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 1/14/2026, claims 1-18 remain pending, of which, 1, 3, 7, 9, 13 and 15 were amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13 and 15 (additionally any claim(s) which depend from claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13 and 15) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 13, the limitation “wherein the meter controls a duration of the second gaming mode and the second gaming mode continues until the meter reaches a defined lowest level independent of individual awards paid during the second gaming mode” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant cites paragraphs 88-89 and 97 as allegedly teaching this limitation (See Remarks, pg. 10), however, applicant’s specification contains no such paragraphs (applicant’s specification only includes paragraphs 1-65).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the limitation “wherein decreasing the level of the meter at each gaming machine in the group comprises a group control server calculating meter level updates based on elapsed time in the second gaming mode and bonus outcomes occurring at any gaming machine in the group, and transmitting meter level update commands over the network to each gaming machine in the group to cause each gaming machine to display the updated meter level” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant cites paragraphs 82, 88, 90 and 97 as allegedly teaching this limitation (See Remarks, pg. 10), however, applicant’s specification contains no such paragraphs (applicant’s specification only includes paragraphs 1-65).
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the program code is further executable for receiving meter level update commands from a group control server over the network and updating the displayed meter level based on the received commands” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant cites paragraphs 82, 88, 90, 97 and 101-103 as allegedly teaching this limitation (See Remarks, pg. 10), however, applicant’s specification contains no such paragraphs (applicant’s specification only includes paragraphs 1-65).
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 15, the limitations “wherein the group control server continuously calculates time-based meter depletion at the designated rate occurring independent of game outcomes” and “wherein the group control server calculates event-based accelerated meter depletion at the higher rate triggered by the bonus outcome, and wherein the meter level displayed at each gaming machine reflects a cumulative effect of both the continuous time-based depletion and the event- based accelerated depletion calculated by the group control server.” were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant cites paragraphs 88 and 94-97 as allegedly teaching this limitation (See Remarks, pgs. 10-11), however, applicant’s specification contains no such paragraphs (applicant’s specification only includes paragraphs 1-65).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 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:
in response to a play input entered through a player input device of a respective one of the gaming machines and under control of a processing system of the respective gaming machine, causing a display system of the respective gaming machine to display a base result representation 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);
in response to a mode change event received over the network, changing a mode of all gaming machines in the group to a second gaming mode including a meter displayed by the display system, wherein the meter controls a duration of the second gaming mode and the second gaming mode continues until the meter reaches a defined lowest level independent of individual awards paid during the second gaming mode (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
receiving play inputs in the second gaming mode, providing results therefore, and decreasing a level of the meter for each gaming machine in the group based on the time spent in the second gaming mode (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 comprises a group control server calculating meter level updates based on elapsed time in the second gaming mode and bonus outcomes occurring at any gaming machine in the group, and transmitting meter level update commands over the network to each gaming machine in the group to cause each gaming machine to display the updated meter level (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
ending the second game mode and returning to the first game 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 group control 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., “in response to a play input entered through a player input device of a respective one of the gaming machines”, in light of applicant’s specification “a play input” is interpreted as placement of a wager during a 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 12-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (U.S. 6,146,273) in view of Hartl et al (U.S. 2004/0053683) and Bulzacki et al (U.S. 2020/0294359).
