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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 12th, 2026 has been entered.
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 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-13, a method (i.e., a process) in claims 14-19 and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. a manufacture) in claim 20.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
Claim 1: A system comprising:
an image recording device configured to determine an eye position of a player;
a display device;
a memory device storing a database, the database defining (i) a jackpot amount associated with a progressive jackpot, and (ii) one or more source accounts; and
a processor in communication with the memory device, the image recording device and the display device, the processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory device, which when executed, cause the processor to at least:
control the display device to prompt the player to opt-in to viewing digital content or opt-out of viewing digital content;
receive a selection from the player of whether to opt-in to viewing digital content in response to the prompt, the selection defining an opt-in status;
receive at least one player input including an input amount, the player input associated with triggering a base game instance;
when the opt-in status indicates the player has not opted-in, store a first incremental value funded solely from the input amount, wherein a progressive jackpot is incremented by the first incremental value when the opt-in status indicates the player has not opted-in;
when the first incremental value is stored, in response to initiation of a base game instance, increment the jackpot amount by the first incremental value by transferring the first incremental value from the input amount to the jackpot amount stored in the database;
when the opt-in status indicates the player has opt-in, control the display device to display digital content;
while the display device is displaying the digital content, monitor, using the image recording device, the eye position of the player determined by the image recording device to confirm the player is viewing the displayed digital content;
in response to the confirming that the player is viewing the digital content, store a second incremental value that is greater than the first incremental value;
when the second incremental value is stored, in response to initiation of a base game instance, increment the jackpot amount by the second incremental value by transferring (i) a first portion of the second incremental value from the input amount to the jackpot amount stored in the database and (ii) a second portion of the second incremental value from at least one of the one or more source accounts to the jackpot amount stored in the database; and
in response to incrementing the jackpot amount by the second incremental value, control the display device to display a meter indicating at least one increase of the progressive jackpot by the second incremental amount, such that a running total amount of the progressive jackpot increases more rapidly in response to the digital content being displayed.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for incrementing a jackpot amount responsive to the presentation of visual content as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a game interface.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a processor, an image recording device, and a display device it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonable include other devices such as generic computers, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a processor, an image recording device, and a display device amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0020], [0026], [0039]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0020], [0026], [0039]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-20 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a processor, an image recording device, a display device a mobile device as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsen (US 2013/0331172) in view of Dewaal et al (US 2009/0111561) in further view of Manzo (US 2006/0063587) in yet further view of Nguyen (US 2014/0274388).
Claim 1: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches a system comprising:
an image recording device configured to determine an eye position of the player (Nguyen Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0040]),
a display device (Olsen Figure 1; Element 104; Paragraph [0041]);
a memory device storing a database, the database defining (i) a jackpot amount associated with a progressive jackpot, and (ii) one or more source accounts (-wherein the stored award funding pools are understood as equivalent to the described database- Olsen Paragraphs [0063]-[0066], [0080], [0090]; Figure 3;) and
a processor in communication with the memory device, the image recording device and the display device, the processor configured to execute instructions stored in a memory device (Olsen Paragraphs [0044], [0179], [0181]), which when executed, cause the processor to at least:
control the display device to prompt the player to opt-in to viewing digital content or opt-out of viewing digital content (Manzo Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraph [0012]);
receive a selection from the player of whether opt-in to viewing digital content in response to the prompt (Manzo Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraphs [0092], [0012]);
receive at least one player input including an input amount, the player input associated with triggering a base game instance (-describing the placement of the player wager- Olsen Paragraphs [0070]; Figure 3: Element 324, 344);
when the opt-in status indicates the player has not opted-in, store a first incremental value funded solely from the input amount, wherein a progressive jackpot is incremented by the first incremental value when the opt-in status indicates the player has not opted-in (-describing the incrementing of the jackpot based on only a first amount defined portion of the placed wagers and excluding a second additional amount provided by the third party when their advertisements are displayed- Olsen Paragraph [0206]);
when the first incremental value is stored, in response to initiation of a base game instance, increment the jackpot amount by the first incremental value by transferring the first incremental value from the input amount to the jackpot amount stored in the database (Olsen Paragraphs [0063]-[0066], [0080], [0090]; Figure 3;);
when the opt-in status indicates the player has opted-in, control the display device to display digital content (Olsen Paragraph [0175], [0177], [0186] & Manzo Figures 4, 7; Elements 144, 148, 160, 202, 204; Paragraph [0012]);
while the display device is displaying the digital content, monitor, using the image recording device, the eye position of the player determined by the image recording device to confirm the player is viewing the displayed digital content (Nguyen Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0029], [0039]-[0044], [0052]);
in response to the confirming that the player is viewing the digital content (Nguyen Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0029], [0039]-[0044], [0052]), store a second incremental value that is greater than the first incremental value (-describing the incrementing of the jackpot based on a second additional amount provided by the third party when their advertisements are displayed- Olsen Paragraph [0206]);
when the second incremental value is stored, in response to initiation of a base game instance, increment the jackpot amount by the second incremental value by transferring (i) a first portion of the second incremental value from the input amount to the jackpot amount stored in the database and (ii) a second portion of the second incremental value from at least one of the one or more source accounts to the jackpot amount stored in the database(-describing the incrementing of the jackpot based on both a first amount defined portion of the placed wagers and a second additional amount provided by the third party when their advertisements are displayed- Olsen Paragraph [0206]); and
in response to incrementing the jackpot amount by the second incremental value, control the display device to display a meter indicating at least one increase of the progressive jackpot by the second incremental value, such that a running total amount of the progressive jackpot increases more rapidly in response to the digital content being displayed (-Wherein Olsen teaches the increase of the contribution amount due to the display of the digital content and the portion of wager amount while Dewaal demonstrates the presentation of progressive meters that change to reflect increased values as combined herein below- Olsen Paragraph [0206] & Dewaal Figures 5E, 5F; Elements 142, 144(a-c)).
The prior art of Olsen teaches funding progressive awards according to a portion of the player’s wager amount and a contribution based on the presentation of advertisement content to the player (Olsen Paragraph [0206]) as well as presenting selectively available awards based on the available funding (Olsen Figure 5b). Additionally, the increase in a jackpot value occurring “more rapidly” is understood as an implicit property of the inclusion of an additional contribution rate provided by the advertiser in Olsen beyond the portion of player wagers as described by Olsen (Olsen Paragraph [0206]). While Olsen does not explicitly teach the display of a meter indicating increases of the progressive jackpot, this feature is taught by the analogous prior art reference of Dewaal (Dewaal Figures 5E, 5F; Elements 142, 144(a-c)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the incrementing progressive prize meters including personal progressive meters of Dewaal with Olsen in order to provide the predictable and expected result of informing the players of the current value of available progressive awards as they grow with contributions of Olsen.
The prior art combination of Olsen & Dewaal is silent regarding the inclusion of providing the player a prompt wherein they may opt-in or opt-out of viewing digital content however in an analogous invention the prior art of Manzo teaches that it was known to provide these prompts in gaming systems adapted to present digital content in the form of advertisements to players in exchange for providing greater awards (Manzo Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraph [0012], [0095]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective date of the claimed invention to have included the use of a prompt to allowed the player to opt-in or opt-out of viewing advertisements as taught by Manzo in the combination of Olsen & Dewaal order to provide the predictable and expected result of utilizing known input mechanism to indicate their digital content viewing preferences of additional but optional digital content, wherein the viewing of the same provides advantages tied to game play as taught by Manzo (Manzo Abstract; Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraph [0012], [0094]).
The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, & Manzo teaches the invention as cited above and including the incrementation of progressive jackpots responsive to the presentation of advertisements (Olsen Paragraph [0206]) and the player provided input to opt-in or opt-out of viewing advertisements (Manzo Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraph [0012], [0095]). While the combination of Olsen, Dewaal, & Manzo is silent regarding the detection of a player’s eye position with a recording device to determine if a player is viewing the advertising content or input selections, this feature is taught in the analogous gaming invention of Nguyen (Nguyen Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0029], [0039]-[0044], [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the detection of a player’s eye position with a recording device to determine if a player is viewing the advertising content or input selections as taught by Nguyen in the combination of Olsen, Dewaal, & Manzo in order to provide the predictable and expected benefits of determining when to present advertisements and how much to charge the advertisers as taught by Nguyen (Nguyen Paragraph [0040]).
Claim 2: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to increase the running total amount of the progressive jackpot by the stored one of the first incremental value or the second incremental value in response to a player wager (Olsen Paragraph [0206]).
Claim 3: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the system of Claim 2, wherein the stored one of the first incremental value or the second incremental value is defined as a percentage of the player wager (Olsen Paragraph [0206]).
Claim 4: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to transfer at least a portion of the stored one of the first incremental value or the second incremental value to a temporary holding account associated with the jackpot amount stored int eh database (-Funds are place in pools prior to distribution -Olsen Figure 8; Paragraphs [0192], [0196]).
Claim 5: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
control the display device to display a user interface, the user interface including a digital content display area;
when the opt-in status indicates the player has opt-in control the display device to display digital content in the digital content display area (Olsen Figure 5A; Paragraphs [0056], [0175], [0177] & Manzo Figures 4, 5; Elements 144, 146, 172);
when the opt-in status indicates the player has not opted-in, prevent the display device from displaying the digital content in the digital content display area (Olsen Figure 5A; Paragraphs [0056], [0175], [0177] & Manzo Figures 4, 5; Elements 144, 146, 172).
Claim 6: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more source accounts is a third party funding account and wherein the processor is further configured to, in response to the progressive jackpot being incremented, transfer a difference between the second incremental value and the first incremental value from the third-party funding account to the progressive jackpot (-Understood as equivalent to transferring the third party contribution in exchange for viewing advertisements- Olsen Figure 8; Paragraphs [0187]-[0197], [0204], [0206]).
Claim 7: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the system of Claim 6, wherein the third-party funding account is associated with first third-party content provider of a plurality of third-party content providers, and wherein the processor is configured to:
in response to controlling the display device to display the digital content, identify the first third-party content provider as being associated with the digital content;
perform a lookup in a database to identify the third-party funding account associated with the first third-party content provider; and
in response to identifying the third-party funding account, transfer the difference from the third-party funding account to the progressive jackpot (Olsen Paragraphs [0198]-[0201], [0204], [0206]).
Claim 8: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to increase the incremental value associated with the progressive jackpot from the first incremental value to the second incremental value for a predefined period of time (-relating to both the period of the advertising campaign and different holiday rates for the same- Olsen Paragraphs [0196], [0201]).
Claim 9: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a selection from a player to opt-out to viewing the digital content; and in response to receiving the selection to opt-out, prevent the display device to display the digital content (-Wherein advertisements are selectively enabled based on player profiles that is understood as selective presentation of advertisement responsive to player selection- Olsen Paragraphs [0202]).
Claim 10: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to transfer at least a portion of the stored one of the first incremental value the second incremental value is to a personal jackpot associated with a player (Dewaal Figures 5E, 5F; Elements 144(a-c)).
Claim 11: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the system of Claim 10, wherein the portion transferred to the personal jackpot includes a difference between the second incremental value and the first incremental value (-Understood as equivalent to transferring the third party contribution in exchange for viewing advertisements- Olsen Figure 8; Paragraphs [0187]-[0197], [0204], [0206]).
Claim 12: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
in response to determining the player is not viewing the digital content (Nguyen Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0029], [0039]-[004], [0052]), store the first incremental value as the incremental value for incrementing the progressive jackpot (-describing the incrementing of the jackpot based on only a first amount defined portion of the placed wagers and excluding a second additional amount provided by the third party when their advertisements are displayed- Olsen Paragraph [0206]).
.
Claim 13: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to transmit content data to a mobile device, the content data configured to cause the mobile device to display the digital content (Olsen Paragraphs [0038], [0043]).
