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 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 1-6, 8-15, 17-19 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. Claims 1-19 recite an abstract idea of organizing of human activity. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and 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
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 recite: a method of operating a gaming machine, the gaming machine comprising a gaming cabinet, a locked enclosure within the gaming cabinet, and game logic circuitry housed within the locked enclosure, the game-logic circuitry comprising one or more central processing units and one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing (i) an authentication program and (ii) a trusted authentication code, and (iii) a predetermined maximum award value applicable to the game, the method comprising:
generating, via execution of the authentication program by the game-logic circuitry, an authentication code based on contents of at least one of the one or memory devices housed within the locked enclosure
comparing the authentication code to the trusted authentication code;
permitting execution of game-outcome logic;
receiving, via one or more input devices, an input io initiate play of a game;
determining, via the game-logic circuity, a randomly selected outcome of the game ;
causing one or more display devices to display, in a display area, a plurality of symbols representing the randomly selected outcome;
evaluating, via the game logic circuity, the plurality of symbols to determine or more award amounts for the randomly selected outcome;
determining an initial total award based on the one or more award amounts;
wherein a sum of the one or more award amounts does not exceed the predetermined maximum award value;
in response to the plurality of symbols including at least one win-boost symbol, having no singular predetermined value;
accessing, from the one or more memory devices, the predetermined maximum award value;
comparing the initial total award to the predetermined maximum award value;
determining the difference between the maximum award and the initial total award;
assigning the difference to the win-boost symbol;
summing the initial total award and the difference to create a final award that is equal to the predetermined maximum award value;
generating display-control signals that cause the one or more display devices to present an animation indicating application of the difference assigned to the win-boost symbol; and
recording, in the one or more memory devices, award data corresponding to the final award.
Claims 10-15 recite, a gaming system comprising:
a gaming machine including a gaming cabinet, a locked enclosure within the gaming cabinet;
one or more input devices;
one or more display devices; and
game-logic circuitry, housed within the locked enclosure, including one or more central processing units and one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing (i) an authentication program, (ii) a trusted authentication code, and (iii) a predetermined maximum award value applicable to the game, the one or more memory device further storing instructions, that when executed by the one or more central processing units, cause the game-logic circuity to:
generate, via execution of the authentication program by the game-logic circuitry, an authentication code based on contents of at least one of the one or memory devices housed within the locked enclosure;
compare the authentication code to the trusted authentication code;
permit execution of game-outcome logic only upon determining that the authentication code matches the trusted authentication code;
upon permitting executing of the game-outcome logic:
receive, via at least one of the one or more input devices, an input to initiate play of the game;
determine a randomly selected outcome of the game;
cause the one or more display devices to display, in a display area a plurality of symbols representing the randomly selected outcome;
evaluate the plurality of symbols to determine one or more award amounts for the randomly selected outcome;
determine an initial total award based on the one or more award amounts;
wherein a sum of the one or more award amounts does not exceed the predetermined maximum award value;
in response to the plurality of symbols including at least one win-boost symbol having no singular predetermined value;
compare the initial total award to a predetermined maximum award value;
determine a difference between the maximum award value and the initial total award,
assign the difference to the win-boost symbol;
sum the initial total award and the difference to create a final award that is equal to the predetermined maximum award value;
generate display control signals that cause the one or more display devices to present an animation indicating application of the difference assigned to the win-boost symbol; and
store, in the one or more memory devices; award data corresponding to the final award.
Claims 17-19 recite, a gaming machine comprising:
a gaming cabinet;
a locked enclosure within the gaming cabinet;
one or more input devices;
one or more display devices; and
game-logic circuitry, housed within the locked enclosure, comprising one or more central processing units and one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing (i) an authentication program, (ii) a trusted authentication code, and (iii) a predetermined maximum award value applicable to the game, the one or more memory device further storing instructions, that when executed by the one or more central processing units, cause the game-logic circuity to:
generate, via execution of the authentication program by the game-logic circuitry, an authentication code based on contents of at least one of the one or memory devices housed within the locked enclosure;
compare the authentication code to the trusted authentication code;
permitting execution of game-outcome logic only upon determining that the authentication code matches the trusted authentication code;
upon permitting executing of the game-outcome logic:
receive, via at least one of the one or more input devices, an input to initiate play of the game;
determine a randomly selected outcome of the game;
cause the one or more display devices to display, in a display area a plurality of symbols representing the randomly selected outcome;
evaluate the plurality of symbols to determine one or more award amounts for the randomly selected outcome;
determine an initial total award based on the one or more award amounts;
wherein a sum of the one or more award amounts does not exceed the predetermined maximum award value;
in response to the plurality of symbols including at least one win-boost symbol having no singular predetermined value;
compare the initial total award to a predetermined maximum award value;
determine a difference between the maximum award value and the initial total award,
assign the difference to the win-boost symbol;
sum the initial total award and the difference to create a final award that is equal to the predetermined maximum award value;
generate display control signals that cause the one or more display devices to present an animation indicating application of the difference assigned to the win-boost symbol; and
store, in the one or more memory devices; award data corresponding to the final award.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claims recite rules for managing a game. A management of a game is a management of a social activity, which is an organization of human activity.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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 1-6, 8-15, 17-19 do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-19 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. 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 additional elements of: a gaming system/gaming machine comprising a gaming cabinet, a locked enclosure within the gaming cabinet, and game logic circuitry housed within the locked enclosure, game logic circuitry including one or more central processing units, one or more memory devices storing an authentication program and a trusted authentication code, input device, displaying device, value output device are directed to a generic gaming device or components of a generic gaming device. The gaming system and gaming machine generally links the abstract idea to an electronic embodiment.
The additional element of generating display control signals that cause the one or more display devices to present an animation indicating application; amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 17, the claims recite the additional elements of a gaming system/gaming machine, a gaming cabinet, a locked enclosure within the gaming cabinet, and game logic circuitry housed within the locked enclosure; the game logic circuitry including one or more central processing units, one or more memory devices, input device, displaying device. These components are well known, routine and conventional.
Chen (US 2006/0116208) discloses it well known for gaming machine and system to comprise input devices (paragraph 5), display devices (paragraph 5), value output device (coin hopper, dispenser, ticket printers, paragraphs 5, 51); central processing unit (paragraph 5) and memory devices (paragraphs 5, 59-60).
Chen (US 2008/0026854) discloses that it is well known for gaming machine to comprise a cabinet/housing and a locked enclosure within the gaming cabinet to house internal components of the gaming machine including the electronic components such as the CPU (paragraph 31).
The claims also recite additional elements of: the one or more memory devices storing (i) an authentication program and (ii) a trusted authentication code, the method comprising: generating, via execution of the authentication program by the game-logic circuitry, an authentication code based on contents of at least one of the one or memory devices; comparing the authentication code to the trusted authentication code; permitting execution of game-outcome logic. These limitations are directed to known method of authenticating a program and cryptography. Okada (US 2008/0076558) discloses that it is well known to use authentication program to authenticate game program (paragraph 96).
The step of presenting an animation on a display device of the difference assigned to the win boost symbols is a step of displaying information. The steps of displaying information is well known, routine and conventional. The Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 18-19 further recite the abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/26 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that in the response of June 1, 2026, with step 2b, the claimed combination is tied to specific computed intermediate value and is not insignificant extra solution activity. The specification identifies a resource-efficiency improvement over the alternative overpay-handling techniques.
However, the claim recites a management of awards for a game and therefore a management of a game. A management of a game is an abstract idea of organizing human activity. It is not an additional element or a combination of elements that improves “overpay-handling techniques” or other rules or management of a game. The implementation on a computer generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2A Prong 1
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity. However, as indicated in the rejection, the underlined limitations recite an abstract idea.
Applicant states, that the office action identifies the entire claim limitation of, “generating display-control signals that cause the one or more display devices to present an animation indicating application of the difference assigned to the win-boost symbol" as an abstract idea. As indicated in the limitation the underlined limitations (present… the difference assigned to the win-boost symbol) recite an abstract idea. The claim limitations of generating display-control signals that cause the one or more display devices to present an animation is an implementation on a computer and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2a Prong 2
Applicant argues that the claim provides a technical solution created by regulatory payout caps. However, the management of awards to prevent overpaying is a management of awards for a game and therefore a management of a game. A management of a game is an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The is not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the ordered combination requires that the award amounts be bounded so that their sum cannot exceed the predetermined maximum award value; that a win-boost symbol having no singular predetermined value trigger computation of the difference between the initial total award and that maximum; that the difference be assigned to the symbol and summed to a final award equal to the maximum; that display-control signals present an animation indicating application of that computed difference; and that the award data be recorded. That combination is the mechanism that yields the efficiency described at paragraph [0056], and the Office Action makes no finding that the combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
However, the ordered combination of the claim limitations stated by the Applicant are abstract ideas other than the claim limitation of generating display-control signals that cause the one or more display devices to present an animation. As indicated above, the claim limitations of generating display-control signals that cause the one or more display devices to present an animation is an implementation on a computer and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In addition, the use of a computer to electronically display a game is well-known routine and conventional as indicated by the rejection.
Applicant argues that Chen fails to describe the CPU enclosure as locked. Chen (US 2008/0026854) discloses the following.
[0031] FIG. 3 illustrates an embodiment of a gaming machine with the cabinet door in an open position. The gaming machine housing 322 is illustrated including a main cabinet 328 and a cabinet door 329 enabling access to the interior portion 323. A conventional cabinet locking device (not shown) locks the cabinet door 329 to the main cabinet 328 to prevent unauthorized access by gaming patrons. Briefly, the housing 322 may include an upper shelf 330 forming a monitor compartment 331 dimensioned to receive and support a monitor 332 therein. Positioned below the upper shelf 330 is a lower compartment 333 containing other essential gaming machine electronic components 335 therein. Further included in the lower compartment 333 is an enclosure support member 336 mounted to the housing 322, and adapted to slidably receive and support the CPU enclosure 325. In this arrangement, the CPU enclosure 325 is slidably supported in the support member 336 in a manner to electrically couple electrical connectors (not illustrated) on the back of the enclosure 325 to other electrical connectors, such as the back plane (FIG. 4). The pocket 337 may be sized and dimensioned slightly larger than the rectangular transverse cross-sectional dimension of the CPU enclosure 325 to ensure a proper fit and prevent pin bending and/or misalignment between the connectors. Such sliding alignment may be provided by conventional alignment techniques.
Chen discloses that it is well known for gaming machine to comprise a cabinet/housing and a locked enclosure within the gaming cabinet to house internal components of the gaming machine including the electronic components such as the CPU (paragraph 31).
Applicant also argues that Chen fails to teach the award formation limitations that carry the combination.
As indicated above, these limitations recite an abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights