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
Claims 1-2, 4-9 Claims 1, 8, 15, and 19 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the proposed amendment “presented to the player though a display of the gaming system” on pg. 3 of the Claims contains a typographical error. The Examiner suggest the limitation be amended to “presented to the player through a display system of the gaming system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative presents arguments to address the rejections asserted under 35 USC 101. The Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite patent eligible subject matter under i) the streamlined eligibility analysis because the claims do not “clearly do not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it” (see Remarks, pg. 8-9) and/or ii) the full eligibility analysis because they do not recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1, integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2, and amount to significantly more under Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. 9-17). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below.
With respect to the streamlined eligibility analysis, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims “clearly do not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it” (see Remarks, pg. 8-9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recite limitations such as: “a first electronic wager made by a player of an electronic game being conducted with the player on the gaming system;” “detect a result of the first electronic wager based on the received game status information for the first electronic wager” which recite steps to managing a wagering game. The courts have indicated that subject matter such as managing a wagering game is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Even when the limitations of the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are viewed as a whole, the claims recite additional elements that amount to managing an electronic wager by invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the full eligibility analysis, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter because i) they do not recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1 that is consistent with ‘Caselaw’ (see Remarks, pg. 10-15); ii) the claims, as a whole, integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 because they apply responsible gaming features under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 15-16); and iii) the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea which renders the claim eligible as a new combination of steps in a process even though the combinations were well known and in common use before the combination was made (see Remarks, pg. 16-17). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments under Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative asserts the entirety of independent Claims 1, 8, and 16 as an indication that the claims are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that caselaw such as McRo v. Bandai Namco Games Am (Fed Cir. 2016), In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holdings B.V. (Fed Cir.2018) as support that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter (see Remarks, pg. 13-16). As argued, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are consistent with McRo, In re Smith, and In re Marco because they recite a specific process that changes a presented appearance of a result without changing an actual result of the electronic game and do not only recite limitations of shuffling and dealing a regular deck of playing cards or ineligible under the printed matter doctrine (see Remarks, pg. 13-15). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As acknowledged by the Applicant’s representative the claims are directed to a responsible gaming that changes a presented appearance of a result upon occurrence of certain conditions of the electronic game without changing an actual result of the electronic game (see Remarks, pg. 14). The Examiner finds that the claimed subject matter is not similar to McRo because they do not recite a specific process that depicts more realistic facial patterns during speech but a process to enforce “responsible gaming, especially on the occurrence of nears misses” to avoid possibly triggering problem behaviors which is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. Additionally, the claimed process recites a series of rules and/or instructions to manage a wagering electronic game which is consistent with the decisions of In re Smith and In re Marco. The Applicant’s representative attempt to distinguish the decision of In re Smith and In re Marco are not persuasive because they are found to be directed to similar concepts that are analogous to a “fundamental economic principle or practice” and managing personal behavior which includes mitigating settlement risk, rules for conducting a wagering game, and financial instruments that are designed to protect against the risk of investing financial instruments (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)IIA-C). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 1 has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims integrate the claim into a practical application because they solve a technical problem associated with applying responsible gaming features with an electronic game (see Remarks, pg. 15-16). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Specification does not provide an indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement or provide a discussion that identifies a technical problem and “explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art” (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). As explained in the Specification, the means for detecting and maintaining player profiles of players and casino staff are known in the art (see Specification, 0022). Moreover, changing and modifying the result of the game, in the perspective of responsible gaming, does not transform or change the fundamental nature that determining the outcome and/or displaying the appearance of the game is directed to steps to manage a wagering game and/or provide a desired result of the wagering game which amounts to mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a), 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 2 has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative maintains that when the claims are viewed as a whole they amount to significantly more. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed additional element such as: “a gaming system, a communication interface coupled with a communications network, a processor and a memory” which utilizes techniques that are well-known in the art (e.g., “as known in the art, the responsible gaming system 105 may maintained learned models of player behavior that include indications of possible gambling problems” – Specification, 0022) are not found to amount to significantly more but merely recite instructions to invoke a computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites a grouping of abstract ideas such as the identified limitations that are underlined in the claim below:
1. A responsible gaming system comprising:
a communications interface coupled with a communications network;
a processor coupled with the communications interface; and
a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
maintain a predefined model of player behaviors, wherein maintaining the predefined model comprises training the predefined model by applying machine learning to the predefined model based on electronic gaming information received from a plurality of gaming systems via the communications interface;
receive, from a gaming system of the plurality of gaming systems, via the communication interface, electronic game status information for a first electronic wager made by a player on an electronic game being conducted with the player on the gaming system; -certain method of organizing human activity;
detect a result of the first electronic wager based on the received game status information for the first electronic wager; - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
apply the predefined model of player behaviors to the received electronic game status information;
identify a type of player behavior for the player in the electronic game, based on a result of applying the predefined model of player behaviors to the received game status information and the predefined model of player behaviors; - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
determine, based on the identified type of player behavior for the player in the first electronic wager and the detected result of the first electronic wager whether to intervene in a second electronic wager made by the player on the electronic game; - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process; and
in response to determining to intervene in the second electronic wager, receive, from the gaming system, via the communication interface, electronic game status information for the second electronic wager,
detect a result of the second electronic wager based on the received electronic game status information for the second electronic wager, - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process; and
in response to the result of the second electronic wager having one of a plurality of predefined possible presented result appearances, - certain method of organizing human activity;
sending, to the gaming system, through the communications interface, an electronic instruction causing the gaming system to modify a presented result appearance of the result of the second electronic wager presented to the player through a display of the gaming system without changing an actual result of the second electronic wager. – certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations that have been underlined are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they are directed to a series of rules and/or instructions for managing a wager which is analogous to a fundamental economic activity. The limitations that have been identified as a mental process are found to recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that may be performed in the human mind. Additionally, the limitations recite the abstract idea to apply the predefined model of player behaviors to the electronic game by known methods in the art and/or mere instructions to apply a computer by using general mathematic and computational techniques (e.g., applying a machine learning model) (see Specification, 0022; Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp. (Fed Cir. 2025)). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “receive, from a gaming system of the plurality of gaming systems, via the communication interface, electronic game status information for a first electronic wager made by a player on an electronic game being conducted with the player on the gaming system;” “in response to determining to intervene in the second electronic wager, receive, from the gaming system, via the communication interface, game status information for the second electronic wager,” “sending, to the gaming system, through the communications interface, an electronic instruction causing the gaming system to” and “presented to the player through a display of the gaming system” are found to recite steps to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity of the abstract idea, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). Similarly, the limitation “maintain a predefined model of player behaviors, wherein maintaining the predefined model comprises training the predefined model by applying machine learning to the predefined model based on electronic gaming information” wherein the limitation amounts to mere instructions of invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, directed to the abstract idea itself, and/or pre-solution activity of the abstract idea in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(g)). The remaining limitations such as: “a communications interface coupled with a communications network;” “a processor coupled with the communications interface;” and “a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:” recite a steps to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that the additional and remaining limitations of the claim, as exemplified by independent claim 1, do not integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as “a gaming system”, “a communications interface coupled with a communications network”, “a processor”, “ a memory”, and “a display system of the gaming system” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements amount to highly generalized computer components invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprises “a communication interface coupled with a communication network”, “ a processor”, and “a memory” (see Vancura, elements , 80, 82, 100, 110 of Fig. 1, 0037-0040) that is known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. As such, the claims are similar to Alice v. CLS, in that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 8 and 16, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1 and is found to be directed to an abstract idea for substantially the same reasons. Independent Claim 8 is different than independent Claim 1 in that it recites a method of operating an electronic game and does not recite the particulars of the gaming system as discussed above with independent Claim 1. Independent Claim 16 recites substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1 but does not recite the step to “maintain a predefined model of player behaviors”. However, independent Claim 16 additionally recites “an output device” which is a conventional components of a gaming system (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, independent claims 8 and 16 are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for substantially the same reasons as independent Claim 1 above.
Regarding dependent Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-15, and 17-20, the additional limitations of the dependent claims have been reviewed and analyzed. The limitations of the claims were found to recite at least one of: an additional limitations of a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution of the abstract idea, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-20 are found to recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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.
/RYAN HSU/ EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715