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 13, Olson discloses:
a gaming system (abstract) comprising:
a group of gaming machines operable to communicate over a network (Fig. 5),
each gaming machine comprising:
a display system (25:17-31, Fig. 15, gaming machine G includes and LCD display 1300),
an audio device (25:17-31, Fig. 15, gaming machine G includes a stereo sound system 1530),
a player input device (5:29-38, for example gaming machine handle 6), and
at least one electronic controller operatively coupled to the display system, the audio device, and the player input device and configured to execute instructions related to a game (25:17-31, Fig. 15, gaming machine G includes a controller 1550 which is a conventional microprocessor); and
tangible, non-transitory electronically accessible memory coupled to the at least one electronic controller and containing program code executable by the at least one electronic controller (25:17-31, Fig. 15, gaming machine G includes a memory 1520 which includes all necessary data for the various graphical displays associated with the gaming machine) for:
in response to a play input entered through a player input device of a respective one of the gaming machines (5:29-38, initiation of a game cycle on each gaming machine begins when the player pulls the machine handle 6) and under control of a processing system of the respective gaming machine (Fig. 15, control 1550 of gaming machine G is a microprocessor), causing a display system of the respective gaming machine to display a base result representation in a first area of the display system comprising a matrix of symbol locations in a first gaming mode (5:29-38, initiation of a game cycle causes the display of the spin and stop of the reels);
in response to a mode change event received over the network (7:26-65, contributions are collected by each gaming machine G, when controller 200 determines a current value of the contributions equals or exceeds a threshold amount a the bonus mode activation trigger occurs), changing a mode of all gaming machines in the group to a second gaming mode (7:26-65, when the bonus mode activation trigger occurs a bonus mode time period begins for eligible machines) including a meter displayed by the display system (1:58-28, information relating to the current value of the jackpot bonus pool is displayed to the players of each gaming machine), the meter controls a duration of the second gaming mode and the second gaming mode continues until the meter reaches a defined lowest level (8:23-34, when the current value of the bonus jackpot pool is equal to or less than zero the bonus mode time period ends), and a different pay-table for the game than that of the first gaming mode (3:50-4:8, bonus jackpots are selected from a weighted jackpot table);
receiving play inputs in the second gaming mode, providing results therefore (14:37-55, 23:51-67, player’s place wagers and receive outcomes of the bonus game during the bonus mode time), and decreasing a level of the meter for each gaming machine in the group (8:23-53, each bonus award decrements the jackpot bonus pool);
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 (8:23-67, based on bonus mode outcomes jackpots are paid from the bonus jackpot pool which decreases the bonus jackpot pool in the amount of each jackpot paid); and
ending the second game mode and returning to the first game mode for each gaming machine in the group when the meter reaches a defined lowest level (8:23-34, when the current value of the bonus jackpot pool is equal to or less than zero the bonus mode time period ends).
However, Olson does not specifically disclose that:
the meter reaches a defined lowest level independent of individual awards paid during the second gaming mode;
decreasing a level of the meter for each gaming machine in the group based on the time spent in the second gaming mode; or
wherein decreasing the level of the meter at each gaming machine in the group comprises a group control server calculating meter level updates based on elapsed time in the second gaming mode and bonus outcomes occurring at any gaming machine in the group, and transmitting meter level update commands over the network to each gaming machine in the group to cause each gaming machine to display the updated meter level.
Hartl teaches:
a gaming device (¶62, ¶65, Fig. 1, gaming apparatus 100), wherein a bonus event is triggered based on predetermined outcomes occurring during play of a base game (¶65, gaming machine 102 which provides a game which includes an underlying predetermined event to which triggers at least one bonus event), wherein a meter is displayed during the bonus event (¶62, Fig. 2, bonus event screen includes a bonus amount meter 220), the meter reaches a defined lowest level independent of individual awards paid during the second gaming mode (¶33, ¶64-65, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, a fixed bonus amount is displayed and is decremented in time increments to a final amount ), and wherein the value of the meter is decreased based on the time spent in the bonus game (¶33, ¶64-65, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, a fixed initial bonus amount (bonus amount 220) is decreased as time passes to a final amount at the completion of the event (bonus 312)).
Bulzacki teaches:
a gaming device (¶159, Fig. 1B, gaming system 100b), including a displayed meter (¶285-286, progressive jackpots displayed as meters at a plurality of gaming devices), wherein the level of the meter is decreased at each gaming machine in the group comprises a group control server calculating meter level updates based on elapsed time in the second gaming mode and bonus outcomes occurring at any gaming machine in the group, and transmitting meter level update commands over the network to each gaming machine in the group to cause each gaming machine to display the updated meter level (¶286-286, server 103 sends control commands to jackpot interface device 122 which sends signals to update the displayed meters)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the time-based bonus award deductions as taught by Hartl and the server based meter updates, as taught by Bulzacki, into the gaming system as taught by Olson in order to provide greater unpredictability and to add more excitement in playing the progressive gaming system, thereby, attracting and retaining players at the gaming machine and increasing profitability of the gaming machines for game operators (Olson, 3:13-30).
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 14, Olson discloses that which is discussed above. Olson further discloses that:
the mode change event is randomly determined by a group control server to change the mode from the first mode to the second mode (3:50-4:8, bonus mode time period is entered when the incremented current value is equal to or exceeds a randomly determined activation value).
However, Olson does not specifically disclose that:
the mode change event is based on selecting a time.
Hartl teaches:
a gaming device (¶62, ¶65, Fig. 1, gaming apparatus 100), wherein a bonus event is triggered based on a passage of time (¶29, during play of the underlying game entry into the bonus event may be triggered based on a passage of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a time value, as taught by Hartl, as the value which is randomly selected by the gaming system, as taught by Olson, in order to provide greater unpredictability and to add more excitement in playing the progressive gaming system, thereby, attracting and retaining players at the gaming machine and increasing profitability of the gaming machines for game operators (Olson, 3:13-30).
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 18, Olson discloses that which is discussed above. Olson further disclose that:
the bonus outcome provides the at least one bonus prize only for the respective gaming machine (3:50-4:8, the system randomly awards bonus jackpots to randomly selected eligible game machines during the bonus time period), and
in which the second gaming mode further comprises:
in response to a gaming result at a second respective gaming machine of the group of gaming machines including a bonus event trigger, activating a bonus outcome for the second respective gaming machine including at least one bonus prize (8:23-67, based on bonus mode outcomes jackpots are paid from the bonus jackpot pool which decreases the bonus jackpot pool in the amount of each jackpot paid, for example at a second gaming machine G), and
in response to the bonus outcome at the second respective gaming machine, decreasing the level of the meter at each gaming machine in the group (8:23-67, based on bonus mode outcomes jackpots are paid from the bonus jackpot pool which decreases the bonus jackpot pool in the amount of each jackpot paid, for example decreasing the jackpot pool based on awards won at a second gaming machine G).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the recitation of a generic computer components (e.g., group control server, networked gaming machines, etc.), which are part of a generic gaming machine, performing well known functions, takes the claims out of the capability of a human (See Remarks, pg. 11). The US Supreme Court and the CAFC have ruled over and over again that the mere recitation of generic computer components will not make the claims eligible without “significantly more.” Yes, Applicant does recite generic computer components performing certain steps. But the point of the rejection is that the steps could be performed by a person using pen and paper. Mere recitation of generic computer components will not rescue the claims.
Applicant argues that coordinating meter levels across networked gaming machines requires computer processing and network communication and cannot be performed in the mind. (See Remarks, pg. 11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Without the recitation of generic computer components, the limitation of coordinating meter levels across networked gaming machines simply requires a human observing the gaming machines over a period of time and using pen and paper to track the results of the gaming machines.
Applicant argues that, similar to the claims found eligible in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., the claims are directed to specific improvements in technology (See Remarks, pgs. 11-12). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In order for an abstract idea to be an improvement, there must be a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention in the specification and the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. In the instant application, the examiner has found no technical explanation in the specification regarding any alleged improvement. Applicant provides alleged improvements in the remarks (e.g., maintaining synchronized state across distributed machines responding to asynchronous events), however, the examiner was unable to find any mention of these improvements in the specification.
Applicant argues that no human could “continuously calculate time-based meter depletion at sub-second intervals”, “simultaneously monitor for bonus events at multiple distributed machines” or “instantly transmit coordinated updates to networked devices” (See Remarks, pg. 12). This argument is moot as it is not commensurate with the instant claims, which do not include: any limitations requiring that the continuous calculation of the meter depletion occurs at sub-second intervals, any limitations requiring simultaneous monitoring for bonus events at multiple distributed machines or any limitations requiring the instant transmission of coordinated updates. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that no human could “calculate accelerated depletion when events occur” (See Remarks, pg. 12). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Without the recitation of generic computer components, the limitations of calculating accelerated depletion when events occur simply requires a human observing the gaming machines over a period of time and using pen and paper to track the results of the gaming machines, and modifying the tracking based on events occurring during game play.
Applicant argues that the claims reflect improvements in networked gaming systems, such as “maintaining synchronized game states across multiple independent machines responding to distributed asynchronous events”. Initially, the examiner notes that this argument is not commensurate with the instant claims, which do not include: any limitations requiring that the multiple independent machines responding to distributed asynchronous events. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, despite applicant assertion otherwise, the specification provides no technical explanation as to how to implement any such system which maintains synchronized game states across multiple independent machines responding to distributed asynchronous events.
Applicant argues that “the server must maintain parallel calculation processes and integrate their cumulative effects for transmission” provides improvement to networked gaming technology by enabling centralized coordination of dual depletion mechanisms (See Remarks, pg. 13). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In order for an abstract idea to be an improvement, there must be a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention in the specification and the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. In the instant application, the examiner has found no technical explanation in the specification regarding any improvement regarding enabling centralized coordination of dual depletion mechanisms, nor do the claims reflect any such improvement in technology.
Applicant argues that the elements of “centralized server calculation of dual depletion mechanisms” and “coordinated transmission of meter updates based on distributed events” are reflected in the reference showing generic gaming machine components (See Remarks, pg. 13). This argument has been addressed in the updated 101 rejection above in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Remarks, filed 01/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new prior art reference, which was found to address the newly added limitations.
Conclusion
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