DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 01/12/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-20 remain pending, no Claims have been newly added, and no Claims have been currently canceled. Currently, Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-20 have been amended. No new matter appears to have been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 states, “determine, based on the paytable variance associated with the electronic casino gaming apparatus, a bonus amount configured to reduce the paytable variance” and “output, via a ticket printer physically coupled to and associated with the electronic casino gaming apparatus, despite the losing outcome, and based on the paytable variance, the bonus amount on a physical ticket,” in lines 13-18. (emphasis added) Similarly, Claims 16-17, also recite multiple instances of, “the electronic casino gaming apparatus” instead of the newly amended, “the electronic casino gaming machine apparatus.” For consistency and clarity throughout the claims all instances of “the electronic casino gaming apparatus,” in Claims 15-17, should be amended to, “the electronic casino gaming machine apparatus.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 15 recites, in part, the limitations of […]; and […]: determine, based on losing outcome generated during game play, a paytable variance […], wherein the paytable variance comprises a difference between a target payback ratio and a realized payback ratio; override, based on the paytable variance, the losing outcome, by removing the losing outcome from a paytable and inserting a winning outcome into the paytable; determine, based on the paytable variance […], a bonus amount configured to reduce the paytable variance; and output, […], despite the losing outcome, and based on the paytable variance, the bonus amount […] (wherein the limitations are substantially similar to those of independent claims 1 and 8). These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claims 1, 8, and 15. The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recites limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 15 recites the additional element(s) of “An electronic casino gaming machine apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: […] associated with the electronic casino gaming machine apparatus; […] associated with the electronic casino gaming apparatus, […]; and […], via a ticket printer associated with the electronic casino gaming apparatus, […] (wherein the limitations are substantially similar to those of independent claims 1 and 8). These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to 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. Using a computer to take data, compute a result, and return the result to a user amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
Additionally, the specification makes it clear that the apparatus for determining a paytable variance, determining a bonus amount, and outputting a bonus amount can be implemented on a generic computer.
[0024] …More likely, though, is that the personal computer 72 is used to play actual games in communication with the gaming network 50. Player data related to games and other functions performed on the personal computer 72 may be tracked as if the player were playing on an EGM 10.
As such, the gaming device, for implementing the abstract idea, may require no more than generic, conventional, and well-known computer devices such as a general purpose computer (as evidenced in Para. 24).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. For instance, as discussed with respect to Step 2A - Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting, via a ticket printer, a physical ticket, is no more than data output. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No). Furthermore, a processor, memory, an electronic casino gaming machine apparatus, and a ticket printer, as provided in newly amended claims 1, 8, and 15, can relate to components having features that are generic, conventional, and well-known in the art of slot machines that represent extra-solution activity.
For example, Chamberlain et al. (2004/0087360 A1) discloses a gaming device 10 is a slot machine having the controls, displays and features of a conventional slot machine, wherein the player operates the gaming device while standing or sitting, the gaming device includes a coin slot 12 for accepting coins or tokens and a ticket/bill acceptor 100 for accepting bills or paper currency, such that, the ticket/bill acceptor 100 also accepts tickets 108, and the gaming device 10 also includes a ticket/receipt printer 106 (shown in phantom) mounted, in one embodiment, inside the gaming device 10, which issues tickets 108 through an aperture 110 or any suitable secure ticket feeder (See Para. 47, Para. 49, and Fig. 1 of Chamberlain).
Thus, Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 15 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claims 1, 8, and/or 15. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claims 1, 8, and/or 15, Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on the claims as currently amended, the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Walker et al. (US 2008/0272541 A1) discloses the concept of a wagering game and a secondary game may be provided at a gaming device, wherein the secondary game comprises detecting an occurrence of a trigger; determining, responsive to the trigger, a player number based on a first criterion; determining, responsive to the trigger, a match number based on a second criterion; and determining if the match number meets a third criterion with respect to the player number.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “The Office Action asserts, "under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite[] limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper." Office Action, p. 3.
"Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." See SRI Int 'l, Inc. V. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In the Memorandum dated August 4, 2025 (the "Deputy Commissioner Memorandum"), Deput Commissioner Kim cautioned Technology Centers 2100, 2600, and 3600 to not "expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. the Deputy Commissioner Memorandum, p. 2. Examiners are further reminded to "distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)." Id. p. 3.
Applicant submits the claims, as amended, cannot practically be performed in the human mind. While the present claims may implicate "receiving data," and other similar limitations, the claims include many limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Rather, the operations of the claim are directed to specific, technical mechanisms for correcting paytable variance, a legitimate technical problem in the field of gaming.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations outlined above, that exclude the additional elements, are limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind, and are considered certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The additional elements identified above, including the ticket printer, are being used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims are similar to those found in Savvy Dog v. Pennsylvania Coin (Fed. Cir. 2024).
Additionally, the August 4th Memo also states, “This memorandum is not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and is meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance.” Thus, the rejection of the claims, as outlined above, is believed to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance. Furthermore, a human game operator could practically perform determining, based on losing outcome generated during game play, a paytable variance, wherein the paytable variance comprises a difference between a target payback ratio and a realized payback ratio; override, based on the paytable variance, the losing outcome, by removing the losing outcome from a paytable and inserting a winning outcome into the paytable; determine, based on the paytable variance, a bonus amount configured to reduce the paytable variance; and output, despite the losing outcome, and based on the paytable variance, the bonus amount, as the identified abstract gameplay, exists outside the use of a processor.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “In the Deputy Commissioner Memorandum, it is noted that "[a]nother consideration
when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words 'apply' (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer." Deputy Commissioner Memorandum, p. 4. The Memorandum goes on to state, "Examiners are cautioned not to oversimplify claim limitations and expand the 'apply it' consideration" and states that examiners should consider "whether the technological limitations are being used as a tool to improve the recited judicial exception (e.g., automating a manual business process) or whether the claim as a whole provides an improvement to technology or a technical field." Id., pp. 5-6.
The Office Action has alleged that the electronic casino gaming machine and ticket printer are generic computer components. Applicant respectfully disagrees. As the USPTO's 2024 Guidance Update instructs, "the additional elements should not be evaluated in a vacuum, completely separate from the recited judicial exception." USPTO Memorandum at 5. The Guidance Update further clarifies that examiners must consider "the claim as a whole" and evaluate whether the additional elements "apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception." Id. The claims recite a specific machine configuration where the electronic casino gaming machine performs variance calculations, overrides losing outcomes, literally manipulates an electronic paytable by "removing the losing outcome from a paytable and inserting a winning outcome into the paytable," and outputs bonus amounts through an associated ticket printer. This ordered combination of elements represents more than mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer. The ticket printer provides a tangible, physical output that transforms the claimed method into a practical application by producing a physical ticket representing the bonus amount despite the losing outcome.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Additionally, the August 4th Memo also states, “This memorandum is not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and is meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance.” Thus, the rejection of the claims, as outlined above, is believed to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance. The additional elements identified above, including the ticket printer, are being used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the claimed invention, including providing the use of a ticket printer, for determining, based on losing outcome generated during game play, a paytable variance, wherein the paytable variance comprises a difference between a target payback ratio and a realized payback ratio; override, based on the paytable variance, the losing outcome, by removing the losing outcome from a paytable and inserting a winning outcome into the paytable; determine, based on the paytable variance, a bonus amount configured to reduce the paytable variance; and output, despite the losing outcome, and based on the paytable variance, the bonus amount, does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). The abstract idea, including, determining a paytable variance, overriding the losing outcome, and determining a bonus amount (as claimed in claims 1, 8, and 15) is not a technical solution to a technical problem (e.g. something specific to improvements to the functioning of a computer etc.), but rather provide game insertion techniques to enhance the game play experience for players. Managing a game outcome, including determining a paytable variance, overriding the losing outcome, and determining a bonus amount pertains to managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions pertaining to organizing human activity and/or a mental process. The Applicant’s disclosure (¶ 64 and the abstract of the publication) does provide support for game enhancement, wherein, creating/providing game insertion techniques, e.g., so as to enhance the game play experience for players; however, such disclosure does not relate to the actual improvement of the technology, but rather a means for allowing increased enjoyment and continued gameplay from a player. The claims at issue lack integration into a practical application. Applicant’s claimed abstract idea lacks or fails to suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The Examiner contends that the claims do not provide an improvement to the technology in which it is generically applied.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “The specific combination of paytable variance determination, outcome overriding, and
physical ticket output represents an improvement to gaming machine technology. Prior to the present invention, electronic casino gaming machines faced a technical challenge in maintaining accurate payback ratios during gameplay. Conventional gaming systems lacked mechanisms to dynamically monitor and correct deviations between target payback ratios and realized payback ratios in real-time. This resulted in gaming machines that could experience significant variance drift (which is a real technical problem in the field) over extended periods of operation, potentially affecting regulatory compliance and player experience. The present claims address this technical problem by providing a system that automatically determines paytable variance based on losing outcomes generated and dynamically determined in real-time during game play, overrides those losing outcomes by literally modifying the paytable when variance correction is warranted, calculates a bonus amount configured to reduce the paytable variance (thereby bringing the machine back into compliance), and outputs that bonus amount on a physical ticket via a ticket printer physically coupled to the gaming machine. This technical solution enables the gaming machine to self-correct variance deviations through a coordinated sequence of computational analysis and tangible output, thereby improving the operational accuracy and reliability of the electronic casino gaming machine itself.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the claimed invention, including providing the use of a ticket printer, for determining, based on losing outcome generated during game play, a paytable variance, wherein the paytable variance comprises a difference between a target payback ratio and a realized payback ratio; override, based on the paytable variance, the losing outcome, by removing the losing outcome from a paytable and inserting a winning outcome into the paytable; determine, based on the paytable variance, a bonus amount configured to reduce the paytable variance; and output, despite the losing outcome, and based on the paytable variance, the bonus amount, does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). The abstract idea, including, determining a paytable variance, overriding the losing outcome, and determining a bonus amount (as claimed in claims 1, 8, and 15) is not a technical solution to a technical problem (e.g. something specific to improvements to the functioning of a computer etc.), but rather provide game insertion techniques to enhance the game play experience for players. Managing a game outcome, including determining a paytable variance, overriding the losing outcome, and determining a bonus amount pertains to managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions pertaining to organizing human activity and/or a mental process. The Applicant’s disclosure (¶ 64 and the abstract of the publication) does provide support for game enhancement, wherein, creating/providing game insertion techniques, e.g., so as to enhance the game play experience for players; however, such disclosure does not relate to the actual improvement of the technology, but rather a means for allowing increased enjoyment and continued gameplay from a player. The claims at issue lack integration into a practical application. Applicant’s response recites, “variance drift” and “affecting regulatory compliance and player experience.” However, this recitation appears to be referring to abstract ideas including organizing human activity, such as, legal requirements and enhancing game play experience for players (as cited above) and/or a mental process rather than a specific technological improvement. The claims at issue lack integration into a practical application. Applicant’s claimed abstract idea lacks or fails to suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The Examiner contends that the claims do not provide an improvement to the technology in which it is generically applied.
Furthermore, a response to the remainder of Applicant’s remarks can be found in at least the Office Actions dated 10/23/2024, 04/02/2025, and 10/01/2025.
At least based on the above, the 101 rejection of claims 1-20 are herein 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 CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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, 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights