DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 4/20/2026 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claims 2, 10 and 11. Therefore, claims 2 – 21 are pending.
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 2 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2 – 21 are all within at least one of the four categories of invention, and have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 2 – 21 recites at least one step or instruction for a wagering game, which is grouped as a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve concepts performed in the human mind, namely observation, evaluation and judgement, which are mental processes and managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions, which are methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 2 – 21 recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 2 recites:
An apparatus, comprising: a database including information describing a plurality of players, a gaming console having a display and at least one processor configured to:
render a graphical user interface (GUI) including a control button on the display;
based on the information, identify a first player of the plurality of players who is present at a casino;
associate the first player with the control button, wherein upon activation of the control button, video pertaining to the first player is rendered in the GUI;
receive, from an observer, at least one criterion for selecting a first game of a plurality of games to be played by the first player;
determine when the first game matches the at least one criterion;
receive a bet wagered by the observer on a performance of the first player playing the first games;
display on the display, a historical performance outcome of the first player, and a present performance outcome of the first player playing the first game;
determine a payout based on the present performance outcome of the first player, wherein the present performance outcome of the first player is a sum of a plurality of individual outcomes;
credit the payout to the observer who placed the bet on the present performance outcome of the first player playing the first game; and
notify the observer when a second game of the plurality of games to be played by the first player does not match the at least one criterion,
wherein rendering the video pertaining to the first player comprises displaying depictions of a plurality of game elements in the first game that affect the present performance outcome of the first game in a disguised format, thereby preventing the observer to vary the bet on the performance of the first player playing the first game, the disguised format comprises changing at least one of the depicted plurality of game elements to another at least one game element, that results in a different plurality of individual outcomes having a sum that is equal to the sum of the plurality of individual outcomes.
Independent Claim 10 recites:
A method for managing a gaming console having a display, at least one processor, and a connection to a database including information describing a plurality of players, the method comprising:
receiving from an observer at least one criterion for selecting a first game of a plurality of games to be played by a first player of the plurality of players;
determining at a first time the first game that matches the at least one criterion is to be played at a first gaming table;
rendering and displaying a video pertaining to the first player playing the first game by displaying depictions of a plurality of game elements in the first game that affect plurality of individual outcomes, in a disguised format, thereby preventing the observer to vary the bet on the performance of the first player playing the first game, the disguised format comprises changing at least one of the depicted plurality of game elements to another at least one game element, that results in a different plurality of individual outcomes having a sum that is equal to the sum of the plurality of individual outcomes;
receiving a first bet from the observer for the first game to be played at the first gaming table;
determining an outcome of the first game played at the first gaming table;
determining a first payout based on the first bet and the respective outcome of the first game, wherein the respective outcome is the sum of the plurality of individual outcomes;
crediting the observer based on the first payout;
determining, a second time after the first time when a second of the plurality of games to be played at the first gaming table does not match the at least one criterion; and
notifying the observer that the second of the plurality of games does not match the at least one criterion.
Independent Claim 11 recites:
A method for managing a gaming console having a display, at least one processor, and a connection to a database including information describing a plurality of players, the method comprising:
rendering, by at least one processor, a graphical user interface (GUI) including one or more control buttons on the display;
based on the information, describing a first player of the plurality of players at a venue;
associating, by the at least one processor, the first players with a corresponding button of the one or more control buttons, wherein upon activation of the control buttons, video pertaining to the associated first player is rendered in the GUI;
determining
(1) at least one criterion provided by an observer for a gaming device,
(2) a first time at which a first gaming device matches the at least one criterion;
(3) a second time after the first time at which a second gaming device meets the at least one criterion, and
(4) a third time after the second time at which a third gaming device that meets the at least one criterion; and
presenting on the GUI the first, second, and third gaming devices, and
determining a payout based on a present performance outcome of the first player, wherein the present performance outcome of the first player is a sum of a plurality of individual outcomes,
wherein rendering the video pertaining to the first player comprises displaying depictions of a plurality of game elements in the first game that affect the present outcome of the first game in a disguised format, thereby preventing the observer to vary the bet on the performance of the first player playing the first game, the disguised format comprises changing at least one of the depicted plurality of game elements to another at least one game element, that results in a different plurality of individual outcomes having a sum that is equal to the sum of the plurality of individual outcomes.
Accordingly, as indicated in bold above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea. Further, dependent Claims 3 – 9 and 12 – 21 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
This added limitation is itself part of the recited abstract idea rather than an additional element. Concealing or disguising outcome-related information from a person placing a wager, so that the person cannot vary the wager based on advance knowledge of the result, is a fundamental practice of organizing a wagering activity and a rule of the game (analogous to concealing cards or markings from a participant). Selecting and substituting which game element (e.g., symbol) is displayed, such that a different set of individual outcomes nonetheless yields the same total, further recites a mental/mathematical manipulation; a person can determine, observe and substitute equivalent values whose sum is preserved. The amendment therefore adds further detail to the abstract idea and does not remove the claims from the abstract-idea groupings. See In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (rules and arrangements of markings for a wagering game are abstract); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rules for conducting a wagering game are abstract).
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 2, 10 and 11 (and their respective dependent Claims 3 – 9 and 12 – 21) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 2, 10 and 11), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of a display, processor, graphical user interface (GUI), a database, a gaming console and server as recited in independent Claims 2, 10 and 11 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Furthermore, GUI and the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 2, 10 and 11 (and their respective dependent Claims 3 – 9 and 12 – 21) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract
idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.
a display, processor, graphical user interface (GUI), a database, a gaming console and server as recited in independent claims 2, 10 and 11). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Reeves et al., US 20160063799 discloses that graphical user interfaces (GUIs) are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device and are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 82).
Rehill et al., US 10726678 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the graphical user interfaces are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device (Col 22, lines 44-47).
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 2, 10 and 11 (and their respective dependent Claims 3 – 9 and 12 – 21) are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the Claims 2 – 21 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: a display, processor, graphical user interface (GUI), a database, a gaming console and server as recited in the independent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components
which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic
functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as
well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner
(e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev.
Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Like SAP America vs InvestPic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 2 - 21 amounts to
mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or
other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or
transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the
fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does
not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing
technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a
technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification
for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or
upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide
sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention
as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of
how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the
prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution
that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d
1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide
sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any
technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 2 – 21 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 2 – 21 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements
do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified
additional elements in independent Claims 2, 10 and 11 (and their dependent claims) do not add
significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other
additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional
elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these
above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed
functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of
generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept
sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the
above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful
limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea
such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 2 – 21 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a
technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 2 – 21 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea
itself.
Accordingly, claims 2 – 21 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as
being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme
Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 10 – 12 even if the pending claims recite a judicial exception, the amended “disguised format” limitation integrates the exception into a practical application because it provides a technical solution “rooted in technology by using it to disguise the game,” which makes it harder for the observer to locate the actual game and thereby prevents the observer from varying the bet based on advance knowledge of the outcome. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Further, the disguising recited and described is a relabeling of displayed game elements pursuant to a consistent mapping (e.g., “cherry” → “dog”) that, by Applicant’s own description ([0518] of Applicant’s specification), leaves the underlying game the same and preserves the same total outcome. This is a manipulation of the information presented to the user, not an improvement to the display technology, the processor, or any other computer capability. It changes what symbols are shown, not how the computer operates. Manipulating or tailoring displayed information is itself part of the abstract idea and does not amount to a technical improvement. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350; Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d 1363.
Applicant relies on specification paragraph [0517], which states that the manipulation “make it harder for the observer to locate the actual game.” This passage describes a benefit to the wagering scheme rather than a technical improvement to a computer or technology. The problem of a bettor gaining an advantage by learning an outcome before wagering is a wagering-integrity and game design problem that exists independently of any computer and is not a problem necessarily rooted in computer technology. That the wager is placed through an electronic device does not convert the wagering integrity problem into a technical one. Moreover, the claim itself does not recite locating, identifying, or securing the actual game; the recited mechanism is limited to substituting displayed elements such that a different set of individual outcomes yields the same sum, which is an abstract data/mathematical manipulation. The specification’s functional description does not disclose any specific, unconventional technical implementation. See Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1263–64.
Further, unlike DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d 1245, where the claimed solution was necessarily rooted in computer technology to address a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks and overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events otherwise triggered, the present claims do not alter or improve any routine, conventional computer operation. The recited computer renders symbols in the ordinary manner; only the choice of which symbol is rendered is changed. The claims therefore remain directed to applying an abstract idea on generic computer components.
Lastly, Applicant states that the Step 2B inquiry is moot but reserves the right to present argument. For completeness, and for the reasons set forth above under Step 2B, the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, including the newly added disguising limitation do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, but instead recite generic computer components performing well-understood, routine and conventional functions and merely implement the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer.
Furthermore, the problem identified by Applicant, that a person observing a game may gain a betting advantage by learning the actual outcome before wagering is a problem of wagering integrity and game design, not a problem necessarily rooted in computer technology. The fact that the wager is placed “via an electronic device” does not transform a wagering-integrity problem into a technical problem. Concealing outcome information from a bettor to control informed wagering is a long-standing feature of games and wagering activity that predates and is independent of any computer implementation. The claimed “solution” (displaying substituted symbols that preserve the same sum) is a conceptual game-design solution implemented on generic computers, and is therefore unlike the claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where the claimed solution was necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Here, nothing in the routine, conventional functioning of the recited computer is altered or improved.
Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
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 ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights