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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 recites a gaming system which is an eligible category of invention.
At step 2a, prong one, the claim recites the following limitations that are abstract:
cause the allocation engine to initiate a first lookup for threshold data defined in the at least one memory based upon the first output data, the threshold data defining a threshold amount; determine, by the allocation engine, that a first progressive amount associated with the progressive record is below the threshold amount, wherein the first plurality of game plays are associated with a first subset of outputs at the first electronic gaming device and a second subset of outputs at the second electronic gaming device, and wherein the first subset of outputs is different from the second subset of outputs; based upon the first progressive amount being below the threshold amount: allocate, by the allocation engine, a first percentage of at least one output parameter for the first plurality of game plays to the progressive record; and allocate, by the allocation engine, a second percentage of the at least one output parameter for the first plurality of game plays to the escrow record; cause the threshold data to be updated to define an updated threshold amount based upon the input data; cause the allocation engine to initiate a second lookup for the threshold data defined in the at least one memory based upon the second output data, the threshold data defining the updated threshold amount; determine, by the allocation engine, that an updated progressive amount associated with the progressive record satisfies the updated threshold amount, wherein the second plurality of game plays are associated with a third subset of outputs at the first electronic gaming device and a fourth subset of outputs at the second electronic gaming device, and wherein the third subset of outputs is different from the fourth subset of outputs; and based upon the updated progressive amount satisfying the updated threshold amount: allocate, by the allocation engine, a third percentage of the at least one output parameter for the second plurality of game plays to the progressive record, the third percentage being lower than the first percentage; and allocate, by the allocation engine, a fourth percentage of the at least one output parameter for the second plurality of game plays to the escrow record, the fourth percentage being higher than the second percentage.
The above limitations are abstract because they are directed to mental processes, mathematical operations and certain methods of organizing human activity. The limitations are directed to the rules and processes of a wagering game which includes mathematical operations and the exchange of financial obligations that may be done by hand with pen and paper or mentally.
For 2a, prong two, the following limitations are additional elements:
An electronic gaming system comprising: a first electronic gaming device configured to present a first electronic game, the first electronic gaming device positioned at a first location; a second electronic gaming device configured to present a second electronic game different from the first electronic game, the second electronic gaming device positioned at a second location different from the first location; and a computer device in communication with the first electronic gaming device, the second electronic gaming device, and a user device via a computer network, the computer device comprising an allocation engine, at least one memory with instructions stored thereon, and at least one processor, wherein the allocation engine is configured to electronically apply dynamic rules stored in the at least one memory to allocate amounts to a progressive record and an escrow record and wherein the instructions, in response to execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
The above limitations are not significantly more because they amount to merely applying the abstract idea by the use of a general-purpose computer.
The claim further includes the following additional elements:receive first output data from the first electronic gaming device and the second electronic gaming device for a first plurality of game plays at the first electronic gaming device and the second electronic gaming device;receive input data from the user device, the input data generated based upon user inputs at one or more data fields associated with the threshold data, the one or more data fields displayed on a graphical user interface (GUI) at the user device;receive second output data from the first electronic gaming device and the second electronic gaming device for a second plurality of game plays at the first electronic gaming device and the second electronic gaming device;
These elements do not amount to significantly more as they are merely extra-solution activity to receive and display the information needed to process the abstract process.
In reevaluating the claim limitations individually and as an ordered combination at step 2b, the additional elements fail to contribute significantly more than the abstract idea the limitations are merely implementing the abstract idea on general-purpose computers to carry out the process electronically instead of by hand.
Dependent claims 2-9 merely further define the abstract process by defining parameters for the abstract method.
Dependent claims 10 and 11 include additional element limitations that merely provide extra-solution activity of receiving input and displaying the result of determinations and further abstract limitations limiting the game rules.
Claims 13-15 recite a CRM version of the process in claims 1, 10 and 11 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 17-19 recite the same method carried out by the system of claims 1, 10 and 11 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16, 20 and 21 recite additional abstract limitations that further define the game rules to include more determinations and moving of money around in the game. A more specific abstract process is still abstract and as such the claims fail to meet the requirements of §101 when considered as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025/03/06 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under §101 because they believe that the claims could not be carried out by a person and are not abstract. As noted above, the majority of the claim is directed to abstract processes. The claims as written only require a few bits of information and a human could easily do the math for a two contributors.
Applicant makes a number of arguments about how the invention provides an improvement. Examiner again points out that the majority of the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the abstract idea cannot provide the improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(a):
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
A general-purpose computer invoked purely to carry out an otherwise abstract idea does not make it a technological improvement.
The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn at present.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID DUFFY whose telephone number is (571)272-1574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700 +/- 15.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at (571) 270-1935. 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.
/DAVID DUFFY/ Quality Assurance Specialist, TC 3700