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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 04/02/2026. Presently, claims 22-40 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 22-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an electronic gaming system comprising: a plurality of electronic gaming devices; and a progressive controller distinct from and in networked communication with each gaming device of the plurality of electronic gaming devices, wherein the progressive controller comprises at least one processor and at least one memory device, wherein the at least one memory device includes computer-executable instructions stored thereon that cause the at least one processor to: store, in the at least one memory device, a number of linked progressive free spins; cause display of a linked progressive meter simultaneously at each gaming device of the plurality of electronic gaming devices, wherein the linked progressive meter includes the number of linked progressive free spins, the progressive controller continuously updating the number of linked progressive free spins at each gaming device; store, in the at least one memory device, a data structure associating a plurality of input values each with a set of data tables of a plurality of sets of data tables, wherein each set of data tables of the plurality of sets of data tables is associated with a distinct input value; in response to a feature game being triggered at a first gaming device of the plurality of electronic gaming devices: receive a transmission signal from the first gaming device, the transmission signal identifying an input value provided at the first gaming device prior to the feature game being triggered; perform a lookup of the data structure using the input value, the lookup identifying a first set of data tables from the plurality of sets of data tables stored in the at least one memory device; generate at least one output of a random number generator (RNG); generate an outcome of the feature game using at least one data table from the first set of data tables in connection with the at least one RNG output and the number of linked progressive free spins; and cause display at the first gaming device of one or more spin outcomes of the feature game based on the generated outcome of the feature game, generate, at the progressive controller, additional subsequent outcomes of the feature game for any one of the plurality of electronic gaming devices based on additional lookups of the data structure performed by the progressive controller. The above underlined portions of the claim relate to an abstract idea fitting within the categories of mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. First, the fall within mental process as many of the limitations are merely gathering data and then processing that data with a result which fits within the mental process category. Second, the claim limitations are rules for how to operate a wagering game which falls within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is merely applied to a technological environment which is not enough to be considered to be a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are all generic computing parts which the Supreme Court in Alice determined to not be enough to bring claims into patent eligibility. Other independent claims have the same flaw as discussed above. All dependent claims have been evaluated but only add additional abstract ideas to the independent claim and thus do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented in the response submitted on 04/02/2026 have been considered but are not found to be convincing.
Applicant first argues that the claims cannot be a mental process because the human mind cannot preform the limitations listed (Arguments, pages 11 and 12). Applicant makes this argument under the analysis that the human mind cannot effectuate displays and storage of data structures. However, this only comes into play because Applicant has applied the abstract idea to a technological environment. Merely adding machine elements to a claim is no longer the standard after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice. Thus, merely because Applicant has now put the abstract idea into a technological environment of computers does not now make the claims patent eligible.
Applicant then argues that the claims cannot be directed towards organizing human activity because the “claims are not directed to interactions between people but are instead directed to controlling multiple electronic devices,” (Arguments, page 12). This argument has no support though in the law. Presently, the MPEP is clear that rules for a wagering game fall within “certain methods of organizing human activity,” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). Thus, Applicant’s argument is not supported by the MPEP and as such the claims are still viewed as certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant’s argument that the progressive controller can generate additional game outcomes thus reducing data storage (Arguments, page 12), is not found to be convincing. What Applicant is arguing here is the definition of a “thin client,” that is terminals where processing is done by a server rather than the terminal. Such thin clients are notoriously well-known (See, e.g., US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0256418 to Kleppen at 0058).
With regard to Applicant’s argument about sharing a scalable prize amount (Arguments, pages 12-13), even though Applicant considers this to be a technical problem, and calls it a technical problem in their speciation (0020), it is not viewed as a technical problem but as a business problem. That is this is viewed as a matter of fairness and a way to maximize profits, but does not make the system/machine run in any different way, rather it just follows different rules of how the wagering game will work, and as such is an abstract idea rather than a solution to a technical problem.
Applicant then repeats arguments related to the difference between thick clients and thin clients (See Arguments pages 13-14 where Applicant argues that saving of data by only having the progressive control determine paytables/outcomes) which has already been addressed above.
While Applicant presents additional arguments, they are all related to reduction in storage which, as shown above, is well-known in the art as the difference between thick clients and thin client systems.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be convincing and a rejection based upon 35 USC 101 is appropriate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights