DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
After the amendments filed 06/18/2026, claims 2-4, 8-10, and 14-16 were cancelled. Therefore, claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, and 17-18 remain pending, of which, 1, 7, and 13 were amended.
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, 5-7, 11-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 7 and 13, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A method for controlling the operation of a group of gaming machines linked on a network, the method including:
determining, by a remote game play server, a first game outcome for a wagering game provided by a respective one of the gaming machines (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), wherein the respective gaming machine is under control of a processing system of the respective gaming machine;
transmitting instructions from the remote game play server to the respective gaming machine that, when received, cause a display system of the respective gaming machine to display a base result representation based on the first game outcome in a first area of the display system comprising a matrix of symbol locations in a first gaming mode (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
determining, by the remove game play server, a mode change event wherein the
mode change event is determined based on randomly selecting a time to change a mode
of all gaming machines in the group of gaming machines from the first gaming mode to
a second gaming mode, wherein the randomly selecting a time to change the mode is
based on a random number generated by a hardware random number generator (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
transmitting instructions from the remote game play server to the group of gaming machines that, when received, change the mode of all gaming machines in the group of gaming machines to the second gaming mode, wherein the second gaming mode includes a meter displayed by the display (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
determining, by the remote game play server, a second game outcome for the second gaming mode (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
based on the second game outcome, transmitting instructions from the remote game play server to the group of gaming machines that, when received, decrease a level of the meter for each gaming machine in the group based on the time spent in the second gaming mode, wherein decreasing the level of the meter for each gaming machine in the group based on the time spent in the second gaming mode is done continuously at a designated rate over five minutes (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
in response to a gaming result at the respective gaming machine including a bonus event trigger in the second gaming mode, activating a bonus outcome for the respective gaming machine including at least one bonus prize, and in response to the bonus outcome at the respective gaming machine, decreasing the level of the meter at each gaming machine in the group, wherein decreasing the level of the meter at each gaming machine in the group in response to the bonus outcome at the respective gaming machine comprises reducing the meter at a higher rate that is 300% faster than the designated rate over a period during which the bonus outcome is presented at the respective gaming machine (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
in response to the bonus outcome at the respective gaming machine, causing the display system to display a boost graphic bonus sequence;
substantially simultaneously to the display of the boost graphic bonus sequence at the display system, causing an overhead group display of the group of gaming machines to display the boost graphic bonus sequence; and
ending the second gaming mode and returning to the first gaming mode for each gaming machine in the group when the meter reaches a defined lowest level (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 7 and 13) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a display system, an audio device, a player input device, at least one electronic controller, tangible non-transitory electronically accessible memory, a remote game play server, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
Wagering (e.g., “determining, by a remote game play server, a first game outcome for a wagering game provided by a respective one of the gaming machines”, in light of applicant’s specification a first outcome for a wagering game is interpreted as requiring placement of a wager during the wagering game (See Specification ¶33-34, wherein “to begin a game play, at block 804 the process receives a wager activation on a player input device at the gaming machine…”), which is a form of hedging, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Formation of a gambling contract (i.e., by a player placing a wager the player is entering into a contract with a game operator), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Commercial or Legal Interactions. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Commercial or Legal Interactions while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims; and/or
Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Methods of Organizing Human Activity to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-18 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a display system, an audio device, a player input device, at least one electronic controller, tangible non-transitory electronically accessible memory, a group control server”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general-purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a display system, an audio device, a player input device, at least one electronic controller, tangible non-transitory electronically accessible memory are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0204228, which discloses that a conventional gaming system comprises elements such as a display system, an audio device, a player input device, at least one electronic controller and a tangible non-transitory electronically accessible memory to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶58) and U.S. 2004/0043813 which discloses that a conventional gaming system comprises elements such as a control server (¶62-63). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are note directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1 because the claims include steps that cannot be performed by a human either in the mind or with use of pen and paper (See Remarks, pgs. 13-15). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, abstract ideas are not limited solely to the mental process grouping. The instant claims recite limitations falling squarely within the certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Specifically, the claims are drawn to rules of a wagering game. The Courts have repeatedly held that game rules, betting mechanisms and methods of conducting wagering games are non-statutory abstract concepts. The claims are further directed to managing wager, game outcomes, and bonus awards, which constitute Fundamental Economic Practices and Commercial Interactions, specifically related to managing wagering and financial rewards. The fact that the game rules are executed electronically across a client-server network or cannot practically be manually calculated in real time does not alter the fundamental abstract nature of the underlying concept.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application because they “solve the unique technical problem in the field of gaming devices of needing to provide new game presentations/graphics to attract and keep players without taxing the limited and specially purpose hardware of gaming device (See Remarks, pgs.15-17). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The problem identified by applicant (i.e., attracting and retaining players through dynamic visual presentations), is a business/commercial objective and an entertainment desire, not a technological problem in computer functioning. Furthermore, while applicant argues that the invention operates “without taxing the limited and specially purpose hardware of gaming devices”, neither the claims nor the cited positions of the specification disclose any specific technical improvement to computing architecture, memory management, or network transmission. Rather, the specification explicitly notes that conventional microprocessors, display controllers, and network controllers are used in their standard, known capacities (See Specification, ¶51-53, ¶55). The recited elements are generic computing and gaming hardware components performing standard functions. Outputting celebratory animations or meter depletions substantially simultaneously to local monist and an overhead display is conventional data display and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), (h)). Because the additional elements merely apply the abstract idea in a conventional gaming environment, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights