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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 12/09/2025. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-20 remain pending, no Claims have been newly added, and no Claims have been canceled. Currently, Claim 1 have been amended. No new matter appears to have been entered.
The amendment to Claim 1, lines 4-5, is sufficient to overcome the corresponding 35 USC 112 rejection. The 112 rejection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, at lines 15-16, states, “responsive to an occurrence of a triggering event that is randomly determined by the via a random number generator.” However, this should state, “responsive to an occurrence of a triggering event that is randomly determined via a random number generator.”
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, at lines 31-32, states, “cause a display, by the display device, of a plurality of additional plays of the game during the unlimited secondary game play that each comprises”. However, this should state, “cause a display, by the display device, of a plurality of additional plays of the game during the unlimited secondary game play that each comprises:”.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of […]; […]; […]; […]; […]; […]; […]; […], responsive to an occurrence of a triggering event that is randomly determined […], […]: cause a display, […], of an indication of unlimited secondary game play comprising a multi-function feature; cause a display, […], of a tracking area that comprises a positive function indicator and a negative function indicator; cause a display, […], of a play of a game during the unlimited secondary game play that comprises: a random determination, […], of a first occurrence of the multi-function feature, and a display of the first occurrence of the multi-function feature, wherein the multi-function feature provides one of a plurality of different positive functions for the unlimited secondary game play, wherein the positive function is an increase in a quantity of the multi-function features associated with negative functions that need to occur to terminate the unlimited secondary game play; cause a display, […], of a plurality of additional plays of the game during the unlimited secondary game play that each comprises: a further random determination, […], of an additional occurrence of the multi-function feature, and a display of the additional occurrence of the multi-function feature, wherein each of the additional occurrences of the multi-function feature provides an additional one of the positive functions for the unlimited secondary game play; and cause a display, […], of a plurality of subsequent plays of the game during the unlimited secondary game play that each comprises: a further random determination, […], of a subsequent occurrence of the multi-function feature, and a display of the subsequent occurrence of the multi-function feature, wherein the subsequent occurrence of the multi-function feature provides the negative function for the unlimited secondary game play, and wherein a last one of the subsequent occurrences of the multi-function feature causes termination of the unlimited secondary game play. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1. 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 recite 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 1 recites the additional element(s) of “A gaming system comprising: a housing comprising an openable access door; a security monitoring circuit within the housing and configured to monitor the access door; a power distribution component within the housing: a plurality of mechanical input devices supported by the housing; a plurality of output devices comprising a display device supported by the housing and a speaker supported by the housing; a sound card within the housing and operable with the speaker; a processor within the housing; and a trusted memory device within the housing and configured to provide a gaming regulatory authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original, the trusted memory device storing a plurality of instructions, which when executed by the processor, responsive to an occurrence of a triggering event that is randomly determined by the via a random number generator, cause the processor to: cause a display, by a display device, […]; cause a display, by a display device, […]; cause a display, by the display device, […]; a random determination, via the random number generator, […], and a display, by a display device, […]; and cause a display, by a display device, […]. 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 generate 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).
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. 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 housing comprising an openable access door; a security monitoring circuit within the housing and configured to monitor the access door; a power distribution component within the housing: a plurality of mechanical input devices supported by the housing; a plurality of output devices comprising a display device supported by the housing and a speaker supported by the housing; a sound card within the housing and operable with the speaker; a processor within the housing; and a trusted memory device, as provided in amended claim 1, can relate to components having features that are generic, conventional, and well-known in the art of slot machines that represent a field of use and/or 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).
Additionally, Parham (2003/0064674 A1) discloses an upright slot machine devices are well know[n]. These machines include an upstanding housing which houses the game processor, power supply, coin hopper, coin dispensing mechanism, and other components that are embraced in a modern slot machine. The housing also mounts the video game display. To gain access to the inside of the machine there is a locked door. Upon unlocking and opening the door, staff can re-fill the coin hopper and repair/replace the various components for the machine. To prevent unauthorized access into the housing 50, the door 54 includes a lock (not shown) and may also be electronically monitored to send an alarm if the door 54 is opened by unauthorized personnel (See Para. 2, Para. 25, and Fig. 1 of Parham).
Thus, Claim 1 is rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 2-10 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 1 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-10 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1, Claims 2-10 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Applicant respectfully submits that these elements, as amended, cannot be considered mental processes because such random determinations, via a random number generator, cannot be made in the mind of a human being.
The August 4, 2025, Memorandum to Patent Examiners entitled "Reminder on
evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, reminds Examiners that ...
With this guidance in mind, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed random determinations, via a random number generator, cannot be performed in a human mind, and thus that these elements of the amended Claims are not directed to a mental process and thus not to an abstract idea.”
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 random number generator, 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 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 determine a triggering event and/or an occurrence randomly, as random number generation exists outside the use of a processor.
Thus, the claimed invention encompasses the process of rules/steps for unlimited secondary game play comprising a multi-function feature including: positive functions, negative functions, and a termination of the unlimited secondary game play. These steps are carried out by conventional and well-known components. However, each of these elements defines steps of game rules in conjunction with field of use and/or extra-solution activities, which are not patent eligible under the framework set forth by the Supreme Court in at least the Alice decision, nor under the recently updated 2019 PEG guidelines outlined above. In light of the above analysis, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claimed invention fails to demonstrate patent-eligibility.
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