upon a fraction of the first award value for the player user of the randomized event session; and generate a first award notification indicating the first award value for the player user associated with a first session client device.” These series of steps describe the abstract idea of determining a value (i.e., determining an award value) (with the exception of the italicized terms above), which correspond to “Mathematical Concepts”: mathematical calculations because it describes a process (e.g., randomization algorithm) for of determining a value that involves communicating data needed to complete an award value (e.g., currency) distribution (e.g., payment/payout) to the parties. Furthermore, these series of steps describe the abstract idea of determining a value (i.e., determining an award value) (with the exception of the italicized terms above), further correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”: fundamental economic principles because it describes a process for carrying out a commercial interaction between parties that involves communicating data needed to complete a transaction to the parties. The system limitations, e.g., slot machine device, processor, blockchain, client devices, user interface, smart contract and blockchain wallet do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of claim 11 such as a slot machine device (e.g., a computer), processor, blockchain (e.g., decentralized database), client devices (e.g., a computer), user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application) are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Specifically, the slot machine device, processor, blockchain, client devices, user interface, smart contract and blockchain wallet performs the steps or functions of: “receive one or more token identifiers corresponding to one or more non-fungible tokens of a blockchain from one or more client devices; generate a user interface displaying a virtual reel for presenting media data of an NFT; receive a request to initiate a randomized event session from one or more session client devices; execute a randomization algorithm that randomly identifies a token identifier associated with a non-fungible token of the one or more non-fungible tokens; update the user interface using the media data of the non-fungible token identified according to the randomization algorithm, the user interface is updated to display the virtual reel presenting the media data extracted from the non-fungible token associated with the token identifier randomly identified using the randomization algorithm; and in response to identifying a player user of the randomized event session as a winner of the randomized event session based on the non-fungible token identified from executing the randomization algorithm: execute a smart contract to determine a first award value for the player user of the randomized event session based on the non-fungible token; execute the smart contract to determine a second award value for an owner associated with a blockchain wallet having the non-fungible token based upon a fraction of the first award value for the player user of the randomized event session; and generate a first award notification indicating the first award value for the player user associated with a first session client device”. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 11 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a slot machine device (e.g., a computer), processor, blockchain (e.g., decentralized database), client devices (e.g., a computer), user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application) limitations are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can be extended to the independent claim 1 and hence, claim 1 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 11.
Claim 20 recites the abstract idea subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 11. The newly identified additional element of computer storage medium of a slot machine device having machine-executable instructions stored thereon also fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea as it is no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Thus, claim 20 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 11.
Regarding dependent claims
Claims 2-9 and 12-19 have also been considered for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims also fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2 and 12 recite: “wherein the request received from the first session client device includes an amount of risk for the randomized event session” further define the abstract idea (with the exception of the italicized terms above) that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and 11; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of the abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of claims 2 and 12 such as a client device (e.g., a computer) is no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional element listed above is recited at a high level of generality and under its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claims 2 and 12 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 2 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of a client device is recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, claims 2 and 12 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3 and 13 recite: “generating, by the slot machine device, a second award notification indicating the second award value for a user account associated with the non-fungible token” further define the abstract idea (with the exception of the italicized terms above) that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of the abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of claims 3 and 13 such as a slot machine device (e.g., a computer) is no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional element listed above is recited at a high level of generality and under its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claims 3 and 13 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 3 and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of a slot machine (e.g., a computer) is recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, claims 3 and 13 are not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 14 recite: “determining, by the slot machine device, a type of media of the media data of the non-fungible token, wherein the slot machine device generates the user interface based upon the type of media of the media data” further define the abstract idea (with the exception of the italicized terms above) that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of claims 4 and 14 such as a slot machine device (e.g., a computer) and user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software) are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are recited at a high level of generality and under its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claims 4 and 14 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 4 and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of a slot machine device (e.g., a computer) and user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software) are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, claims 4 and 14 are not patent eligible.
Claims 5 and 15 recite: “determining, by the slot machine device, a weighted value assigned to the non-fungible token, wherein the slot machine device executes the randomization algorithm according to the weighted value assigned to the non-fungible token” further define the abstract idea (with the exception of the italicized terms above) that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of claims 5 and 15 such as a slot machine device (e.g., a computer) is no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above is recited at a high level of generality and under its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claims 5 and 15 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 5 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of a slot machine device (e.g., computer) is recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, claims 5 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 16 recite: “wherein the weighted value assigned to the non-fungible token indicates at least one of: a number of other non- fungible tokens having the media data, a currency value, and a third-party value received from a third-party device via an oracle device” further define the abstract idea (with the exception of the italicized terms above) that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of claims 6 and 16 such as a third-party device (e.g., computer) via an oracle device (e.g., hardware-based database storing data) is no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above is recited at a high level of generality and under its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claims 6 and 16 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 6 and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of a third-party device (e.g., computer) via an oracle device (e.g., hardware-based database storing data) is recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, claims 6 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 17 recite: “wherein an account database contains a user account associated with the blockchain wallet, the processor- implemented method further comprising: receiving, by the slot machine device, from a client device associated with the user account, the one or more token identifiers corresponding to the one or more non-fungible tokens and a permission indication to apply the one or more non-fungible tokens in the randomized event session” further define the abstract idea (with the exception of the italicized terms above) that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of claims 7 and 17 such as a database (generic data storage), blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application), slot machine device (e.g., a computer) and client device (e.g., a computer) are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are recited at a high level of generality and under its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claims 7 and 17 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a database (generic data storage), blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application), slot machine device (e.g., a computer) and client device (e.g., a computer) are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, claims 7 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 18 recite: “updating, by the slot machine device executing a second smart contract of the blockchain, a transaction block of the blockchain to indicate the non-fungible token is transferred from a first blockchain wallet to a second blockchain wallet accessible to the slot machine device, wherein the slot machine device generates the user interface for the randomized event session using the second blockchain wallet” further define the abstract idea (with the exception of the italicized terms above) that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of claims 8 and 18 such as a slot machine device (e.g., computer), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction), blockchain (e.g., decentralized database), user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application) are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are recited at a high level of generality and under its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claims 8 and 18 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 8 and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of slot machine device (e.g., computer), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction), blockchain (e.g., decentralized database), user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application) are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, 8 and 18 are not patent eligible.
Claims 9 and 19 recite: “updating, by the slot machine device executing the smart contract of the blockchain, a second transaction block on the blockchain to indicate the non-fungible token is transferred from the second blockchain wallet to the first blockchain wallet in response to a triggering condition identified by the slot machine device” further define the abstract idea (with the exception of the italicized terms above) that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of claims 9 and 19 such as a slot machine device (e.g., computer), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction), blockchain (e.g., decentralized database) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application) are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are recited at a high level of generality and under its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claims 9 and 19 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 9 and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of slot machine device (e.g., computer), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction), blockchain (e.g., decentralized database) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application) are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, claims 9 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 23, 2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues: With respect to Step 2A, Prong 1, the Office Action asserts that the claims recite an abstract idea categorized within the "mathematical concepts" grouping, allegedly directed to determining a value and using generic computer components to implement award logic. As discussed during the Examiner Interview, this characterization no longer reflects the amended claim scope. The amended claims recite specific, concrete, processor-implemented operations performed by a slot machine device involving blockchain-anchored media extraction, virtual-reel user-interface generation, and deterministic smart-contract execution, which are technological operations that cannot reasonably be interpreted as mathematical concepts, fundamental economic practices, or mental processes that could be performed in a human mind. For instance, the claims expressly recite generating, by a slot machine device, a user interface displaying a virtual reel for presenting media data of an NFT, and updating the user interface to display the virtual reel presenting media extracted from the NFT identified by the randomization algorithm…The amended claims additionally recite executing a randomization algorithm to "randomly identify a token identifier associated with a non-fungible token" and using that identification to drive user-interface behavior in the virtual slot-machine reel…Accordingly, amended claims 1, 11, and 20 cannot reasonably be characterized as directed to mental processes, fundamental economic practices, or mathematical concepts under Step 2A, Prong 1. The claims describe and are directed to specific, technological functions and improvements in slot-machine devices and blockchain-integrated gaming systems, and are therefore patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong 1. See Applicant's arguments pages 8-9.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong 1, Examiner respectfully notes that claims 1, 11 and 20, as amended, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining a value (i.e., determining an award value); without significantly more. The series of steps recited in claims 1, 11 and 20, as amended, describe the abstract idea of determining a value (i.e., determining an award value), which correspond to “Mathematical Concepts”: mathematical calculations because it describes a process (e.g., randomization algorithm) for of determining a value that involves communicating data needed to complete an award value (e.g., currency) distribution (e.g., payment/payout) to the parties. Furthermore, the series of steps describe the abstract idea of determining a value (i.e., determining an award value), further correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”: fundamental economic principles because it describes a process for carrying out a commercial interaction between parties that involves communicating data needed to complete a transaction to the parties. Furthermore, the system limitations, e.g., slot machine device, processor, blockchain, client devices, user interface, smart contract and blockchain wallet do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Moreover, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are first analyzed in the absence of technology to determine if it recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations of technology are then considered to determine if it restricts the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, and as discussed in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, it is determined that the additional limitations of technology do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the recited features in the limitations: “receive one or more token identifiers corresponding to one or more non-fungible tokens of a blockchain from one or more client devices; generate a user interface displaying a virtual reel for presenting media data of an NFT; receive a request to initiate a randomized event session from one or more session client devices; execute a randomization algorithm that randomly identifies a token identifier associated with a non-fungible token of the one or more non-fungible tokens; update the user interface using the media data of the non-fungible token identified according to the randomization algorithm, the user interface is updated to display the virtual reel presenting the media data extracted from the non-fungible token associated with the token identifier randomly identified using the randomization algorithm; and in response to identifying a player user of the randomized event session as a winner of the randomized event session based on the non-fungible token identified from executing the randomization algorithm: execute a smart contract to determine a first award value for the player user of the randomized event session based on the non-fungible token; execute the smart contract to determine a second award value for an owner associated with a blockchain wallet having the non-fungible token based upon a fraction of the first award value for the player user of the randomized event session; and generate a first award notification indicating the first award value for the player user associated with a first session client device” (with the exception of the italicized terms above) are simply making use of a computer and the computer limitations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea as discussed above under Step 2A-Prong 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Hence, Examiner has also considered each and every arguments under Step 2A-Prong 1 and concludes that these arguments are not persuasive. For example, under Step 2A-Prong 1, Examiner considers each and every limitation to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional limitations of a slot machine device (e.g., a computer), processor, blockchain (e.g., decentralized database), client devices (e.g., a computer), user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application) do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The recited steps, as amended, are abstract in nature as there are no technical/technology improvements as a result of these steps. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing technical/technology improvements are considered under Step 2A-Prong 2.
Applicant argues: The amended claims contain additional elements that integrate any alleged exception to patent-eligibility into a practical application. As explained in MPEP §2106.04(d), under Prong 2, a claim that allegedly recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole integrates the alleged exception into a practical application. This could include claim features provide an improvement in the functioning of a computing device or an improvement to other technology or technical field, or applying any alleged exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the alleged 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(a), 2106.05(e). The claims satisfy any inquiry as they describe particular technological solutions and improvements to existing technologies. See Applicant's arguments pages 9-10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply, a slot machine device receives NFT token identifiers from external client devices, generates a virtual-reel user interface, randomly identifies token identifiers of the NFTs, dynamically updates the virtual reels on the user interface to display media data extracted from the NFTs corresponding to the randomly identified token identifiers, and executes a smart contract to compute awards for the player-user and for the NFT owner. The disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Instead, Applicant recites “receive one or more token identifiers corresponding to one or more non-fungible tokens of a blockchain from one or more client devices; generate a user interface displaying a virtual reel for presenting media data of an NFT; receive a request to initiate a randomized event session from one or more session client devices; execute a randomization algorithm that randomly identifies a token identifier associated with a non-fungible token of the one or more non-fungible tokens; update the user interface using the media data of the non-fungible token identified according to the randomization algorithm, the user interface is updated to display the virtual reel presenting the media data extracted from the non-fungible token associated with the token identifier randomly identified using the randomization algorithm; and in response to identifying a player user of the randomized event session as a winner of the randomized event session based on the non-fungible token identified from executing the randomization algorithm: execute a smart contract to determine a first award value for the player user of the randomized event session based on the non-fungible token; execute the smart contract to determine a second award value for an owner associated with a blockchain wallet having the non-fungible token based upon a fraction of the first award value for the player user of the randomized event session; and generate a first award notification indicating the first award value for the player user associated with a first session client device”. The recited features in the limitations do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Examiner respectfully notes that, the additional elements such as a slot machine device (e.g., a computer), processor, blockchain (e.g., decentralized database), client devices (e.g., a computer), user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application) are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The recited features in the limitations does not disclose a technical solution to technical problem. The claim simply makes use of a computer (e.g., slot machine) as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Furthermore, these steps, as amended, are recited as being performed by a slot machine device (e.g., a computer), processor, blockchain (e.g., decentralized database), client devices (e.g., a computer), user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application). The slot machine device (e.g., a computer), processor, blockchain (e.g., decentralized database), client devices (e.g., a computer), user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application) are recited at a high level of generality, and are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, processing, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The amended claims 1, 11 and 20 recites a slot machine device (e.g., a computer), processor, blockchain (e.g., decentralized database), client devices (e.g., a computer), user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application), which are simply used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong 1, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the recitation of a slot machine device (e.g., a computer), processor, blockchain (e.g., decentralized database), client devices (e.g., a computer), user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application) in the limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The claims, as amended, merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and thus, fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Claims 1, 11 and 20, as amended, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: The claims reflect these technological improvements to slot-machine devices. Amended independent claims 1, 11, and 20 explain that a slot machine device receives NFT token identifiers from external client devices, generates a specialized virtual-reel user interface, randomly identifies token identifiers of the NFTs, dynamically updates the virtual reels on the user interface to display media data extracted from the NFTs corresponding to the randomly identified token identifiers, and executes a smart contract to compute awards for the player-user and for the NFT owner. These features provide concrete improvements to the functioning of the slot-machine device and blockchain-integrated gaming systems. They recite improvements to computing and gaming devices that expand the functionality of gaming systems, including incorporating blockchain- based media into gameplay interfaces and allowing for payouts or awards to players and owners of the NFTs, which are device-executed features that were not previously available in existing gaming technologies. See Applicant's arguments pages 10-11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner respectfully notes that all of Applicant's arguments have been reviewed, and the inventive concept cannot be furnished by a judicial exception. The improvements argued are to the abstract idea and not to technology. The technical limitations are simply utilized as a tool to implement the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and hence these arguments are not persuasive. The presence of a computer does not make the claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the courts have determined that, determining an award value (e.g., processing data) is well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Thus, the recited combination of steps in claims 1, 11 and 20 operate in a well-understood, routine, conventional and generic way. As noted above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a slot machine device (e.g., a computer), processor, blockchain (e.g., decentralized database), client devices (e.g., a computer), user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application) limitations are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Applying the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility here, and as explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements: a slot machine device (e.g., a computer), processor, blockchain (e.g., decentralized database), client devices (e.g., a computer), user interface (e.g., use of input devices and software), smart contract (e.g., self-executing program that automates the actions required in a blockchain transaction) and blockchain wallet (e.g., decentralized database/wallet application), are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the claims’ limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements simply amount to receiving and outputting data and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a computer/processor to perform recited limitations, as amended, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHED ALI whose telephone number is (571)270-1085. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/JAHED ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3699