DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 9 and 18 contain the trademark/trade names Dow Jones Industrial Average, Nasdaq, Financial Times Stock Exchange and S&P500. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the names of indexes or trading exchanges and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the game is a virtual slot machine game”. Claim 10 depends from claim 2, which recites “a roulette game” as the only game recited in the claim. It is unclear if claim 10 is attempting to change the game, at which point it would be unclear how a slot machine game with the recited reels would be a roulette game or if there is a slot machine game in addition to the roulette game, which does not appear to be described in the specification which shows the games as alternatives. As best understood, the slot machine game replaces the roulette game, see associated 112(d) rejection below.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As best understood, see rejection under 112(b) above, claim 10 replaces the roulette game with a slot machine game and as such would not require all of the limitations of the parent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 2,4-5,8-11,13-14,17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites a system composed of a controller, which is eligible at step 1.
At step 2A, prong 1, the following limitations are determined to be abstract:
responsive to receiving the financial information from the real time data source, determine an outcome of the black/red or even/odd bet, based at least in part on whether at least one digit associated with the financial market is greater than at least one digit associated with the second financial market;
This limitation is abstract because it is a mental process, evaluating and deciding based on information, and a method of organizing human activity, the rules of a wagering game, which is an exchange of financial obligations.
At step 2A, prong 2, the following limitations are additional elements:
A system, comprising: a client operable to communicate bet information over a network regarding either a black/red or even/odd bet in a roulette game displayed by the client, wherein the bet information comprises a user selection of a financial market and a second financial market among a plurality of selectable predetermined financial markets, wherein communicating the bet information comprises displaying a plurality of objects on a display corresponding to the plurality of selectable predetermined financial markets, and the user selection of the financial market and the second financial market is based on selection of one more of the plurality of objects; and
a controller communicably coupled to the client and operable to: responsive to receiving the bet, making a request to a real time data source for financial information of the user selected financial market and second financial market; and communicate the outcome to the client over the network.
The client and the controller are recited at a high level of generality and appear to be no more than general purpose computers used to implement the abstract idea on commodity hardware. The steps of getting the user input, getting the market data or other numerical data from other sources and showing the results of the determination are extra solution activity that are merely the needed steps to get the wagering information to determine the outcome of the wager and the display of the outcome on an electronic device.
In reevaluating the claim at step 2b, the claim does not include any additional elements that are more than generic computers being used to carry out the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not meet the requirements of §101 and is ineligible.
Claim 11 is directed to a method that is the same as that carried out by the system of claim 2 and is rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 20 is a medium embodying code to do the same abstract method of claim 2 and 11 and is rejected for the same reasoning supra.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 10, 13 and 14 merely further define the graphics for the input of the wager or the displaying of the result. These extra solution activities fail to practically apply the abstract idea similar to above for claim 2.
Dependent claims 8-9 and 17-18 merely further define the abstract process by defining what data is used to make the abstract wagering outcome decision. The mere usage of more specific abstract data does not, alone or in combination, contribute significantly more to the abstract idea and the claims would still be ineligible for the same reasons as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/05/11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that getting data from other sources is an improvement to a user interface. Examiner disagrees. The game shows a wager either way. The data gathered is just to get a pseudorandom number to determine the outcome likely for regulatory reasons. Either way, the user does not interact with the gathering interface.
Applicant presents no arguments against the other rejections or amendments.
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
Prosecution Insights