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 1-18 and 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed, 10/21/25, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative asserts that the rejection under 35 USC 101 are not directed to non-statutory subject matter identified as a certain method of organizing human activity. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims recite additional elements that are i) not directed generic, conventional, or well-known (see Remarks, pg. 10), ii) not extra solution activity because they impose meaningful limits on the claims that are not incidental to the process or product (see Remarks, pg. 10-11); iii) alter the flow of operation of the claimed electronic gaming machine that is not merely nominal or tangential to the claim (see Remarks, pg. 10-11); and iv) the claimed electronic gaming machine includes a housing with an access door, a security monitoring circuit, and additional elements pertaining to the detected opening and closing of the access door that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are found to be directed to a certain method of organizing human activity such as a managing a play of an game in which the additional elements are found to be conventional, routine, and well-known components that are mere instructions to invoke an electronic gaming machine to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application because they perform their well-known function to conform with regulatory requirements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea.
With respect to the first argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that additional elements of the claim are not generic, convention, or well-known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite additional elements such as “a housing comprising an access door, a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing; a processor; and a memory device; and a display device. As noted in the Office Action, Vancura discloses a conventional gaming machine includes a housing, a processor, a memory device, and a display device that well-known, conventional and routine components of an electronic gaming machine to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). Moreover, Gaming Labs Certified, specifically in its “Standard Series GLI-11:Gaming Devices” discloses conventional standards for an electronic gaming machine that includes an access door and a security monitoring circuit that disables the formation of any offer, stores data in non-volatile memory to store the display state, load stored data to reconstitute the display state and enable formation of the first offer following the closing of the access door (see Gaming Labs, “Machine Doors” – pg. 16-17; sections associated with “Critical NV Memory”, pg. 21-25; “Game Program Interruption and Resumption”, pg. 72; “Game History Recall, pg. 76-77). It follows that these additional elements are generic, conventional, and well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art as highly-generalized functions and components that are utilized to conform with standard regulatory requirements. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the second argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are not extra solution activity because they impose meaningful limits on the claims that are not incidental to the process or product (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite steps and/or instructions of managing the game that are directed to a desired result from opening and closing the access door on the electronic gaming device. As noted above, these conforms with regulatory requirements but fails to provide details of how the technological solution to the technical problem is accomplished that might integrate the claim into a practical application. Instead the claim invoked highly-generalized electronic gaming machine components merely as a tool to perform an existing regulatory process that amounts to merely applying the abstract idea into a conventional electronic gaming machine and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to the third argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the additional elements alter the flow of operation of the claimed electronic gaming machine that is not merely nominal or tangential (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the additional elements of the amended claims recite steps and/or instructions that merely conform with regulatory requirements of an electronic gaming machine to be used in a commercial wagering game environment. It follows that these additional elements do not integrate the claim into a practical application but amount to mere instructions to apply an exception which includes a common place business method (e.g., managing a game) being applied on a conventional electronic gaming machine which does not integrate the claim into a practical application and/or solve a technical solution to a technical problem (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For at least these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to the fourth argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended limitations directed to a housing with an access door, a security monitoring circuit, and additional elements pertaining to the detected opening and closing of the access door amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown through the Gaming Labs, the conventional standards for an electronic gaming machine for an access door, a security monitoring circuit, and steps pertaining to the detected opening and closing of the access doors recite conventional steps for conforming with regulatory standards that are well-known, routine, and conventional to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. It follows that these elements when considered individually and/or as collection of elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea but mere steps to implement a common place business method (e.g., managing a game) by invoke a conventional electronic gaming machine to implement the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection 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 1-18 and 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 limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
Claim 1 (currently amended): An electronic gaming machine comprising: a housing comprising an access door a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor in association with a sequence comprising a plurality of plays of a game, - certain method of organizing human activity; cause the processor to:
communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of:
a first symbol accumulated at a first symbol display position, and a first award associated with the first symbol accumulated at the first symbol display position, -certain method of organizing human activity; and
when an opening of the access door is detected via the security monitoring circuit:
disable any formation of any offer based on the first award associated with the first symbol accumulated at the first symbol display position,
store data associated with a display state of the electronic gaming machine, the stored data comprising at least the first symbol and the first award, and
following at least a closing of the access door detected via the security monitoring circuit: load the stored data to reconstitute the display state of the electronic gaming machine,
enable a formation of a first offer formed, at least in part, based on an amount of the first award associated with the first symbol accumulated at the first symbol display position, -certain method of organizing human activity;
responsive to a rejection of the first offer and an occurrence of a modification event associated with the first symbol accumulated at the first symbol display position, communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of an amount of a second award associated with the first symbol accumulated at the first symbol display position, the amount of the second award being determined based on the amount of the first award and a random modification applied to the amount of the first award. -certain method of organizing human activity;
The limitations indicated above are found to recite a series of rules and/or instructions for managing a sequence for a plurality of plays of a game which is analogous to managing a play of a game that the courts have indicated is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. For at least this reason, 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: “[a]n electronic gaming machine comprising: a housing comprising an access door a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing a processor;” “a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, in associated with a sequence comprising a plurality of plays of a game, cause the processor to:”, “communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of:” “when an opening of the access door is detected via the security monitoring circuit: disable any formation of any offer based on the first award associated with the first symbol accumulated at the first symbol display position, store data associated with a display state of the electronic gaming machine, the stored data comprising at least the first symbol and the first award, and following at least a closing of the access door detected via the security monitoring circuit: load the stored data to reconstitute the display state of the electronic gaming machine,” and “communicate data that results in a display, by the display device,” recites steps and./or instructions 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)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to integrate the abstract idea 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 claimed additional elements such as: “a processor”, “a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions”, and “a display device” when viewed individually and/or as whole recite highly-generalized computer components that have been invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform 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)). For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprises a processor, a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor in associated with a sequence comprising a plurality of plays of a game, cause the processor to: communicate data that results in a display, by a display device (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). Moreover, Gaming Labs’s “Standard Series GLI-11: Gaming Devices” discloses that a conventional electronic gaming machine to conform with regulatory standards comprises an access door and a security monitoring circuit, and non-volatile memory that when an opening of the access door is detected via the security monitoring circuit: disable any formation of any offer based on the first award associated with the first symbol accumulated at the first symbol display position, store data associated with a display state of the electronic gaming machine, the stored data comprising at least the first symbol and the first award, and following at least a closing of the access door detected via the security monitoring circuit: load the stored data to reconstitute the display state of the electronic gaming machine upon opening and closing a door (see Gaming Labs, “Machine Doors” – pg. 16-17; sections associated with “Critical NV Memory”, pg. 21-25; “Game Program Interruption and Resumption”, pg. 72; “Game History Recall, pg. 76-77). For at least these reasons, the additional elements are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claim 12, the claim recites subject matter substantially the same as discussed with respect to independent Claim 1 above. However, the claim recite modified limitations directed to managing a game such as: “in association with a sequence comprising a plurality of plays of a game” – certain method of organizing human activity; “responsive to an offer generation event in associated with the sequence: form an offer based on a quantity of the plurality of awards, responsive to an acceptance of the offer, terminate the sequence, and responsive to a rejection of the offer, modify the offer by modifying an amount of at least one of the quantity of the plurality of awards from a first amount to a second amount, the second amount being determined based on the first amount and a random modification applied to the first amount” – certain method of organizing human activity. The remaining limitations which are addressed above with respect to independent Claim 1 are incorporated herein. For at least these reasons, independent Claim 12 is found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
The additional limitations such as: “[a]n electronic gaming machine comprising: a housing comprising an access door a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing a processor;” “a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, in associated with a sequence comprising a plurality of plays of a game, cause the processor to:”, “communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of:” “when an opening of the access door is detected via the security monitoring circuit: disable any formation of any offer based on the first award associated with the first symbol accumulated at the first symbol display position, store data associated with a display state of the electronic gaming machine, the stored data comprising at least the first symbol and the first award, and following at least a closing of the access door detected via the security monitoring circuit: load the stored data to reconstitute the display state of the electronic gaming machine,” and “communicate data that results in a display, by the display device,” recites steps and./or instructions 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)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
With respect to Step 2B, the claims recite the substantially the same additional elements as independent Claim 1 and are not found to amount so significantly more for substantially the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding independent Claim 17, the claim recites subject matter substantially the same as discussed with respect to independent Claim 1 above. However, the claim recites modified limitations directed to managing a game such as: “a sequence comprising a plurality of plays of a game” – certain method of organizing human activity; “responsive to an offer generation event occurring in associated with the sequence and a first quantity of symbols associated with awards accumulated at a first quantity of symbol display positions” - certain method of organizing human activity; “a first offer based, at least in part, on the awards associated with the first quantity of symbols accumulated at the first quantity of symbol display positions” - certain method of organizing human activity; “responsive to a rejection of the first offer, modifying an amount of at least one of the awards associated with at least one of the first quantity of symbols accumulated at at least one of the first quantity of symbol display positions from a first amount to a second amount that is determined based on the first amount and a random modification applied to the first amount,” and “responsive to the offer generation event occurring in associated with the sequence of a second, different quantity of symbols associated with awards accumulated at a second, different quantity of symbol display positions” - certain method of organizing human activity; “a second offer based, at least in part, on the awards associated with the sequence and a second, different quantity of symbols associated with awards accumulated at a first quantity of symbol display positions” - certain method of organizing human activity. The remaining limitations which are addressed above with respect to independent Claim 1 are incorporated herein. For at least these reasons, independent Claim 17 is found to recite a grouping of abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1.
The additional limitations such as: “[a]n electronic gaming machine comprising: a housing comprising an access door a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing a processor;” “a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, in associated with a sequence comprising a plurality of plays of a game, cause the processor to:”, “communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of:” “when an opening of the access door is detected via the security monitoring circuit: disable any formation of any offer based on the first award associated with the first symbol accumulated at the first symbol display position, store data associated with a display state of the electronic gaming machine, the stored data comprising at least the first symbol and the first award, and following at least a closing of the access door detected via the security monitoring circuit: load the stored data to reconstitute the display state of the electronic gaming machine,” and “communicate data that results in a display, by the display device,” recites steps and./or instructions 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)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
With respect to Step 2B, the claims recite the substantially the same additional elements as independent Claim 1 and are not found to amount so significantly more for substantially the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, 18, and 20, the limitations of the dependent claims have been reviewed and analyzed and were found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, 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, claims 1-18 and 20 are found to be rejection under 35 USC 101 for being directed to a grouping of abstract ideas 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