Claim 14: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches a method for increasing a progressive jackpot, the method performed by a processor in communication with an image recording device, a display device, (Olsen Paragraphs [0044], [0179], [0181])and a memory device storing a database, the database defining (i) a jackpot amount associated with a progressive jackpot, and (ii) one or more source accounts (-wherein the stored award funding pools are understood as equivalent to the described database- Olsen Paragraphs [0063]-[0066], [0080], [0090]; Figure 3;),
the method comprising:
controlling, by the processor, the display device (Olsen Figure 1; Element 104; Paragraph [0041]) to prompt a player to opt-in to viewing digital content or opt-out of viewing digital content (Manzo Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraph [0012]);
receiving by the processor, a selection from a player of whether to opt-in to viewing digital content in response to the prompt, the selection defining an opt-in status (Manzo Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraphs [0092], [0012]);
receiving, by the processor, at least one player input including an input amount, the player input associated with triggering a base game instance (-describing the placement of the player wager- Olsen Paragraphs [0070]; Figure 3: Element 324, 344);
when the opt-in status indicates the player has not opted-in, store a first incremental value funded solely by from the input amount, wherein a progressive jackpot is incremented by the first incremental value when the opt-in status indicates the player has not opted-in (-describing the incrementing of the jackpot based on only a first amount defined portion of the placed wagers and excluding a second additional amount provided by the third party when their advertisements are displayed- Olsen Paragraph [0206]);
when the first incremental value is stored, in response to initiation of a base game instance, incrementing, by the processor, the jackpot amount by the first incremental value by transferring the first incremental value from the input amount to the jackpot amount stored in the database (Olsen Paragraphs [0063]-[0066], [0080], [0090]; Figure 3;);
when the opt-in status indicates the player has opted-in, controlling, by the processor (Olsen Paragraphs [0044], [0179], [0181]), the display device (Olsen Figure 1; Element 104; Paragraph [0041]) to display digital content (Olsen Paragraph [0175], [0177], [0186] & Manzo Figures 4, 7; Elements 144, 148, 160, 202, 204; Paragraph [0012]));
while the display device is displaying the digital content, monitoring, by the processor using the image recording device, an eye position of the player determined by the image recording device to confirm the player is viewing the displayed digital content (Nguyen Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0029], [0039]-[0044], [0052]);
in response to the confirming that the player is viewing the digital content storing by the processor (Nguyen Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0029], [0039]-[0044], [0052]), a second incremental value that is greater than the first incremental [value] (-describing the incrementing of the jackpot based on both a first amount defined portion of the placed wagers and a second additional amount provided by the third party when their advertisements are displayed- Olsen Paragraph [0206]); and
when the second incremental value is stored, in response to initiation of a base game instance, incrementing, by the processor, the jackpot amount by the second incremental value by transferring (i) a first portion of the second incremental value from the input amount to the jackpot amount stored in the database and (ii) a second portion of the second incremental value from at least one of the one or more source accounts to the jackpot amount stored in the database (-describing the incrementing of the jackpot based on both a first amount defined portion of the placed wagers and a second additional amount provided by the third party when their advertisements are displayed- Olsen Paragraph [0206]);
in response to storing the second incremental value, controlling, by the processor, the display device to display a meter indicating at least one increase of the progressive jackpot by the second incremental amount, such that a running total amount of the progressive jackpot increases more rapidly in response to the digital content being displayed (-Wherein Olsen teaches the increase of the amount due to the display of the digital content and the portion of wager amount while Dewaal demonstrates the presentation of progressive meters that change to reflect increased values as combined herein below- Olsen Paragraph [0206] & Dewaal Figures 5E, 5F; Elements 142, 144(a-c)).
The prior art of Olsen teaches funding progressive awards according to a portion of the player’s wager amount and a contribution based on the presentation of advertisement content to the player (Olsen Paragraph [0206]) as well as presenting selectively available awards based on the available funding (Olsen Figure 5b). Additionally, the increase in a jackpot value occurring “more rapidly” is understood as an implicit property of the inclusion of an additional contribution rate provided by the advertiser in Olsen beyond the portion of player wagers as described by Olsen (Olsen Paragraph [0206]). While Olsen does not explicitly teach the display of a meter indicating increases of the progressive jackpot, this feature is taught by the analogous prior art reference of Dewaal (Dewaal Figures 5E, 5F; Elements 142, 144(a-c)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the incrementing progressive prize meters including personal progressive meters of Dewaal with Olsen in order to provide the predictable and expected result of informing the players of the current value of available progressive awards as they grow with contributions of Olsen.
The prior art combination of Olsen & Dewaal is silent regarding the inclusion of providing the player a prompt wherein they may opt-in or opt-out of viewing digital content however in an analogous invention the prior art of Manzo teaches that it was known to provide these prompts in gaming systems adapted to present digital content in the form of advertisements to players in exchange for providing greater awards (Manzo Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraph [0012], [0095]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective date of the claimed invention to have included the use of a prompt to allowed the player to opt-in or opt-out of viewing advertisements as taught by Manzo in the combination of Olsen & Dewaal order to provide the predictable and expected result of utilizing known input mechanism to indicate their digital content viewing preferences of additional but optional digital content, wherein the viewing of the same provides advantages tied to game play as taught by Manzo (Manzo Abstract; Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraph [0012], [0094]).
The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, & Manzo teaches the invention as cited above and including the incrementation of progressive jackpots responsive to the presentation of advertisements (Olsen Paragraph [0206]) and the player provided input to opt-in or opt-out of viewing advertisements (Manzo Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraph [0012], [0095]). While the combination of Olsen, Dewaal, & Manzo is silent regarding the detection of a player’s eye position with a recording device to determine if a player is viewing the advertising content or input selections, this feature is taught in the analogous gaming invention of Nguyen (Nguyen Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0029], [0039]-[0044], [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the detection of a player’s eye position with a recording device to determine if a player is viewing the advertising content or input selections as taught by Nguyen in the combination of Olsen, Dewaal, & Manzo in order to provide the predictable and expected benefits of determining when to present advertisements and how much to charge the advertisers as taught by Nguyen (Nguyen Paragraph [0040]).
Claim 15: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the method of
Claim 14, further comprising:
controlling, by the processor, the display device to display a user interface, the user interface including a digital content display area;
when the opt-in status indicates the player has opted-in, controlling, by the processor, the display device to display digital content in the digital content display area (Olsen Figure 5A; Paragraphs [0056], [0175], [0177]) and
when the opt-in status indicates the player has not opted-in, preventing by the processor, the display device from displaying the digital content in the digital content display area (Olsen Figure 5A; Paragraphs [0056], [0175], [0177] & Manzo Figures 4, 5; Elements 144, 146, 172).
Claim 16: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the method of Claim 14, wherein [the] at least one or more source accounts is a third party funding account, and wherein the method further comprises, in response to the progressive jackpot being incremented, transferring, by the processor, a difference between the second incremental value and the first incremental value from a third-party funding account to the progressive jackpot (-Understood as equivalent to transferring the third party contribution in exchange for viewing advertisements- Olsen Figure 8; Paragraphs [0187]-[0197], [0204], [0206])
Claim 17: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the method of Claim 16, wherein the third-party funding account is associated with first third-party content provider of a plurality of third- party content providers, and wherein the method further comprises:
in response to controlling the display device to display the digital content, identifying, by the processor, the first third-party content provider as being associated with the digital content;
performing, by the processor, a lookup in a database to identify the third-party funding account associated with the first third-party content provider; and
in response to identifying the third-party funding account, transferring, by the processor, the difference from the third-party funding account to the progressive jackpot (Olsen Paragraphs [0198]-[0201], [0204], [0206]).
Claim 18: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the method of Claim 14, further comprising:
receiving, by the processor, a selection from a player to opt-out to viewing the digital content (Manzo Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraph [0012]); and
in response to receiving the selection to opt-in, preventing, by the processor, the display device from displaying the digital content (Olsen Paragraphs [0202] & Manzo Figures 4, 7; Elements 144, 148, 160, 202, 204; Paragraph [0012]).
Claim 19: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches the method of Claim 14, further comprising transmitting, by the processor, content data to a mobile device, the content data configured to cause the mobile device to display the digital content (Olsen Paragraphs [0038], [0043]).
Claim 20: The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by a processor in communication with an image recording device, display device (Olsen Paragraphs [0044], [0179], [0181]),and a memory device storing a database, the database defining (i) a jackpot amount associated with a progressive jackpot, and (ii) one or more source accounts (-wherein the stored award funding pools are understood as equivalent to the described database- Olsen Paragraphs [0063]-[0066], [0080], [0090]; Figure 3;), the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to at least:
control the display device (Olsen Figure 1; Element 104; Paragraph [0041]) to prompt a player to opt-in to viewing digital content or opt-out of viewing digital content (Manzo Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraph [0012]);
receive a selection from the player to opt-in to viewing digital content in response to the prompt, the selection defining an opt-in status (-Understood as implicit to the selection Manzo that player selections to view advertisements must be stored in a computer memory in order to be utilized by the processor to selectively present those advertisements- Manzo Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraphs [0092], [0012]);
receive at least one player input including an input amount, the player input associated with triggering a base game instance (-describing the placement of the player wager- Olsen Paragraphs [0070]; Figure 3: Element 324, 344);
when the opt-in status indicates the player has not opted-in, store a first incremental value funded solely from the input amount, wherein a progressive jackpot is incremented by the first incremental value when the opt-in status indicates the player has not opted-in (-describing the incrementing of the jackpot based on only a first amount defined portion of the placed wagers and excluding a second additional amount provided by the third party when their advertisements are displayed- Olsen Paragraph [0206]);
when the first incremental value is stored, in response to initiation of a base game instance, increment the jackpot amount by the first incremental value by transferring the first incremental value from the input amount to the jackpot amount stored in the database (Olsen Paragraphs [0063]-[0066], [0080], [0090]; Figure 3;);
when the opt-in status indicates the player has opted-in, control the display device to display digital content (Olsen Paragraph [0175], [0177], [0186] & Manzo Figures 4, 7; Elements 144, 148, 160, 202, 204; Paragraph [0012]);
while the display device is displaying the digital content, monitor, using the image recording device, an eye position of the player determined by the image recording device to confirm the player is viewing the displayed digital content (Nguyen Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0029], [0039]-[0044], [0052]);
in response to the confirming that the player is viewing the digital content (Nguyen Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0029], [0039]-[0044], [0052]), store a second incremental value that is greater than the first incremental value (-describing the incrementing of the jackpot based on both a second additional amount provided by the third party when their advertisements are displayed- Olsen Paragraph [0206]);
when the second incremental value is stored, in response to initiation of a base game instance, increment the jackpot amount by the second incremental value by transferring (i) a first portion of the second incremental value from the input amount to the jackpot amount stored in the database and (ii) a second portion of the second incremental value from at least one of the one or more source accounts to the jackpot amount stored in the database (-describing the incrementing of the jackpot based on both a first amount defined portion of the placed wagers and a second additional amount provided by the third party when their advertisements are displayed- Olsen Paragraph [0206]); and
in response to incrementing the jackpot amount by the second incremental value, control the display device to display a meter indicating at least one increase of the progressive jackpot by the second incremental value, such that a running total amount of the progressive jackpot increases more rapidly in response to the digital content being displayed (-Wherein Olsen teaches the increase of the amount due to the display of the digital content and the portion of wager amount while Dewaal demonstrates the presentation of progressive meters that change to reflect increased values as combined herein below- Olsen Paragraph [0206] & Dewaal Figures 5E, 5F; Elements 142, 144(a-c)).
The prior art of Olsen teaches funding progressive awards according to a portion of the player’s wager amount and a contribution based on the presentation of advertisement content to the player (Olsen Paragraph [0206]) as well as presenting selectively available awards based on the available funding (Olsen Figure 5b). Additionally, the increase in a jackpot value occurring “more rapidly” is understood as an implicit property of the inclusion of an additional contribution rate provided by the advertiser in Olsen beyond the portion of player wagers as described by Olsen (Olsen Paragraph [0206]). While Olsen does not explicitly teach the display of a meter indicating increases of the progressive jackpot, this feature is taught by the analogous prior art reference of Dewaal (Dewaal Figures 5E, 5F; Elements 142, 144(a-c)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the incrementing progressive prize meters including personal progressive meters of Dewaal with Olsen in order to provide the predictable and expected result of informing the players of the current value of available progressive awards as they grow with contributions of Olsen.
The prior art combination of Olsen & Dewaal is silent regarding the inclusion of providing the player a prompt wherein they may opt-in or opt-out of viewing digital content however in an analogous invention the prior art of Manzo teaches that it was known to provide these prompts in gaming systems adapted to present digital content in the form of advertisements to players in exchange for providing greater awards (Manzo Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraph [0012], [0095]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective date of the claimed invention to have included the use of a prompt to allowed the player to opt-in or opt-out of viewing advertisements as taught by Manzo in the combination of Olsen & Dewaal order to provide the predictable and expected result of utilizing known input mechanism to indicate their digital content viewing preferences of additional but optional digital content, wherein the viewing of the same provides advantages tied to game play as taught by Manzo (Manzo Abstract; Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraph [0012], [0094]).
The combination of Olsen, Dewaal, & Manzo teaches the invention as cited above and including the incrementation of progressive jackpots responsive to the presentation of advertisements (Olsen Paragraph [0206]) and the player provided input to opt-in or opt-out of viewing advertisements (Manzo Figures 4-7; Elements 144, 172; Paragraph [0012], [0095]). While the combination of Olsen, Dewaal, & Manzo is silent regarding the detection of a player’s eye position with a recording device to determine if a player is viewing the advertising content or input selections, this feature is taught in the analogous gaming invention of Nguyen (Nguyen Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0029], [0039]-[0044], [0052], [0179], [0181]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the detection of a player’s eye position with a recording device to determine if a player is viewing the advertising content or input selections as taught by Nguyen in the combination of Olsen, Dewaal, & Manzo in order to provide the predictable and expected benefits of determining when to present advertisements and how much to charge the advertisers as taught by Nguyen (Nguyen Paragraph [0040]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 10-14 of the Applicant’s above dated reply, the Applicant presents various arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter including:
i.) That the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea under Prong I of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test because it involves the use of computer and image recording device for the generation of a user interface and as such is proposed to merely involve the use of a judicial exception rather than specifically recites exceptions (Applicant’s Reply Pages 10-12);
ii.) That the claimed invention is additionally patent eligible under prong two of step 2a because they recite a practical application embodied in an improvement in technology as defined by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) embodied in the utilization of a database for storing contribution jackpot information, and a camera to make determination based on an eye position of a user (Applicant’s Reply Pages 12-13);
iii) That the claimed invention is additionally patent eligible because it is clearly more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize any abstract idea (Applicant’s Reply Page 12); and
iv) That the claims meet, the requirements of set 2B of the Alice mayo test for at least the reasons that the rejection fails to establish that each element of the claimed invention is well understood, routine, or conventional (Applicant’s Reply Pages 13-14).
Responsive to the preceding arguments summarized herein above, the following is noted in corresponding order and headings:
i.a) Applicant’s proposal that the claimed invention merely involve an exception but doe not recite an exception are respectfully non-persuasive in view identified recitations of the abstract idea identified in the rejection as presented herein above.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection III.C specifically notes that the enumerated grouping of Mental Processes includes the Mental Processes that require a computer and accordingly the mere use of a computer would not separate the claims invention from the identified grouping of Mental Process as proposed. Additionally, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Subsection II further notes that certain activity between a person and a computer fall under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and accordingly the mere use of a computer would not separate the claims invention from the identified grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as proposed. Further, as noted in the body of the rejection presented herein above and considered by the court in Alice, “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). Accordingly, the cited portion of the claimed invention when considered both individually and as a whole do not support the proposition that the claimed elements would be excluded from the enumerated groupings of abstract idea including Mental Process and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because they involve interface elements as proposed;
ii.a) The utilization of a database for storing contribution jackpot information, and a camera to make determination based on an eye position of a user does not meet the criteria of improvements in technology as defined by MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) because the Applicant’s specification does not identify such as an improvement but only references this feature in a conclusory manner inferring that the implementation of the same was well within the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art per the drafting requirements of 37 CFR 1.71 and further consistent with the prior art teaching of these features as respectively presented by Olsen (-wherein the stored award funding pools are understood as equivalent to the described database- Olsen Paragraphs [0063]-[0066], [0080], [0090]; Figure 3;) and Nguyen (Nguyen Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0029], [0039]-[0044], [0052], [0179], [0181]). Accordingly, the claimed invention is instead understood to utilize the underlying technology merely as a tool to implement the recited abstract idea and does not sufficiently support the presence of a practical application consistent with MPEP 21066.05(f);
iii.a) Responsive to the Applicant’s remarks on the subject of preemption, while preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In keeping with this, MPEP 2106.04.I & 2106.07(b) notes that questions of preemption are resolved by the Alice/Mayo two-part framework including considering if there is an improvement to computer related technology in step 2A, and if the elements when considered in individually and in combination under step 2B are more than the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional elements. As discussed in at least the rejection above the claimed invention does not at present meet the requirements under steps 2A or 2B.; and
iv.a) The clamed invention does not support the presence of significantly more under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test for the reasons noted in the rejection above and additionally because consistent with the decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc, and April 19th 2018 USPTO memo concerning the same, the rejection of claims cites the disclosure of the instant application and the requirements thereof as set forth by 37 CFR 1.71 in support of the determination that the non-abstract portion of the claimed invention are well understood, routine, or conventional. Applicant’s proposal that the additional abstract portions are the inventive concept are not persuasive because these features are part of the abstract idea itself; as such, these features cannot constitute the “inventive concept.” See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (“It is clear from Mayo that the ‘inventive concept’ cannot be the abstract idea itself, and Berkheimer . . . leave[s] untouched the numerous cases from this court which have held claims ineligible because the only alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract idea.”); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”).
Continuing on pages 14 through 16 of the Applicant’s above dated reply, the Applicant presents that the previously applied prior art references of Olsen, Dewaal, Manzo, & Nguyen, do not individually or in combination teach the claimed invention, of claims 1-20 as amended and including incrementing the jackpot amount by an increment including a first portion from a player input and a second portion transferred from a separate source account both responsive to the initiation of a base game instance. The Applicant proposes Olsen teaches describes using separate and non-concurrent triggers for incrementing using a wager when the wager is placed and using third-party funds when the third-party symbols are displayed at paragraph [0206].
Responsive to the preceding, the Applicant’s arguments as best understood, propose that the prior art incrementation of the jackpot by the first or second increment amount are dependent upon additional game events and not solely upon the initiation of the base game instance as reflected in the instant application. It is respectfully noted that the claims do not require the incrementation to be based solely upon in the initiation of the base game instance as proposed, and that such is reflected by the consideration of the player’s “opt-in status” as described in the claimed invention. Further as the game play must include the initiation of a base game in order for the incrementation of the jackpot by the first or second increment amount in the prior art of Olsen, Olsen teaches the that both these events event occur responsive to the initiation of the base game. Implications that the funding process must occur concurrently is respectfully beyond the scope of the claimed invention which while speaking to the conditional causality tied the described funding, do not limit the alternative funding amounts as occurring concurrently manner. Accordingly, while the funding contributions alternatively rely upon a portion of a player’s wager and an amount provided by a third party as proposed, both contributions are provided responsive in at least part to the initiation of game play since neither would be present in the absence of game play.
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715